Talk:Bal Gangadhar Tilak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Edits[edit]

I don't have time to police and I certainly don't give a damn about people reverting these new edits, but they should NOT be reverted because (1) they are better organized and lucid, (2) they are not repetitive stuff.

Don't freak about an Anon adding these changes. As long as Wikipedia allows it, there is no problem with Anon work.

the dalit view on tilak section should ber emoved as it is biased and very offensive


Actually the Dalit section enhances the quality of the article as it puts Tilak in the proper perspective. It is the Brahmin class of India (I am also a Brahmin) to which Tilak belonged wants to project a false image of Tilak as a great progressive and a leader of all classes. In reality he was a Brahmin reactionary and a Hindu fundamentalist!

Let people know the entire personality of Tilak.

Enyone who say tilak a fandamentalist is a fool persone.who do not know what is hindu and who are fundamentalist.


"The British colonial authorities infamously and derogatorily called the great leader as "Father of the Indian unrest" "... isn't this biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, several points of this article are rather biased. I'll take a more thorough look later but this will probably end up flagged. Celestial Oblivion (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The main reason of rivalry between Gopal Ganesh Agarkar & Tilak was tilak was against social justice..... This is tru.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with quote[edit]

There seems to be some problem with this text here, and it doesn't make sense: "However, English, which (Anant) Chaturdashi (in Aug/Sept span), which contributed for people to get together and celebrate the festival and provided a good platform for leaders to inspire masses. His call for boycott of foreign goods also served to inspire patriotism among Indian masses."--fredericknoronha 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ganesh Chaturthi: 1893 or 1894?[edit]

The following references seem to contradict the year.

  • Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India, G. R. Thursby, p89,1
  • A Concise History of Modern India Barbara Daly Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, p 150-151, 2. Docku:“what up?” 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

social contribution[edit]

I have expanded the section. I am not sure if the song is suitable to this page or Ganesh Chaturthi. I went ahead and added anyway. comments welcome. thanks. Docku:“what up?” 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Was the song written by Tilak himself? Becasue that is the impression I got when I read it. However the statment does not specifically say so. If it is not written by Tilak , I dont think it should be on this page. --Deepak D'Souza 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bal G.Tilak[edit]

Very strong Personality. Freedom Fighter of India. He was having self breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Biased article[edit]

The quality of this article is just like a political party literature. The tone is similar to that in a Indian school history textbook.

There is a very major point that is missed. That Tilak had turned pro-British in his later years. He gave full support to British war efforts. Who can say for sure that he was not disillusioned by local leaders who naturally would be competing with him for leadership.

Moreover, when speaking of his earlier year endevours to activate Ganesh pooja, it was to incite Muslim antagonism in Maharashtra. This negative element still haunts the local areas.

Beyond all this, to define a local leader in one state as a national leader who was venerated all over British-India is also the product of baseless imagination. It is doubtful if he was seen as their leader by the majority people in Tamil nad, Kerala, Eastern states, Kashmir etc. or in independent kingdoms like Travancore. Most of them would not even have heard of him.

Wikipedia articles on India should not be written by persons who are write like parrots. If that is the quality required, all one need to do is to copy paste NCERT textbooks -- (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So what has stopped you from editing this article ? Jonathansammy (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am blocked for writing such things on Wikipedia India Pages. And generally I do not touch main article page. -- (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So basically commenting here is a violation too, correct ?Jonathansammy (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


Who coined the term Lokmanya to describe Tilak  ? When ? Where ? Why this particular term? Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted content not found in provided reference.[edit]

Diff: link. Not found in reference on given page. Khan incident in Ganapati festival does remind me of coatrack. --AmritasyaPutra 06:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the edition of the book for correct page numbers. @AmritasyaPutra: You challenged the page numbers at 05:56 UTC this morning. Within 10 minutes you have reverted an edit that had new material. Why couldn't you wait until User:KingsIndian responded? Your methods seem to be entirely negative rather than making a contribution to Wikipedia. This is very unproductive. What is wp:coatrack about this material? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
About the fix you are talking, Here is what I had added in the edit summary: Indian National Congress: WP:QUOTE and WP:EDITORIALIZING. Content not found in page 154, the 'quote' made previously not found in book. Reference format correction and tag as failed verification. I explained my edit, gave relevant policy, let the content stay (tagged it) and opened a talk page discussion. Thanks for correcting the reference! Sorry if you find me aggressive I will fix the reference syntax and tweak as per WP:QUOTE and WP:EDITORIALIZING. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra 11:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with reverting stuff per WP:BRD, though I would have preferred that AmritasyaPutra just tagged it, instead of removing it (see WP:PRESERVE). As to the Ganesh and Shivaji reference, that is directly from the source cited. The source makes the point that while Tilak intended the festivals to foster national unity against colonialism, in practice, it contributed to Hindu-Muslim tensions. The source also gives the significance of the Shivaji incident with Afzal Khan, which is very famous. It was seen by Muslims at the time to have significance (again this is the source making the statement). I do not understand WP:COATRACK statement. Tilak was responsible for popularizing the Ganesh and Shivaji festivals, and it is perfectly legitimate to point out some of the (unintended or intended) consequences in the "Legacy" section. Kingsindian (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Quote can be used sometimes, it is not always possible to represent persons opinion through rewriting. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The phrase has been exactly reproduced now only in its third re-insertion. The emphasis is not present in the book and is not needed. --AmritasyaPutra 05:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
After re-reading the new reference provided for the diff above I have made some minor edits to it, A. The festival organiser != student. B. Shivaji Festival != Ganapati Festival. There are differing accounts and there are conflicting WP:RS at so sticking to minimum common denomination. Other option is to add content from there to this page (with the reference) to give both views instead of giving one view undue weight. --AmritasyaPutra 05:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra: Thanks for the corrections: I was a bit sloppy with the prose. However, I do not understand why you removed "Shivaji defied the Mughals". That is of course not disputed. The circumstances of his fight with Afzal Khan are indeed disputed, but I have not included those in the text, only that he used a concealed weapon, which is not disputed. Moreover, it is not important what the actual truth was regarding treachery. What is important is what the different people thought in the 19th century about this. As mentioned in the Shivaji article: "Accounts vary on whether Shivaji or Afzal Khan struck the first blow:[19] the Maratha chronicles accuse Afzal Khan of treachery, while the Persian-language chronicles attribute the treachery to Shivaji." In the context of the time, some Muslims thought of this as glorifying treachery by Shivaji. Kingsindian (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am unable to read the whole text from the previews available on Google books. Can someone please write here the surrounding quotes of Shivaji vs Afzal Khan episode as given in the A Concise History of India? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Dharmadhyaksha, the book is available as pdf here. The Google preview is of 1st edition, I have access to that too and these text are present only in 2nd edition. --AmritasyaPutra 13:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is the full quote:

In 1895 Tilak inaugurated a second annual festival, this time in honour of Shivaji, the Maratha ruler who, as we have seen in chapter 1, defied Mughal power and, in one famous incident, treacherously killed a Muslim noble with a concealed weapon. All of this historical reconstruction was meant as a way of opposing colonial rule, but, in the context of colonial institutions, with their sociology of difference, it also exacerbated Hindu–Muslim ill-will.

Kingsindian (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a far-fetched connection of Afzal Khan with Shivaji and Tilak. Please add Khan's context only if you have a reference saying that Khan's death then was the reason of Hindu-Muslim dispute now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what made you think I was referring to Hindu-Muslim dispute today. I was referring to Hindu-Muslim tensions in the late 19th and early 20th century. Kingsindian (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! By "now" I meant Tilak's now time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah ok. Khan's death was not the cause of Hindu-Muslim disputes. The Shivaji festival started by Tilak exacerbated Hindu-Muslim tensions. It was not the only reason, of course. It is not me who is making the argument, I am just quoting the source. Kingsindian (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! The long-ago death of Khan had nothing to do with what happened in Tilak's time. The reference book also doesn't say anything as such. It merely reminds you of who Shivaji was that the author probably introduced in chapter 1. Its a bad way of narrating, of reminding readers of Shivaji in this manner. Why underestimate readers capabilities to recall Shivaji? We, in our case on Wikipedia, have no such problem. A blue-link to Shivaji is sufficient enough to tell about all the Muslims he killed. I do understand that H-M tension needs to be explained. But that can be done by other ways too, by not cherry-picking one incident from Shivaji's life. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Dharmadhyaksha: You are confusing the issue. This article is not about Shivaji, it's about Tilak. The "cherry-picking" is not done by me, but by the historian cited. According to the source, the Muslims in the 19th century found the symbolism of celebrating a Shivaji festival as well as the Afzal Khan incident important. Moreover, Tilak himself quoted the Afzal Khan incident at the festival. See here. (by the way the date in the link is a typo, it's 1897, not 1879) I do not control what people in the 19th century thought. I am just reporting what a historian on the topic says. Kingsindian (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there is a bit of contested history that exacerbates communal tensions is part of the context. So, I think the reference to Khan's killing should stay. However the word "treacherously" should be deleted. If the Metcalves want to take sides in the contest, it is their problem. But we shouldn't. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: "Treacherous" was and is not present in the article. The only part which is present is that Shivaji used a concealed weapon, which is not disputed. Kingsindian (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked before writing. Thanks for clearing that up! So, the text is fine as it stands. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Kingsindian, If the article is about Tilak, keep it about him and don't make it about Shivaji, especially based on such poorly worded references. You are interpreting it wrongly. The book no where says that Khan's murder was considered by the Tilak-era's Muslims as something important. The book only introduces Shivaji as the killer of Khan. Both are different things. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to understand the relevance of the previous comment. If you are unhappy with the current stuff in the article, say what you want changed, and discussion can proceed. I am fine with how it is currently. Kingsindian (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
He wants you to remove the reference to Khan's killing. But the context is provided by the source and we don't second guess it and edit it out. That would be OR. If User:Dharmadhyaksha wants to maintain that Khan's killing was irrelevant to Tilak-era Muslims, he would need to find a reliable source that says so. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I will wait for Dharmadhyaksha to say exactly what he wants. Kingsindian (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Even better, i did what i wanted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for making it clear. It seems Kautilya3 was right, that your main issue was that you wish to remove the Afzal Khan reference. Reverting per WP:BRD. The Afzal Khan reference is relevant here, as the source makes clear. Kingsindian (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have also slightly elaborated/clarified the paragraph. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Clearly you and i disagree. So where do we go now? And am removing your "in one incident, had killed" because that makes no sense. He, or anyone else, couldn't have re-killed Khan in any another incident ever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Others have weighed in on this issue. If you want a broader consensus, you can use another venues, like WP:DRN or open an RfC. Regarding your edit, the statement before was perfectly grammatical. Indeed, it is the phrasing used by the source, with the word "famous" removed. The statement currently makes it sound like Shivaji was being honoured for killing a Muslim noble. I wanted to make clear that it was just one notable incident. Kingsindian (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dharmadhyaksha: Where do we go now? As I have said already, Khan's killing is part of the context for the Hindu-Muslim tensions. You can't edit it out. That would be WP:cherrypicking. You can go to WP:DRN if you want, but they will tell you the same thing I did. More productively, you can go and try to find a source that shows that Tilak-era Muslims didn't worry about Afzal Khan's killing. You might learn something new in the process. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
They worried about Afzal's death? That is the meaning, really? Fine! --AmritasyaPutra 17:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace of Tilak[edit]

Dear Readers, In the article of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, there are few mistakes like place of birth. I have personally seen the birth place in the Ratnagiri city. So I have corrected the same with proper references. I do not know the reasons why Bladesmulti reverting the same again and again blaming me for the edit war. If he feels that is a promotional link, he can simply remove the link. But he should not put the incorrect information again. For the sake of better siltation, Wikipedia does not allow wrong information. If the editors have any doubts about the birth place of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, I can take all of them to Ratnagiri and show the place. I have also added the reference of Birth place which is also very othentic encyclopedia. Please discuss over here ... Coolgama (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Chikhali, Ratnagiri[1]-[2] is also correct, but problem is that you inserted a promotional link( and removed other citations. You also abused minor change option when your changes are not minor. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ratnagiri is the birthplace of Tilak. His birthplace is converted into a museum.


Chikhali or Chikhalgaon is his ancestral village not birthplace. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the support extended by Redtigerxyz for clearing the things which I couldn't. I think, the issue is now closed. Happy editing to all ... Coolgama (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Bladesmulti: Since Ratnagiri still exists exactly where it used to be, I don't think there is any need for the mention of British India here [3]. If you want to add "Bombay State, British India," please feel free. Otherwise, the Britishness is redundant. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine and I have recovered IP's change. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kautilya3, disagree on this. The name and location as it was in the era of the birth and death of India is used in the article. See Mahatma Gandhi, Mao for example. Redtigerxyz Talk 14:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added the Bombay State now. So it looks less odd. It is not a big deal, but if it looks odd, people will come and edit it. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)