Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

India: Maharashtra / History / Politics Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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]

If so, then we can call him a nationalist, that's also a neutral term and has been used to describe Gandhiji in his wiki page. CrazyCosmos007 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Savarkar is described as founder of Hindutva, which is contrary to Indian nationalism. Capitals00 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1] 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.[2][3] 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.[4] 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]

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!
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.
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.[5] 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."[6]

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]