Jump to content

Talk:Thackeray (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thackeray always promoted hatred, to divide n rule amongst people.

[edit]

Popular Tamil and Telugu actor Siddharth has slammed Thackeray for abusing South Indians. [1][2][3]

“Nawazuddin has repeated 'Uthao lungi bajao pungi' (lift the lungi and *'#$ him) in the film #Thackeray. Clearly hate speech against South Indians... In a film glorifying the person who said it! Are you planning to make money out of this propaganda? Stop selling hate! Scary stuff!"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thackeraykiran (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, please discuss why one actor's opinion on a film would count as a controversy. That's WP:UNDUE. The actor isn't a critic, and the information isn't encyclopedic (WP:What Wikipedia is not). Every person has an opinion, and we can't be counting every opinion. The critical reception section is there for that purpose. Additionally, you shouldn't be having controversy sections even if it really was one, per WP:CSECTION. Since you are arguing for inserting the information, it is you who should be gaining consensus. Also, you shouldn't indulge in sockpuppetry: I can't see how three accounts/IP, each with very less edits, argue for the inclusion of the same text and indulge in edit war. WP:DUCK. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring the attention of Cyphoidbomb to the page for what is an obvious exaggeration of an event, edit war, and failure to particpate in the talk page discussion after waiting for 2 days. An actor expresses his opinion about a film. That is not a controversy, not something that should be included in our article (WP:WEIGHT), and certainly not something that should be treated with a separate section of its own in what is obviously bloating up a minor incident (WP:CSECTION). Every person has an opinion and an actor, notability aside, is just another human who doesn't specialize in the field (film reviews, in this case) to have his or her opinion noted. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And reverted once again, with an unclear edit summary and bad-faith assumption. Still no discussion despite asking them in the summary to the previous edit. This information was added to the article just a few days ago, so if anyone challenges it, you should gain consensus for including it as the WP:BURDEN’s on you, not the other way round. Not reverting again as I do not wish to carry the edit war forward, but please explain yourself. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thackeraykiran:, please discuss here and not only in edit summaries. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Stop Selling Hate': Siddharth Criticises Nawazuddin Siddiqui's Thackeray".
  2. ^ "CONTROVERSY "Stop Selling Hate!": Actor Siddharth Slams Thackeray Biopic For Making Money From 'hate Speech Against South Indians'".
  3. ^ "'Thackeray' Lands In Another Controversy, Actor Siddharth Calls The Trailer 'Anti-South Indian'".

This isnt abut having controversy section because u ppl always think in minority view. Thackeray film was designed to promote hatred among south n tried to divide n rule against ppl. U should look over film reviews nd sources which are shown that Thackeray is controversial. So stop favoring your own point ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip! asserts pushpin (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thackeraykiran, Please participate in the discussion instead of creating new accounts and edit-warring over and over again. Film reviews can be included, but an actor's opinion on a film can never be considered a controversy. Even if there are other controversies, they shouldn't be having a separate section. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get it. What is there to discuss when there are 3-4 references supporting the statement?!!

@2.51.18.134: as requested before, i urge the Ip editor to use his account RATHER than being anonymous. If not ull be blocked as per WP:VOA Thackeraykiran (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter part of your comment makes no sense to me. I do not have an account on Wikipedia. There is a need to discuss as the dispute is not whether the actor made a statement or not, it is whether such an opinion should be included in the article and be placed under a controversy header, which would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE and against the guidelines suggested in WP:CSECTION. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone intervene here? The user has reverted the edit again without providing a valid reason as to why, and isn't responding to the concerns raised here on the talk page. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have hidden the text in question, but will abstain from editing the page any longer to prevent the edit war from escalating. Thackeraykiran, please discuss why the text should be included. 2.51.18.134 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note So far, I don't see either Thackeraykiran or Zip! asserts pushpin, making thought-out arguments to support inclusion. I see an emotional "you should do your own research" argument from Zip, and then a "Why bother arguing if it's sourced" argument from Thackeraykiran bolstered by weak threats against 2.51.18.134. Neither are sufficient for establishing consensus, and unfounded threats will not be tolerated. Also, keep two other things in mind: Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" and many editors discourage "Controversy" sections because they place undue emphasis on negative events. If such content were to be included, it would likely have to be presented somewhere intuitive, but people interested in inclusion will have to make thoughtful arguments going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thackeray_(film)&oldid=1200345203"