Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

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

Add the term 'Freedom Fighter' for Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar[edit]

It seems someone who edited this page has a problem with Veer Savarkar. A freedom fighter is not allowed to be recognized as a freedom fighter, and a special condition is put to prevent others from doing so. Add the adjective 'Freedom Fighter', as well as 'Social Reformer'. Please demand if any evidences or citations required, I will present them accordingly. India2024 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a a freedom fighter, just a hindutva activist who would bow down to the british for his needs. Witchilich (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. That's why Wikipedia avoids both terms, preferring neutral terms like "activist" which describe what he is known for without assigning a moral value to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous reference[edit]

The following sentences in the article :

He started using the honorific prefix Veer ("brave") since he wrote his autobiography. (Salam 2018)

does not specify which of V. D. Savarkar's autobiographical works are referenced for this sentence. Since the reference book mentioned here is not available for freely for public reading, atleast the portion of book from which this reference is given should be clarified. Else this might seem like miscommunication. As I am new to Wikipedia, I am not familiar with how references should work. But the reference provided for something should not be ambiguous in nature. मंदार १ (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I am talking about is Citation no.6 "Salam 2018, p. 32." मंदार १ (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not available for me to read but you can read this source. It confirms the same information that Savarkar used "veer" for himself. Capitals00 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 Thank you for the reference. After reading the book in pdf file format which is taken from the official copy. All the instances of the word "Veer" come only from the preface written by Dr. Ravindra Ramdas and not the remaining content of the book which is written by V.D. Savarkar a.k.a Chitragupta.
Since, Dr. Ravindra and V.D. Savarkar are two different people, preface written by Dr. Ravindra does not come under the authorship of Savarkar.
So, we can say with confirmation that Dr. Ravindra has used the word "Veer" for Savarkar and Savarkar did not use it for himself.
You can check the official copy of the book "Life of Barrister Savarkar" available at the official publisher website of the book which contains this preface. मंदार १ (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the book which "The Wire" has used for its reference, it will be clear that the claim becomes false. मंदार १ (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@मंदार १मंदार १ This feels like just an opinion piece by the wire. The wire is an extremely inflammatory source which blindly publishes anti india, anti bjp, anti modi, anti hindu stories to furthur their agenda. arfa khanum sherwani was also caught admitting all this in a video. its still in youtube i guess. if you can find it and other opinion pieces like these, make a good case, collect evidence and ask for wire to be completely removed as an wp:rs. but it would be difficult. wikipedia considers al jajeera to be more reliable than fox news or india today or sky news australia. considers hamas to be more reliable than idf. you know what m trying to say. many admins depend on inflammatory biased sources like wire, quint, scroll, alt media of mohd zubair etc to target india. so good luck. or i say better wait for an elon musk type takeover of these terrorist news agencies. even bbc is not that biased. 2409:40E3:0:1D92:81C6:2D3B:F061:8AC3 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old versions of the article have suggested different things about the origin of Savarkar's "Veer" moniker, and it would be best to get that straight before deciding how to present it in the article. A few years back we said he was given the nickname after countering the Muslim raids in his hometown, based on a paywalled source and one that's offline. Another old version says he was "commonly known as Veer Savarkar" without giving any context. Now we're saying he started using it himself at some point, and the way we describe that point is ambiguous (the current version shouldn't stay). Which one actually is it? Let's start with that, and then figure out how to put it in the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also several old discussions on this which may be informative: Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#H0norific, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#Autobiography, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#Requested move 18 August 2021. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • मंदार १ You have acknowledged the sources I had provided. They are clear with saying that Savarkar used "Veer" for himself and that's how that name became notable. Now tell if you have any sources which dispute that information. Capitals00 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Capitals00 Can you please read my old messages above ? I have clearly mentioned it there. Still for your reference, if my messages above are not visible/ available to read, I will reiterate what I am talking about.
    Your source "The Wire" says that Savarkar used the word "Veer" for himself in his book "Life of Barrister Savarkar".
    But when I read the book "Life of Barrister Savarkar" , I found out that the word Veer was not used by Savarkar.
    It was used by Dr. Ravindra Ramdas who wrote the preface for the book in the 1987 edition of the book which was published after Savarkar's death.
    So, a person named Ravindra calling Savarkar "Veer" does not mean Savarkar calling himself "Veer". I hope this is clear enough to resolve all misunderstandings. मंदार १ (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The publisher confirmed that it was Savarkar himself who wrote that autobiography. Do you have any source that debunks it? Capitals00 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Capitals00 I am not denying Savarkar wrote the autobiography. That doesn't need any other sources, since it is clarified in the book itself.
    But, the preface to the book can be written by another person, right? Let's say if person X writes the preface for the book written by person Y after Y's death. In such a case, can someone say that the preface is also written by person Y?
    Going with the same logic Dr. Ravindra calling Savarkar "Veer" does not mean Savarkar calling himself "Veer". मंदार १ (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It said "Savarkar was glorified in this book for his courage and deemed a hero. And two decades after Savarkar’s death, when the second edition of this book was released in 1987 by the Veer Savarkar Prakashan, the official publisher of Savarkar’s writings, Ravindra Ramdas revealed in its preface that “Chitragupta is none other than Veer Savarkar”.
Since this book is the actual source behind Savarkar calling himself a "veer" you have to properly dispute how this information is wrong. You should read this source. Capitals00 (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 Please read the original book "Life of Barrister Savarkar" that we both are talking about. It will clarify everything there is to say.
I will say in simplified terms:
Ravindra Ramdas says Chitragupta is Savarkar, but that is only one point. The next thing is Chitragupta (Savarkar) did not write the 1987 edition preface to the book. Ravindra wrote the preface. Savarkar/Chitrgupta did not write that preface.
Ravindra is calling Savarkar "Veer" in the preface only. What Ravindra wrote cannot be called Savarkar's writing.
Although preface is part of the book, it is written by a different person. If you search the word "Veer" in the book it appears only in the preface, which is clearly written by Dr. Ravindra. मंदार १ (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the preface the "Veer" word is not used for Savarkar anywhere else in rest of the book. मंदार १ (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi.take a look at this sentence in lede and correct it if you think it meets the guidelines-"in 1910, Savarkar was arrested and ordered to be extradited to India".here "india" should be changed to "british india".current sentence is framed to make it sound like 'indian' government ordered extradition. it was british india with british governemnt. 2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2409:40E3:6E:A553:51E0:D02A:FD2:DFA2 I agree. It should be made clear that it was British India. मंदार १ (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

मंदार १ See WP:OR. You are not allowed to dispute reliable sources with your own research. I have provided you multiple sources to confirm that Savarkar called himself a "veer". The long standing text has been re-added by me. You can let me know when you have found a reliable source that disagrees with these findings. Capitals00 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00 I see, but can the following source be denied? If you read this then you will get the counter argument.
organiser.org/2020/03/11/127009/bharat/leftist-propaganda-over-veer-savarkar-grounded-even-before-it-took-wings/ मंदार १ (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research and is an external resource. If you find rebuttal for this then you can take back the change. मंदार १ (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Organiser is a propaganda website of RSS and it is a black listed source. It cannot be used for making any argument. See what is WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From one of the old discussions is this, a memoir by Justice R A Jahagirdar of the Rationalist Foundation (I don't know any of these names). On pages 138-143 the author gives a different account of the origin of Savarkar's "Veer" moniker. The Week (archived) gives the same account, suggesting the Marathi newspaper Bhala first coined the term in reference to Savarkar some time in the 1920s. The Wire ([1]) then explains that Savarkar used the "Veer" moniker for himself in his pseudonymous autobiography, in 1926, but it doesn't say that was definitively the first use. These two explanations don't conflict, then, and we should either mention both in the article, or neither. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source says "Somewhere in the 1920s, the title veer (gallant) was bestowed on Savarkar. The person who first called him veer was, perhaps, B.B. Bhopatkar of the Marathi paper Bhala." Though it is at least echoing that 1926 can be the correct date.
Remember, here we are talking if Savarkar called himself "veer" or not. Multiple sources agree that it was 1926's autobiography by Savarkar that called him "veer" and that's how he came to be known with that label. Capitals00 (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 This source [2] in Marathi language says V.D. Savarkar was first called "Veer" by Kashinath Raghunath Vaishampayan in 1924 during a speech at Yeola, Nashik. This is mentioned in the book [3] title: "दोन तात्या"( Marathi) written by Dr. B. V. Datar मंदार १ (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source link could not be pasted here, so putting it again: https://marathi.indiatimes.com/maharashtra/nashik/kashinath-raghunath-vaishampayan-has-given-swatantra-veer-name-to-vinayak-damodar-savarkar/articleshow/83460681.cms मंदार १ (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article further says that after this speech the moniker "Veer" became popular in public for Savarkar. मंदार १ (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources say he used the moniker himself in his autobiography, and multiple other sources say the moniker was given to him by various individuals or just generally by his followers. What's evident from the sources is that the true origin of this honorific is not really known - there are various opinions and theories. The different origins also aren't mutually exclusive: it could be true that someone else first called him Veer and then he wrote it in his autobiography, or it could be the other way around. The sources we have really don't agree on this detail, and Wikipedia does not pick and choose, we write about all significant viewpoints.
We should say something neutral based on all of the information available. Something like "He came to be known as Veer" or "was known as Veer by his followers" in the lede. We could elaborate on details further in the article, but I don't think the various origin theories are important enough that they need to be discussed in the first paragraph. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided on this source by a "student", can be verified only by this book which is written by a Savarkar's fan (see Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#Caste). What really matters is that the information has to be supported by the WP:RS and that is clearly missing here. Surely a lot of attempts have been made by Hindutva brigades to whitewash almost all facts about the founder of the ideology who is Savarkar himself. But if they attracted attention of reliable sources then we could see that too. Capitals00 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00 I am a little confused here. Which source and which student is this about? I did not see any mention of Vikram Sampat's book in my or IvanVector's reply. That's why I am more confused.
Just to be clear, my source "Maharashtra Times" is as reliable a source in Marathi language as "The Wire" is. So why is it not considered?
Pardon me if I say it wrong, but all the newspapers and book writers have their biases (perhaps they have an agenda as well) for the left wing or the right wing, pro-hindutva or anti-hindutva, etc.
I understand that original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia but it does not mean that the original research is always incorrect in its facts. मंदार १ (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started all the discussion just to say that the autobiography in question was not mentioned in the given sentence.
If we can just mention the name of the autobiography "Life of barrister Savarkar" in that sentence.
Then people can read the book and decide for themselves if the sentence is true or false. That way, no bias will exist from the Wikipedia editors' side.
Let's not gatekeep the name of autobiography from the readers and come out clean. Following the Wikipedia guidelines of mentioning all the original references the sentence can be:
"Salam in his book and other sources say  : Savarkar started using the honorific prefix Veer ("brave") since he wrote his autobiography titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar". मंदार १ (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sentence presented in my reply (last paragraph) above makes sense and reaches editor consensus then we can put it in the article. If there are any counter-arguments or better ways to include the book name, I am eager to hear that. मंदार १ (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about this source. The only source that seems to verify this information outside this article is Vikram Sampath's book which is unreliable. Capitals00 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00 I see. I did not know about this. But can we all agree to edit the sentence similar to be this:
Salam in his book and other sources say: Savarkar started using the honorific prefix Veer ("brave") since he wrote his autobiography titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar".
I feel this will make it clear for the readers which autobiography is being talked about. Please suggest corrections if any for the above sentence. मंदार १ (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the name of the autobiography in sentence will hit two birds in one stone : increased simplicity for the readers and removal of source bias (from both points of view). मंदार १ (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your proposed sentence makes sense. Capitals00 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, especially not when owned by political parties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the Chaturvedi book[edit]

I am often asked when he acquired the title.[190] There is no easy answer. The earliest published reference that I have found thus far is the 1924 Marathi biography titled Swatantraveer Vinayakrao Savarkar by Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade.[191] Of course, the prefix swatantra (independent) is added to veer in this context, but within the text Savarkar is never identified as swatantraveer. In fact, veer is only used as an honorific once in the book, when he is called “Veer Barrister Savarkar.”[192] -- Chaturvedi, Vinayak. Hindutva and Violence: V. D. Savarkar and the Politics of History (p. 332). State University of New York Press.

Swatantraveer continued to be used as a title for Savarkar for the rest of his life, but at some point authors started employing veer in their English-language works when writing about him. This was likely the moment that “Veer Savarkar” was born as a concept in several Indian languages. By the mid-1920s figures like Shaukat Ali publicly identified Savarkar as brave. Savarkar also pointed out that G.S. Sardesai had called him brave in this period. A discourse of heroism and bravery was emerging around him, especially after he became president of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha in 1937 – the year when government restrictions were lifted, allowing him to travel and participate in politics. By the late 1930s it appears that the process was complete: he was now formally “Veer Savarkar.” In 1938 Bhai Parmanand referred to Savarkar as “Vir Savarkar” in the preface to an edition of Essentials of Hindutva. -- Chaturvedi, Vinayak. Hindutva and Violence: V. D. Savarkar and the Politics of History (p. 335). State University of New York Press.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaturvedi, Vinayak. Hindutva and Violence: V. D. Savarkar and the Politics of History (p. 335). State University of New York Press. Kindle Edition.

  • At this stage, it might be better to get rid of the sentence on the lead. Capitals00 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better keep it. Otherwise, somebody will come and add the National Herald POV again. You can move it somewhere more appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information from Chaturvedi is not resolving anything. For "Swantrataveer" the 1924 source is there but for the "Veer" title itself, the oldest source seems to be the 1926 autobiography of Savarkar. That's why it might be best to remove the details from lead as Chaturvedi notes "there is no easy answer". Capitals00 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said the autobiography used the term "Veer Savarkar". Let them provide the full citation for it. We will go and check. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 The Wire has said it though. मंदार १ (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It didn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wire and Jansatta concludes that the 1926 autobiography called him "Veer".[4][5] Capitals00 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I definitely agree. As an Indian person, I admit that I did not know about the ownership of National Herald.
Some newspapers like Organizer, Tarun Bharat(owned by RSS) National Herald(owned by a Political party), The Wire, etc. as well as book authors are free to have their own biases in their articles or books. Like how a journalist Ziya Un Salam can also write a book on history. No one is ever free from biases.
Though I must say. If we are to add Salam's sentence in the same article, then we should not miss his reference to the autobiography of Savarkar titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar". मंदार १ (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See National Herald. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be appropriate to not mention "Veer" at all, he's clearly well known by that name (c.f. Veer Savarkar (film), Veer Savarkar International Airport). But it's fine to simply say that he is known by that name, without elaborating, if there's no real-world consensus on the details. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources describe that, "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, also referred to as Veer Savarkar by his followers"[6], "popularly hailed as Veer Savarkar by his acolyte followers",[7] and "Savarkar, who is referred to with the prefix Veer (fearless) by his admirers".[8] We can just say "The prefix "Veer" (meaning 'Brave') has been applied to his name by his followers." Capitals00 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I implemented that wording. I did not want to cite newspapers, however, because POVs will creep in again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think prefix is the right word here. It fits, and maybe it's more common in Indian English, but in academic English a prefix is a modifier added to the start of a single word to change its meaning, like auto- in autobiography. A word added to someone's name to show rank or profession or various social cues, like sir, mister, doctor, reverend, etc. is a title or an honorific. I also think Veer should be in bold, since Veer Savarkar redirects here. Otherwise the sentence reads awkward to me but I can't pinpoint why, that may just be me being pedantic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Death Rename[edit]

Cause of Death Need to fix, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar die with Prayopavesa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa) not atmaarpan as it was mention on this article. Whatyoumiss (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatyoumiss Yes. The reference for this can be found in the book Rationalism : Collected Works of Justice R.A. Jahagirdar (Retd)(1927-2011) pg. 122. मंदार १ (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confinement Vs movement restriction[edit]

@Ivanvector: Savarkar was restricted from traveling from 1924-1937.[9] I don't think "confinement" is the right way to describe it because confinement would mean that he was restricted to a small space. There are many people who re under movement restriction and have to inform the authorities before leaving a particular place. I don't think that's a big deal. Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I only changed it back because the way you wrote it made it seem like Savarkar removed the restriction himself. I've changed "confinement" to "restriction". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh[edit]

It might be helpful if a few of the many editors with a seemingly-infinite interest in trivial stuff (eg: Veer epithet) actually focuses their energy on writing a decent article. We have two extraordinarily good works by Chaturvedi and Bakhle. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various disputes over the Veer epithet have been coming and going on this article for many years. The article could only be developed so much while that was an outstanding issue, and some of us saw that as a situation that needed improving. If you want to see the article improved in different ways, feel free to get started. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Information[edit]

The information mentioned here about Veer Savarkar is very misleading and not correct and has been written by someone who wants to portray him as an extremist who wronged the nation. Please re-write this page, post fact checking from appropriate sources 10:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.197.225.179 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't really work by completely rewriting articles in response to vague general concerns about neutrality, especially long articles like this one that are the result of many editors' work over many years, and many prior discussions on this page. If you can write down any specific ideas about improving specific content, editors would be happy to consider your suggestions. If you think it's misleading and not correct, what specific edits would you make to fix it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu atheism[edit]

There's a significant bit of code producing the text "Savarkar was an atheist" in the first paragraph that has seen some edit warring recently:

For background, "Savarkar was an atheist" was added in this edit on 15 December 2019, and the source was added on 28 August 2020; it's been stable since then. The argument that he can't be an atheist because he was Hindu doesn't hold up: our article Hindu atheism explains the concept of atheism within Hindu philosphy. The provided source ([10]) contains this text:

Nothing expressed Savarkar's tough-minded atheism better than his refusal to allow any Hindu religious ritual or rite when his wife died, notwithstanding public protests and Satyagraha by some of his followers. He did not even want her body to be brought home, saying that it was “no use lamenting over the dead body” (Keer Citation1950, 529–530).

Besides the citation, the article pretty clearly (in the "religious and political views" section) describes how Savarkar worked to divorce Hindu identity from religion, and was a critic of Hindu religious practices. I don't think this removal was valid and certainly hasn't been adequately justified, but I'd like to hear other opinions before I restore it. (Courtesy ping Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, PSDA1) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue, Janaki Bakhle has this to say:

The separation Nandy suggested between religion and nation was also not quite right. Savarkar was not truly or fully an atheist, as much as he projected himself as a rational, modern thinker. Neither, however, did he fully abjure the fundamentality of the ideas of sacred and profane, transposing them onto a modern political ideology that simultaneously drew its power from religious traditions and affective modes of representation, while recommitting them all to a modernist project of national unity and strength.[1]

This is not so much the issue of "Hindu atheism", but rather that there is ambiguitiy in his religiosity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bakhle, Janaki (2024), Savarkar and the Making of Hindutva, Princeton University Press, p. 422, ISBN 9780691250366

Inaccurate information[edit]

This page needs to be re-written based on historical facts again. Sarvarkar never proposed the two-nation theory, he was infact against it. Please correct this. 2607:FEA8:4AD9:CE00:A79:F6CE:FCC8:2E51 (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editors writing "fix it!" on talk pages rarely accomplish anything. You'll get better results if you actually propose how to fix it, by making a proper edit request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhistan[edit]

This whole paragraph "In his Ahmedabad addressal, he supported Two-nation theory. The Hindu Mahasabha under Savarkar's leadership endorsed the idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab." Savarkar not only talked of Hindudom, Hindu Nation and Hindu Raj, but he wanted to depend upon the Sikhs in the Punjab to establish a Sikhistan." Is extremely misrepresented.savarkar was the founder of hindutva and the concept of akhand bharat inspired by mazini and shivaji.its stupid to even suggest savarkar advocated for two seperate nations.savarkar saying "there are two antognastic nations living together" does not mean he advocated for a seperate nation for hindus and muslims. The last sentence is extremwly shady."wanted a sikhistan".i.mean seriously?please decide if he advocared for akhand bharat or khandit bharat.the article contradicts itself multiple times and the single source used for this sentence is not reliable.the author is not reliable at all.more sources required.looks like thus article has vested interests hellbent on showcasing savarkar as the reason for partition which is extremely stupid.why not blame savarkar for khilafat movement too? Or for mopla. Must be him.

I request neutral admims and editors to take a look into this.@Kautilya3 @TrangaBellam @Borgenland @Ivanvector 117.222.200.239 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Observer1989[reply]

It looks like it was partly a primary source and partly a Jinnah's commentary. [11] And it is not covered in the body. I am removing it as WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "partly primary source" but a book written by Shamsul Islam, a well-known expert on Savarkar having written articles on him even in the recent times on Savarkar for other publishers.[12][13] I have added one more source. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the content is not based on Shamsul Islam. It was just added as a WP:FAKE citation to PRIMARY-sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this source, published by an unknown publisher, has only 8 citations on Google Scholar. Hardly counts as an authority of any kind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not "WP:FAKE" because the book by Shamsul Islam verifies the content.[14] The publisher is not unknown. It is Media House, a reliable source. 8 citations on Google scholar are good enough since Savarkar is researched by almost nobody except the analysts of Hindutva. The cited quote of Savarkar can be itself verified from this 1941 primary source. Orientls (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The sentence in the lead is a verbatim copy of Jinnah's statement. It is not summarising Shamsul Islam. Please don't pretend not to understand this!
  2. Shamsul Islam's book is a popular book talking about "myths and facts", not an academic work. It in no way represents scholarly consensus that could be appropriate for the lead.
  3. To decide what can go into the lead, if at all, you need to find three or four high-quality sources, see how they approach the issue, and then summarise them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the difference between the wording (on lead) and the summary provided by Shamsul Islam. The meaning is still the same.
Shamsul Islam is a totally valid source. He was a professor of political science at Delhi University and he has also written for The Hindu on Hindutva.[15] There are 2 sources already provided. Now here is another one which confirms in its own words that: "To counteract the Pakistan demand the Sikhs were incited by the Hindu Mahasabha to put forward the idea of Sikhistan."[16]
Do you have any sources to counter the fact that Savarkar did not discuss Sikhistan? If you don't then you should not oppose the restoration on lead. Orientls (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&oldid=1219583441"