Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1

Removal of list of accused
I think the "list of accused" should not be part of article about "Veer Savarkar". His part in the plan has been discussed in a separate section. And this list doesn't add any more information about Savarkar. Wces423 11:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV line
"To this day, he is widely regarded all over India as a coward for not helping India gain independence .He is also scorned upon for his alleged involvement in the murder of the great Mahatma Gandhi ."

I removed this line from the article. It is heavily POV and is redundant -- the gist of this line is already stated in the previous two paragraphs in the introduction. Thank you. Gujuguy 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Repetition
Hello,

Why does this "He is considered to be the central icon of modern Hindu nationalist political parties." twice in the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.23.72 (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

great or fanatic
brothers, savarkar's role in the assasination of oyr father of nation, should /cannot be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 13:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
 * Brothers, can any of you realize what damage this great leader has done to the very concept of united India by propagating fanatic communal approach which deviated muslims, the second largest religious community of India, from main stream indian politics to a marked extent?Is it not a blunder from national intgration perspective??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-minar (talk • contribs) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

maharashtracha vaagh - swatantryaveer savarkar
swatantryaveer savarkaranvar bolayache mhanaje fakt ekch...swatantryaveer savarkar mazya romrat bhinale aahet. aaj aani aatahi maazya aangawarun sarsarun kaate yet aahet. aaj te aamhala yasathi have aahet ki tyani zunjun- raktache paani karun ubha kelela ha hindustan kanhi bhrasht aani nalayak lokancya hatche bahule banala aahe. aaj garaj aahe tyanchi karan aajhi aamhala ekhada navaa sangraam chhedava laagnar aahe. mazyasarkhe khoop aahet je ya deshasathi jivachi kurwandi karatil. aamhala fakt marg hava aahe.. aani have aahet ek..swatantryaveer savarkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.252.220 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All points of view

 * 1) I agree with the editor above (not immediately above), regarding the fact that all points of view should be represented, including womanising and the one he forgot, I remember reading in Freedom at Midnight, that Savarkar was a homosexual and Godse was his partner. But please note that the various Internet sources repeat one mother source, so their multiplicity is misleading. For example his wrongly alleged support to the Two-Nation Theory, has been corrected by quoting Ambedkar.
 * 2) I wonder how this annonymous editor managed not to get his edit stamped by the address stamping bot?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Savarkar deserves a better treatment than an article based on a rediff article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About alleged homosexuality, it seems to be a WP:FRINGE theory (If not, prove it by quoting other references) thus it need not be included. If sufficient scholars believe it then it could be included. Check Freedom at Midnight, if theory originates from that book or author refers to another book
 * Note all internet sources are not WP:RS and may contain WP:OR
 * Yes, there are numerous, well-documented controversies about Savarkar, which need mention. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no way I can get my hands on a copy any time soon. Please somebody who can give page numbers and a short quote, and if there is a reference or it has been cooked in Dominic's head, although it would need a brave man to make such unsubstantiated allegations though. Do you suggest that even though it is in Freedom at Midnight it is still WP:FRINGE?, as you will not find many sources about his heterosexuality either.
 * 2) Wonder whom the Note all internet sources are not WP:RS and may contain WP:OR was aimed at.
 * 3) What many editors (including myself) sometimes forget is that our contributions are to make Wikipedia better, not portray a certain individual in a good or bad light.
 * 4) It is imo inappropriate to use the word controversies. I would prefer all perspectives keeping within the framework of good Wikipedia principles and practices.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, even though it is in Freedom at Midnight it can be  WP:FRINGE, a POV of 1 or 2 scholars, an example of FRINGE in a WP:RS is in Courtright's book suggesting Ganesha eating sweets denotes a limb phallus having oral sex.
 * Adding to "the various Internet sources repeat one mother source, so their multiplicity is misleading." The first (original) internet source can be an OR or non-RS
 * Yes, the word "controversy" is unnecessary in the text but there can be called controversies here for sake of discussion. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Raja.m82 (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hindutva and atheism can co-exist. This ref explains Savarkar's view. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Raja.m82 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Partition of Palestine and formation of Israel
This refers to the deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar&diff=next&oldid=353874772

Editor kindly explain why you have deleted reference to Savarkar's welcoming the Jewish state in the Palestine. It is a very important policy statement. Savarkar and Gandhi both vehmently opposed the partition of India, and so as a matter or logic (and Savarkar claims to appease Muslims) opposed the partition of Palestine and the formation of the Jewish state.

Savarkar on the other hand welcomed the formation of the Jewish state.

You have also commented that there is lack of evidence for the above. However wp:rs have been provided?

I would like to bring the line back kindly justify the deletion Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor, kindly disregard "lack of evidence", it refers to your other edit. :-). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the intro. Please note that the "matter of logic" that you cite is your own opinion and nothing more. Add it back into the article, but not to the intro. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Matter of logic is not my invention, see this "First, he was sensitive about the ideas of Muslim Indians who were anti-Zionists because of their sympathy for Middle Eastern Arabs opposed to the Jewish National Home; second, he objected to any Zionist methods inconsistent with his way of non-violence; third, he found Zionism contrary to his pluralistic nationalism, which excludes the establishment of any State based solely or mainly on one religion; and fourth, he apparently believed it imprudent to complicate his relations with the British, who held the mandate in Palestine. ["http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0815-GandhiZionism.html]
 * Relations with Israel are an important Indian policy, an important Indian's views on the subject are important and should be in the lead about him. So one line in the lead and details in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The material that you quoted is not talking about Savarkar, and is thus totally irrelevant and inappropriate. And the fact that "relations with Israel are an important Indian policy" does not mean that the item should be included in the lead of a biography on Savarkar. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OMG this is a serious communication snag. I wrote that Gandhi opposed Pakistan and as a matter of logic opposed Israel. You wrote that "matter of logic" was my opinion. I have provided sources for my comment. It is not supposed to be about Savarkar, I have in the article quoted sources for his statements about Israel. Savarkar's support of Israel is an important expression of his Hindutva philosphy and needs to be mentioned in the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then please cite some evidence to support your claim. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited in the article sub-section. 117.195.74.183 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The single source cited is a speech by Savarkar. Unless in that speech, Savarkar says "this issue is absolutely central to my world view", then I think that you have significantly over-emphasized the role of this issue in this article. The man is known for his views on India, not Israel. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 11:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Correcting myself
Actually my quoting a primary source is a bad wikipedia practice. I should have quoted a reliable secondary source that should have written that Savarkar supported the formation of Israel unlike Gandhi who opposed it. It was in line with his philosophy

Not truth but verifiablity is the criteria for inclusion, I withdraw my request for inclusion, I will search for a reliable secondary source - such I have quoted Ambedkar on Savarkar's views on the partition of India, and then add it in the lead.

If you wish you may remove it from the article too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Indian Chronicle
Is Freedom at midnight, a paper published in a history journal or the like, subjected to peer review? (Though even peer review is a racket as Malhotra writes.) "Most" is what is called a weasel word. The book is written by imperialistic apologists. The Congress before its participation into electoral politics was a movement and not a political party in today's sense, with watertight ideological boundaries. Savarkar was invited to be a member of the Congress after release in 1937. (Keer). Congress was very much a part of the British establishment, like a loyal opposition. (Hyndman) Even after partition, the Congress was aware of nationalist (Hindu) sensibilities, one example is the adoption of Devanagari and a Hindi reasonably free of Arabic and Persian adulteration. The purification of language was an important movement run by Savarkar which began in Andaman (See Mazi Janmathep) as a means of establishing nationalistic (Hindu)identity. The context for the above explanation is your phrase "anti-Hindutva or pro-Congress" imagining that they are Siamese twins. Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. Personally it is irrelevant whether Savarkar was a homosexual or whether Nathuram was (one of his) partner(s). Savarkar has mentioned the practice, has written about it as one more way in which Muslims exploited Hindus in the Cellular jail, narrated how a boy was rescued from a Muslim and rescued from Islam, with the exploiting Muslim taught a lesson.(Mazi Janmathep) I do not remember reading that the practice, in itself, was condemned by him. (Please correct me if I am wrong). He has written the desperate conditions, such as when ill with diarrhoea he wished that he passed motions in front of the doctor, which was the only way to convince the doctor of the existence of the illness. (Mazi Janmathep). Even the most basic body needs sleep, food, defaecation, rest were used as tools to break the conviction and the will of the political convicts. Copulation is a similar basic need, not very high up from the above mentioned, and in the absence of alternatives, it is natural for homosexuality to find expression. Messer Lapierre and Collins have written Freedom ... in the late 20th century, and it would not be too much to expect a little sympathy and understanding for this aspect of a convict's sexuality, but all that they could do was to write about Savarkar's homosexuality, in order to use it to shock and generate revulsion and prejudice from those who succumb to their bait. Savarkar was a utilitarian, just as he was a pragmatist and a humanist,(Wolfe), even if his homosexuality or bi-sexuality was true, (as he was married and had children, and was officially monogamous, did not divorce, with only death separating him from his wife), why should that be considered a negative trait, especially in the twenty first century? On whether his sexuality should be mentioned or not, my opinion :
 * (a) His exposure to the practice is documented in his autobiography, and
 * (b) Freedom... mentions it.
 * (c) His autobiography, and Freedom can be quoted with Gopal Godse's rebuttal (with reference to the source which should be reliable as per Wikipedia standards) immediately after it. That would add balance and dimension to the article.
 * (d) The allegation is there for decades, mentioning the rebuttal here, would give it wide publicity.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * boy, you have a lot of hatred. anyway, I am not sure if homosexuality is the natural expression when other alternatives dont exist. but i agree there is nothing wrong being homo or bisexual, about one in every 10 person ought to be homosexual. it is just natural and a person needs not be judged based on their sexuality. could somebody, who has access to all these sources come with a text which could be added to the article. -- Car Tick  12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have stuck to facts quoted from wp:rs, I have not provided links etc., as this is a talk page and not the article, anyone is free to check. Google search will provide you with the material referenced. Except of-course Freedom and City of Joy, for which you need to go to a library. GayChristian101.com says that Yes, many men in prison choose to engage in homosexual activity while incarcerated, as an outlet for sexual energy. I've seen percentages quoted of from 20% to 40% but I'm not sure how accurate those percentages are. which pretty very much corroborates what I have written about the relation between incarceration and homosexuality. I am sorry that what I have written comes across as hateful, as I spend a lot of time in being precise. I request CarTick (Karthik?) to elaborate on which part of my comment was so exceedingly hateful that it necessitated the appellation. I request him to read Freedom ... and City of Joy. The shooting of the eponymous film also generated protests, a stay order and a firebomb attack on the crew, and charges of social pornography. Buddhadev Das-Gupta comments on the book and the film "I have myself read the book and found that it is sickening and full of sky-high errors. I have even gone through the final, 13th version of the oft-amended film script, sent it to exclusive persons and obtained their opinion," Bhattacharya said. "The book has been written from the racist viewpoint of the whites. That viewpoint has been preserved intact in the film script. It has been shown that the people of this city are unconcerned about the misery of their fellow citizens. Only the whites are the saviors."

(LA times)

I request CarTick to substantiate his allegation or withdraw it. All in the interest of The Wikipedian god of Verifiablity.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Freedom at midnight, is a muck raising book that indulges in sensationalism, written by a pair of white - Christian imperialistic lackies, without an understanding and acknowledgement of the subaltern existence of a population, under the crushing domination of a racist power, and not just with reference to Savarkar. this is the comment you made. u didnt quote anybody as far as i can see. -- Car Tick  15:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * alright, i remember i began watching the movie City of Joy (film) once and couldnt continue and gave up. From what i remember of the movie, I agree partially with Dasgupta.
 * I support your ideas (a-c). Since you have access to his autobiography and Freedom, could you please go ahead and add it to the article. I would be glad to know what his autobiography says about his exposure. -- Car Tick  21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that alright is a withdrawal of your allegation. I do not have Godse's rebuttal, plus his autobiography is a primary source. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Savarkar's Sexuality
Others and publishers of Freedom At midnight have apologized for terming savarkar as homosexual and have removed this reference from further editions. Should Savarkar's sexuality be addressed in this article? Some sources claim that he was a closeted homosexual and had one sexual encounter with Nathuram Godse as stated in "Assassin: theory and practice of political violence" By J. Bowyer Bell, Irving Louis Horowitz, pp 219-220. Does anyone have other sources that corroborate this? Authentickle (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is only one original source for this claim. It's Freedom at Midnight by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. The other sources, including Assassin... are based on Freedom at Midnight. Collins and Lapierre base their claims on their supposed interviews with Nathuram's brother Gopal Godse. However, Gopal Godse denied that he had ever mentioned his brother's homosexuality while being interviewed, and the pro-Hindutva authors like Koenraad Elst term the claim as a Congress/anti-Hindutva conspiracy. utcursch | talk 07:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you cite a source establishing Gopal Godse's denial? Thanks, Authentickle (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the anti-Hindutva and pro-Congress bias of Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre well known? -- Car Tick  18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre being referred to as anti-Hindu in the mainstream media. utcursch | talk 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An imperialist, racist, Hindu hater, read his Anandnagar: The City of Joy, in it the only person who has a heart is its protagonist, a missionary. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont have that book. could you please elaborate. what in the book makes you make conclude the above. -- Car Tick  17:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Freedom at midnight is one of the best source on History of Indian Independence. Most Indian Historians and Scholars recommend it. I did not find any anti-hindutva or pro-congress bias in it. Infact its impartiality can be gauged from the fact that it was banned in Pakistan for a long time.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems plausible that this habit could have been picked up from Andamans. It is well known that such practices are rampant in these types of prisons. For example one journal confirms that these type of practices were common in Andamans during certain period:
 * Fears about sexual disorder also forced the development of distinctive convict dress. In the Andamans, where during the second half of the nineteenth century male convicts outnumbered female convicts by an average of ten to one homosexual relations appeared to be common. Commentators firmly distinguished active sodomites from passive recipients (catamites) and juvenile convicts were seen as a particular target for older men. During the early decades, these 'lads' were locked up in lattice cages at night, within their barracks, in an attempt at segregation. This was by no means an ideal arrangement, particularly with regard to fire risks. As the settlement expanded in the 1880s, all men and boys labelled 'habitual recipients' (catamites) were instead confined in and worked from altogether separate barracks. Public flogging was used to punish convicts caught in the act. (pp.165–66) – --Indian Chronicles  (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to CarTick
White missionary, lives in a slum, and works to change lives. Hindu labourer sells his bones for his daughter's dowry. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about??? Do you have any idea how people were treated at Mother Teresa ashram. Before she died, she even claimed that there is no GOD in several of her meetings and feared if she just wasted her life. At times she even confessed for converting people and after her death many of her disciples just left and are now working with St Stephens Hospital,Delhi. You can confirm about it from there. missionary has only one and only one agenda... to convert people. I have not come across any single missionary who has served the community and not asked people to practice Christianity. No doubt there is not one and will never be one. Sorry to say,they "Actually" sell Christianity for money.-- Onef9day  Talk! 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * read Anandi Gopal Joshi to get an idea how Wilder(American missionary) offered to help if the couple would convert to Christianity. -- Onef9day  Talk! 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear friend yours is a classic case of jumping to conclusions. Please read the entire thread and then share your comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!
I'm surprised to see all this misinformation stacked up on an article on wikipedia that should have the information and actual facts about this freedom fighter. 'What he's said' 'what the other guy has said may not necessarily be *facts*. Thats their opinions and things they claim true.

Take the issue of VD Savarkar not taking part in the hunger strike for example. It is known that he was in a serious health condition - thanks to the torture and so was advised not to take part in the hunger strike, though he started it. Savarkar himself admits the fact that he didn't take part in the hunger strike and also quotes the reasons in his Autobiography. But here, you've stated that he didn't take part in it, and the reason : why he didn't? - never care to mention, eh?

This is a totally one sided article, with texts copied from the copyrighted material of rediff articles that state the opinions of few individuals. Please correct the article.

P.S: If these things need to be mentioned, please mention it under the 'controversy' section, adding Mr. Chakravarthy's opinions and things he claims are true. But then please make sure you add what individuals keep saying about prominent personalities from time to time to make it to the headlines, on all wikipedia articles related to reknown people.


 * It's a wiki, be bold in editing; you are free to add content that is verifiable and is neutral point of view. -- 04:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats a good one. stack up some needless crap and ask others to be bold ;) Not everyone has the time to add up and edit - *real facts* on an article need more time and research than adding some crap. Please do everyone a favour and mark this page for deletion. That would be far more better than misleading people with "someone told" facts rather than the real ones. Once deleted, Someone can start afresh with an article on this personality.


 * Why delete the article? Anyone can rewrite it from scratch even now. Didn't you notice the two tags on the top of the article, that warn the user against getting misled? --  04:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Punya6666 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC) This article has been adulterated by communist writers and they keep on adding malicious content just to publicize their books. The statements written here are completely biased against the Great Patriot Savarkar. Wikipedia I humbly beg you, please donot allow such defamation of the a great person. Or else no one will trust to see your site. Just click on the Citations given by some authors and you will understand there are propagandist articles/ book from Noorani for example just to have it sold to international public. They don ot point out the efforts he took to free India from british rule, social reforms he brought in the society, or immense nationalist books and poetry he wrote. Is that not enough proof? If not just read about him from the british and French, and they will tell you he was an Indian Patriot. Some people( I would not count them as Indians) unfortunately due to political reasons are targeting such a Great person who has spent his life for humanity and just cause. Tomorrow I can write up a book criticizing/maliagning some great person, and cite references from that book, and some others will follow the same, will it mean Wikipedia will be a face of falsity, but it will show up in google results. We admire Wikipedia for the great effort they have taken to bring up a people's encyclopedia, but due to some malicious people, with political motives( and who have all the time), they can edit and post, anything they want, and facts are so easily twisted. If you read most the comments here on the Talk section, they advise to remove some citations/falsity from the article. Content which we edit is altered and removed by malicious authors very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Doug. please explain.
Doug. please explain your last edit. This article has many unsourced comments someone should go line by line and add references or delete those statements which do not have any.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * True. I restored some cited text " Savarkar's home in Mumbai was stoned by angry mobs, and his political influence and activism sharply curtailed by widespread public anger. " removed by an IP who I think is a problem - I see there is an SPI started on the IP. But the article is a real mess. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However his Chitpawan caste is mentioned by Vinay Lal (reference no 8), but the article as you have written is in shambles, so each section needs a rewrite, I am letting your deletion stay, because for Sawarkar caste was a matter of renunciation and not one to be flaunted, let somebody else take the trouble to edit it back.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

please VOTE to Ban Indian Chronicles..
This person has been the the "delete" person, adding links of only his choice. if we try to state facts, he goes on twisting them, and deleting links to books and our comments. Please WIKIPEDIA ban "Indian Chronicles" Indian Chronicles, why do you keep removing and deleting the links to books and refences added by me. I will take up the cause with Wikipedia.Punya6666 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Why did u remove the link to Veer Savarkar's Book? Why are you maligning such a great Freedom fighter? Are u really Indian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punya6666 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Punya6666, your edits are unencyclopedic, against Wiki policies and full of POV. You are not at all interested in providing a neutral POV. Some examples of your POV:
 * The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology. Very obvious POV.
 * No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. Another POV. Betrays Hindutva agenda.
 * Maharashtra Government in the honor of he great Freedom Fighter and Patriot, made the movie tax free when it opened in theatres, so that Indians can watch and realise the greatness of the work of Veer Savarkar. Total POV and inappropriate edit.
 * Veer Savarkar's Pioneering Work. This section is total list like and POV.
 * Please stop making unconstructive edits or some administrator will take action against you.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent major edits
Recent edits to this page provide a non-neutral point of view. A lot of earlier useful material has been discarded and the article entirely re-written. This Article has been hijacked by Marxist writers of Indian history. WikiPedia Please remove their references from the article which are complete distortion of facts and are just added to sell their books. How can the same references of Punyani and noorani be added again and again, without are completely baseless. Honest writer of history, please rewrite this article. Can we guys vote on this? If wikipedia is not going to take action against distortion of facts and history. (The above text was pasted on the top of this page, I am relocating it here it is not mine but another editors, if what I have done is illegal please undo this edit. I have done so as that broke the thread. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should not be hijacked by either marxists nor by Hindutvavadis. Both offer extreme viewpoints. To me it looks more like hikacked by right-wingers and Savarkar worshippers. If it were really hijacked by marxists then Joglekar's citations (some of which are patent nonsense and untruths) would have been removed.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) My opinion or your opinion is not what is included in the article, Indian do you consider Joglekar an unreliable source in comparision to Noorani or Punmiya? Can you prove so? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Yogesh, Please see my edit. I am not questioning his reliability yet. I am reserving my opinion on Joglekar whether he is reliable source or not. Maybe he is. But what I am sure is that he is extreme POV. And yet he is there. So no one can say that this article has been hijacked by marxists. Thats my point.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point accepted, anyways the above text is not mine and I disagree with it, I just relocated it because it was hanging in nowhere, you are perhaps right, Joglekar is one end of the spectrum, Noorani another, both of them are here, so it is even stevens perhaps.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts you have used words like nonsense and untruths which is why I wrote about the value of opinions.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Your last edit saw the following deletions, I have no issue with deletions on (1)Line 163 and Line 226 as they are inline references which is something I have not seen in articles, (2)also the citation wanted tag on line 294 is unwarranted as a citation is provided, (3)the statement on line 342 The above theories have been created by some people who hate savarkar and his one nation ideology.  as it does not have a citation, however please explain your deletion of apparently well cited statements ''Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions. '' on line 352 and removing the citation on line 38, Keer is a reliable source as far as I know, what is your issue Indian Chronicles?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Yogesh, I have no problem with the edit that you have pointed out namely :Savarkar's contribution to Indian Freedom Struggle has been immense, starting from his student days in London, where he organized the Indians in England, and France from the famous India House, where he wrote the famous book First Indian War of Independence, inspiring Indians to remember martyrs of 1857, and motivating them to carry on second war of independence. English government at that time, arrested him on political charges of waging a war against the English king, for which he was sentenced to 50 years of imprisonment, in 1907 which was unheard of in Indian political circles. No Congress politician was sentenced to such a long and rigorous imprisonment. His entire life was devoted to bring India freedom, from his works and actions subject to one or two inaccuracies in the last two lines. So you may reinstate it with NPOV. There is no denying the fact that his initial years were devoted to India's freedom struggle. But not his entire life. Furthermore, I do not see any value in comparison with any congress freedom fighter. [Note use of word politician for congressmen and freedom fighter for Savarkar.] Furthermore many freedom fighers in Andamans have served much onger sentence than Savarkar. So what the author is saying is POV, which is very obvious considering his background. Coming to earlier point on Jogelekar, He compares Savarkar with the great Maratha King Shivaji. He says that: Shivaji made many promises to Aurangzeb which he did not keep after his escape. But note that all the promises that Savarkar made to British government were honoured. Hence Savarkar and Shivaji cannot be compared. That is why I said it was nonsense and untruth.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not how it is done Indian, what you have done above is your analysis, which has no value, (neither has mine), please read wp:OR. All we write should be based on reliable sources. The editor above has written the above edit, and cited Keer, to counter it you will have either prove that Keer isn't a reliable source see wp:rs, or provide evidence that Keer has been wrongly cited, which I think would be a serious breach of editing on the part ot the editor Punya who has edited that text into the article, and then you may seek explanations from him and if he doesn't respond you may take community action against him resulting in block/ ban. I hope I am clear.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I said that if you feel certain parts of above discussed edit are reliable then please add it. I have other reliable sources to show that Savarkar only devoted his initial years to freedom fighting that can counter the above edit easily. Furthermore relevancy is also important. Anyway I have reported Punya for edit warring and refusing to discuss.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Biographies have a controversies section, you are free to quote the sources, that contradict Joglekar or Keer, Keer I am sure you know is an emminent biographer having many biographies to his credit including Ambedkar, Punya has quoted Keer, if Keer says so then it is first class, whether you like it or not. Please give Punya a long rope, he is new here and perhaps does not understand procedures.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with Punya personally. I welcome him to make constructive edits without becoming emotionally charged. If he follows Wikipedia policies, discusses controversial edits first and desists from personal attacks, I have no issues. In fact I waited for more than a week before reporting him.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The text above was inserted by Punya, not me, I do not have Keer's Savarkar, and so I cannot reinsert it. It is for Punya to do so, since he has quoted Keer and so perhaps has Keer with him. My issue is your removal, you shouldn't have removed a well sourced statement. Lavkare says that the subject of the clemency plea and Savarkar's involvement in Gandhi's murder is a has been raised by the prejudiced and pernicious cocktail of Congress and the Communists indulging in a perversity, very much what Punya's edits were. I wish to have this in the article after you have looked at itYogesh Khandke (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

To Indian Chronicles....
Reply No point of view mentioned by me were POV, but were in fact supported by the books by Keer and Harindra Srivastava. If you were in Maharashtra state, you would have known Maharashtra Govt, made Veer Savarkar movie Tax free, what is POV about it? Can you name any congress politician whose was sentenced to two life imprisonments (25 years each) for a political cause of waging a war against british King? Refer Keer, Srivastava, Or book by Chakravarti Rajagopalachar(his pen name- Chitragupta) "Life of Barrister Savarkar". When a person is acquitted(freed) by court of Law and is freed from all the charges, we have no right to defame him as a criminal on the basis of hearsay, as Kapur commission one man commission and their political supporters tried to defame. When the person is no longer alive to defend himself. What would you call if a person is freed from all charges, and still people defame and accuse him as criminal with no trial? Indian chronicles, and some other others on like abdul like tried to the same strategy. Veer Savarkar's poineering work is not my POV, but a fact which remains because of works and actions performed by him during his lifetime. Please refer to following books. 1. Life of barrister Savarkar 2. Veer Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer (padmabhushan author, title given by Govt of India.) 3. Five Stormy years, Savarkar in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.48.229 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive threading by Punya6666
(1)Please understand Punya that your breaking of threads is very disruptive, action may be taken against you for that. See this page has a sub-topic list, 1 - 25 now, 1 should be the oldest and 25 the latest, please place your edits at the bottom of the page and not the top of the page as you have been doing. Also sign on the page by pressing the signature and time stamp or typing four tildes (~). (2)About content (A)Tax free, please find a reliable source that informs that the movie was tax free and provide citation, understand that verifiability and not truth is criteria for inclusion please see wp:V. (B)Please provide citation for your statement that no congress politician was awarded two life sentences, the onus lies on you to provide citations, you should not ask others to find them for you, please provide page numbers if you are quoting a book, it will give it authenticity, also be careful about WP:SYNTHESIS. (C)Kapur Commission: There is a reliable source quoted that supports the statements. What you have written is your view, it has no place here. (D)Your allegations against Indian Chronicles and Abdul may cause you to be blocked/ banned from Wikipedia, please do not pass adverse comments against editors.(E)The list is from Godbole's Five Stormy Years in London, it may not be considered a reliable source, you may go ahead with it if you wish, please see other Featured Articles - Biographies, this biography should be like that in style. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian Chronicle's last edit
(1)You have called Punya's edits nonsense and untruths, (2)Have written that the International court at Hague, existed only since 1945, (3)Have cast apprehensions whether the said text is Keer's, (1)I wouldn't use abusive words like nonsense even if another editor was wrong. (2)Please see this source, it has the entire case, and is dated crica 1911, it refers to an International court in Hague. (3)You have to prove that Punya is mis-representing sources such as Keer. (4)In view of the above I am reverting your edit.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Yogesh, pls read peoperly. It is not international court of Justice as claimed by Punya but some Permanent arbitrartion court. ICJ came in existance after 1945. Hence due to this misrepresentation I had my doubts. Furthermore Punya and not providing page numbers where this occurs in Keer's book. Hence onus is on him to prove it. Furthermore List types is unencyclopedic and should be in article form. Furthermore you had only deleted this section.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me. The case was refered to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, based in The Hague, Netherlands. You are also right that Punya should give page numbers. Your edit summary imo should have carried that request, as the reason for the deletion. Thanks again.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't say it was the ICJ, all I wrote was that it was an, International court in Hague, the court is international, the court is in Hague, please check my previous edit, thanks again, your pressure has made an interesting addition to the article, one more article now links to it, and it carries links to one more article. Thanks again. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks now its much more accurate.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image
An image needs removing from this article but I don't know how to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.76.235 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blatant POV in the Kapur Commission subsection

 * "All these facts taken together were destructive of any theory other than the conspiracy to murder by Savarkar and his group."

If this isn't an an example of a outright POV in an encyclopedic article, I dont know what is. You cannot say that this quote cites a "source", since you shall always find arbitrary sources that make such claims.

Editors, please make necessary changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.187.164 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what the Kapur Commission said apparently, disprove it with wp:RS, if you have them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-muslim cognition
I am a Bangladeshi and a great admirer of India because of the country's unconditional support to our Independence movement in 1971. I respect Mahatmaji, Nehruji and Indiraji to a marked extent.But I am unable to show my respect to Mr.Savarkar as I see him as a proponent of Hindu Communalism which entails innately anti-muslim cognition.Correct me if I am wrong, but I tell you my great Indian friends, I am compelled to blame the propagators of Hinduvta politics equally responsible for partition of India as the Muslim League. If you study London based Bengali scholar Jaya Chatterjee's books,you will also definitely agree with me.Thank you and pardon me if I hurted anyone's apolitical religious sentiments. Al-minar (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any Hindu Communal-ism in India. I am Indian. Indians respect all religions except "terrorism". One more thing - Praising Hindu religion doesn't means opposing Muslim religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.10.68 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can well the see anti-muslim direction of Savarkar's political phylosophy not only in Indian context but also in global perspective.Otherwise, how could he support creation of Israel in the Palestinian heartland? Is it not because Palestinians are predominantly muslim?Murad67 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What all due respect to the hard work of its creators, it is important for this article be balanced on a number of issues. As of now it is biased. Although Hindutva politics are inclusive, they are so in a totalizing way that actually turn them exclusivist to both Christian and Muslim minorities if they don't conform. Savarkar himself proclaimed in his 'Hindutva' that to be Indian is to be Hindu, yet his conception of 'Who is a Hindu' was based on whether a religion had India as its 'Holy Land' as well as its 'Fatherland'. Consequently, all native religions to India (i.e. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) are seen as 'Hindu.' Yet Christians and Muslims do not qualify, they have their Holy Land in the Middle East. According to Sarvakar, Christians and Muslims must thus either reconvert or accept Hinduism as central to 'Indian civilization' (Jews qualify as being assimilated in this manner). To this criterium, we understand why Hindu Nationalists did welcome Partition in a sense, because Muslims would be able to have their own land, but also condemned it because it ruptured the territorial integrity of 'the Holy Land': it presented them with a dilemma. This explains why Savarkar praised the creation of the state Israel: he obviously attached much importance to religion's link with territory. His support for Israel was not 'anti-muslim', but based on his conceptions I just explained. Whether Hinduism as such is actually exclusivist is another matter, so don't feel personally attacked, but Hindutva is a specific politicized version of Hinduism. Some have called it a 'synthetic creation of an organic unity.' Personally I believe that India's greatness lies in its diversity and tolerance. I got my information from Savarkar's 'Hindutva', Bidyut Chakrabarty's interesting collection of essays called 'Communal Identity in India,' Sunil Khilnani's 'The Idea of India' and work by the scholar Ashutosh Varshney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.225.191 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Information about Savarkar's education
http://www.savarkar.org/en/armed-struggle/q Was the degree taken back because of freedom activities?111.91.95.22 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

BRD
I've removed two recent additions here because of the following problems.
 * The addition of "controversial...inciting hatred" in the lead was poorly referenced (countercurrents.org seems does not seem like a reliable source and is WP:UNDUE). It's a WP:NPOV violation, there is hardly any good quality article on a controversial subject over here which is written in such a way.
 * The direct quote "If the government in their manifold beneficence...progress and loyalty to the English government" is from a book authored by James W. Douglass, who is a theologian not a historian. If this quotation needs to be added, we need a proper academic source which quotes and interprets this, see WP:HISTRS. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal training
I'm not going to edit the article itself, because I don't want to get involved in some long discussion, but I will point out two errors of fact in the article as it presently stands: (1) Savarkar was never a barrister, because although he doubtless passed the necessary exams he was never called to the Bar; and (2) Gray's Inn is not a law college, it is an Inn of Court, which is entirely different. Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually please feel free to edit, as you can see there is not much interest in this article lately. I only know basic information about him and watch this article since it can attract POV pushers. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

atheist
He is a self-proclaimed atheist. any objections to change the infobox?  Docku:  What up?  05:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a central in Hindutva politics, need references for the above.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Historian Bipin Chandra says, Savarkar was an atheist. When he was the Hindu Mahasabha president he used to give lectures on why there is no god., Christophe Jaffrelot addresses Savarkar as a self-declared atheist in this book. The fact he was an atheist is already mentioned in the body of the article.  Docku:  What up?  12:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Day, Just so there is no confusion, Atheism in Hinduism is allowed, and there are a lot of Hindu Atheist, including Savarkar. The whole Sankha Philosophy, a major Hindu school of thought is about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the statement made by the contributor above that atheism is allowed in hinduism. I think it is inappropriate to classify veer savarkar as a atheist under his religion as he has done many things for hinduism and there are indications that he was a hindu such as Atma Samarpan which is a hindu concept of self ending life. Veer Savarkar has also been credited in the opening of "Patitpavan Mandir", a temple open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (22 February 1931). All this information is from the savarkar website several individuals and organizations.created by several individuals and organizations. These individuals and organizations can be seen here. Therefore I request that savarkar not be classified as atheist as this is misleadingKushagr.sharma1 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source to say that he is a "Hindu atheist," please feel free to cite it and change it. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Savarkar's views on Gandhi
Gandhi didn't support British violence against Germany. I remember reading a letter in which he asked Churchill to stop the resistance against Hitler because seeing the destruction would change Hitler and make him peaceful.
 * It is funny. Every curse that Savarkar hurls at Gandhi turns into a flower at Gandhi's feet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

POV in LEAD
The sentence "Savarkar's Hindutva sought to create an inclusive collective identity" seems an NPOV violation to me; whatever the source might say, it is a contested portrayel. Scholars have also referred to him as divisive and anti-muslim. Even a cursory search yield this. The description of his ideology needs to include this. Of course, I am not suggesting reversing the POV entirely, the current fragment is also sourced. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase "inclusive collective identity" is OR. The source has only "collective identity" and it is clear that a Hindu collective identity is meant. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim Views
, I am copying below your new addition to the article:

Several issues here: So let us get back to the first point. What evidence of "anti-Muslimness" does this unnamed author provide? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Academics argue. Who exactly? What have they argued? You haven't even told us who the author is!
 * You provide a bunch of cherry-picked quotes picked by Roger Griffin (for whom I can't find even a single scholarly review). It is not clear what this writer knows of Hindutva or Savarkar. He seems to be a specialist on Fascism and apparently tends to view Hindutva as yet another form of Fascism. But plenty of scholars disagree. Christophe Jaffrelot for instance says that it is cultural nationalism, not particularly different from the Muslim League brand of cultural nationalism. Are you prepared to call Muslim League Fascist too? Why not? Note that he is targeting the "Moslem friends of the league type". Did the Muslim Leaguers in 1938 deserve better treatment? In what way? Within two years, they declared Pakistan, didn't they?
 * Then we have a passage about "potential traitors" in scare quotes. But you haven't provided the whole context. The paragraph says: After independence Savarkar contended that Muslims in India, Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Pakistan were a threat to the Indian state. He claimed that "Muslims have tacitly declared war on Hindustan" and were likely to sabotage the state from within as well as attack from outside (553). No doubt the Muslims of Pakistan are still a threat to the Indian state. The jihadism only increased with time. The Muslims of Kashmir are still fighting the Indian state. In Hyderabad, Akbaruddin Owaisi is prone to declare war against all Hindus. So, Savarkar would seem to be at least half right. Given that he is half-right, you can't label this "anti-Muslim". For it to be "anti-Muslim", you would have to show that he was blatantly wrong.
 * @Kautilya3: I'm going to ignore your statements about Muslims above. After all, we should be arguing over sourcing, not your personal views.
 * Are you saying these views should be attributed or that they simply aren't reliable? If its the latter, I want to point out the source is an academic one published by Columbia University Press.
 * Griffin looks like a pretty scholarly source to me. The book has also received good reviews.
 * If you have any objections based on Wikipedia policies, then make them, but otherwise keep your personal views to yourself.
 * VR talk  02:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't produce honest-to-goodness sources that talk about his "anti-Muslim" views, and dispense with WP:OR? Then we can discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the comment above. Are you saying the sources I have produced are not reliable? Or that the sources don't say what I claim they are saying?VR talk  04:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The questions and comments that I gave above are clear enough, I think. What part of it do you not understand? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, then I responded to your points regarding sourcing, but didn't respond to your statements on Muslims. Do you have a counter-response to my points regarding sourcing?VR talk  14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a response, but WP:Stonewalling. Perhaps you genuinely don't comprehend questions. In that case, I suggest you produce full citations for your sources and quotations that say that Savarkar was "anti-Muslim". I suppose that is easy enough to understand? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is easy enough to understand, but not necessarily easy to accomplish. For some sources, I've actually provided the full quote already in the article. Other sources are viewable via google books, and you can view them yourself. For the remaining, there is no easy way to access. You either have to pay for them or go to a library or something else. If you have read those sources and find that I misrepresented them, then I'd like to hear why. But if you're just gonna say "type out the full text of every single source you have used", then that's just making my life difficult. I'd be happy to take this to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability if you disagree.VR  talk  17:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, "Perhaps you genuinely don't comprehend questions" is a personal attack.VR talk  17:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have misrepresented the sources. The first source saying nothing about him being "anti-Muslim". The second and third sources indicate him being ultranationalist (and communalist) but do not explicitly label it anti-Muslim. Now that you have redone your edit without such labelling, I am happy to look at your new sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first source, which I restored, says "The tradition of Hindu nationalism...was continued and given a more virulent, anti-Muslim form by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966)". What exactly did I misrepresent?VR talk  02:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Apparently you are very well able to answer questions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Veer Savarkar?
I think Veer Savarkar is more common name, any inputs? Accesscrawl (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some quick searches suggest "Veer Savarkar" is more popular in general, but "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar" is more widely used among reliable sources, and so the latter is probably the better title. It's rare indeed that we use an honorific in an article title when it isn't part of an official title. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Added views on Dr. Ambedkar
Added Savarkar's views on Dr. AmbedkarIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Veer
Is there a reason why the honorific "Veer" can not be mentioned in article ? Is that a POV pushing when there are so many instances where Veer or swatantraveer is used before Savarkar on roads, monuments etc. named after him. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You were too quick for me, I was working on adding it back in. In my opinion there's no problem with it being in the lede, it's clear he was (and/or is) known by this honorific. Some others have disagreed, I don't think for good reasons. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

H0norific
Any t/p watcher who knows about the origins of the honorific - Veer ? &#x222F; WBG converse 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Origin as in how Savarkar got the title or the origin of the title itself? I mean it would be near impossible to trace the origin of a title so common. People stick words like Mahatma and Veer to anybody. TryKid (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay that was a stupid question from me. This source states that "Mrs. Bhapatkar, the editor of “Bhala”, a Marathi periodical" gave him this Veer title. The author only gives "personal enquiry" as the source. This claim is repeated in this article by The Week, but it seems that the author of this article also got this information from that Carvaka blog. There's a Wire article about his title of "Veer" but it just asks a rhetorical question and doesn't answer it. I remember reading about when Savarkar wrote an autobiography disguised as a biography and in it said a lot of not-so-neutral things about himself. TryKid (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The story about him vandalising a Mosque is true though, I think that it should be added somewhere. He didn't really like Muslims. TryKid (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link; that's actually a part of an anthology, published by a member-unit of Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations in the memory of R.A. Jahagirdar, an ex-judge of Bombay High Court! This's new to me though I have read a lot of secondary (and primary) literature on Savarkar. FWIW, the origins of Mahatma in case of MKG is pretty well documented :-) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Write History not opinions....
Actually I wanted to start this page to give the readers a knowledge about one of the leaders of India who contributed in the freedom struggle.But I suppose the whole concept of article has been changed and it looks as if the article is anti-sawarkar. I think we shouldn't write what others say about a person but what his life and contributions were. -- Tanul 06:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit the article to bring it to NPOV. By the way you can sign your posts to talk pages by typing ~ . -- Sundar 05:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article
Is it possible to write the whole article on Savarkar again? This one is utterly biased and only spreads misinformation. I am ready to contribute on this.


 * I've been telling repeatedly: it's a wiki, be bold in editing; you are free to add content that is verifiable and is neutral point of view. -- 05:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The much needed repair to the article
ok, I've replaced all the "he said this, he said that" with some solid facts. Feel free to copyedit and correct any mistakes in the writeup. The previous article had some cut and pasted material from Outlook, rediff and other sites.

POV
The current article seems to be extremely POV. "greates revolutionary of India's freedom struggle", "devoted entire life to the independeance movement " etc are what I mean. -- 05:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

There should be no two opinions about these since he certainly devoted his entire life for India. There could be two opinions about the means he used but there is no doubt about the cause he championed before the independence period. Not mentioning these fact would be a POV. Incase you want to delete these words, please mention a period of his life that he devoted to some other cause before India was free. He indeed was a great reolutionary only matched by Bose. But then Bose was a politician turned revolutionary only in the later period of his life. may 6


 * I'm somehow not comfortable with the use of superlatives like "greatest" etc since it is very subjective. We can rank entities only according to well-defined metrics like GDP etc -- 04:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. In that case you could say "one of the greatest", though not many would dispute it. Infact there aren't too many to compare. As for your argument about ranking, in that case we wouldn't be able to say words like 'great' either. But we still use adjectives and compare things even if there are no objective criteria in most cases. I think its commonly understood that when such and adjective is used, it reflects subjective judgement of most of the people. So it COULD be used when appropriate. The only point to argue about is that whether it is VALID or not. But I don't think you are arguing about its validity here. may 9

Gandhi Murder POV
The whole Gandhi Murder Section is biased against Veer Savarkar all changes made by anonymous user from 69.148.70.104 should be checked for neutrality.

The sections under contentions are Support for Nazi Germany, Murder of Gandhi, On Minorities.

This user 69.148.70.104 has changed the following from Literary Works section

from

'' He put forward the atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindu Resident in State of Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal", a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi. ''

to

''He wrote an inflammatory books alleging atrocities of British and Muslims on Hindus in Kerala, summarized in the book, "Mopalyanche Band" (Muslims' Strike) also "Gandhi Gondhal" (Gandhi's nonsense), a political commentary on the contemporary politics by Gandhi. ''

All his/her changes should be carefully examined and corrected.

-Wces423 06:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The section On Minorities is copied verbatim from copyrighted Frontline article The Real Savarkar.


 * The section Murder of Gandhi is copied verbatim from copyrighted source.


 * Both do not conform to the copyright policy of Wikipedia.


 * -Wces423 06:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to tone down POV here and remove the copyrighted material. But, there should definitely be a mention of his controversial religious and political views and the allegation of his role in the murder of Gandhi. -- 06:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that you're taking the article to the other extreme POV, removing many references of allegations. -- Sundar 09:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, one should quote and reference from the Frontline article and a couple of news items in "The Hindu" publishing purported letters written by Savarkar to Godse. -- Sundar 09:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely, some points from here and here must be referenced to bring NPOV. -- Sundar 09:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stating fact that he was implicated, tried and acquitted is enough. You can add links to these articles in external links. -- Wces423 10:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Call for Independance
The article attributes a quote to Savarkar ostensibly made during his stay in London : "We must stop complaining about this British officer or that officer, this law or that law. There would be no end to that. Our movement must not be limited to being against any particular law, but it must be for acquiring the authority to make laws itself. In other words, we want absolute independence.[5]" The source quoted is said to be some article by V. Sundaram. The article by V. Sundaram actually does not attribute this to him. There is no such quote by Savarkar in any of his writings. The definitive autobiography by Dhananjay Keer does not mention such a statement. This is clearly a false statement. Savarkar never made any such statement.Sanjayx (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find any scholarly source attributing that quote to him; removed. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Stub
The entire article is a compendium of un-sourced\ill-sourced garbage with absolutely zero concerns for due weight and all that. Why not nuke i.e stub-ify this mess and gradually rewrite, using the best available scholarship? &#x222F; WBG converse 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Change by Winged Blades of Godric
Winged Blades of Godric has removed a sourced portion of this article, ie. Opposition to Partition, for being "simplistic". This needs to be undone. Soham &#34;Samrat&#34; Banerjee (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , partition and Savarkar's role is an immensely complex topic which needs a fair deal of nuance, as may be evaluable from secondary scholarship and not from primary sources.
 * To quote someone from the opposite spectrum:-  &#x222F; WBG converse 15:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But isn't this section supposed to contain all that Savarkar himself said and did, relevant to Partition and is in record, along with such records themselves? Removing any statements that try to estimate his true stance which are not his own quotes should have been enough. The speech of the man should be kept, there isn't anything complex about it. Soham &#34;Samrat&#34; Banerjee (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We write articles based on secondary scholarship; not on primary sources. See our articles about David Frawley, Subhash Kak, Meenakshi Jain, Voice of India, Francois Gautier et al to see how secondary scholarship is near-solely exploited to write articles about controversial subjects. Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 16:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We write articles based on secondary scholarship; not on primary sources. See our articles about David Frawley, Subhash Kak, Meenakshi Jain, Voice of India, Francois Gautier et al to see how secondary scholarship is near-solely exploited to write articles about controversial subjects. Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 16:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. I hope I am right to believe that there will be the required evaluation of secondary sources regarding this topic to fill up a crucial Gap in this article. Soham &#34;Samrat&#34; Banerjee (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
Some information which is recently added to this article is jeopardizing, and is an allegation which is not proven. Fenix.fyrehart (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what you are referring to. Please be specific (as in "change x to y because z supported by citations a,b,c"). --regentspark (comment) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that this information in question added on 4 January and is a reflection of general mud-slinging and lies which we hear from Western writers regarding Indian independence activists. Same lies are also found about Mahatma Gandhi claiming that he was a pedophile, and also that Jawaharlal Nehru was a homosexual. But Wikipedia should treat these claims as WP:BULLSHIT until they have gained consensus in mainstream scholarship, which would be impossible IMO. We should remove it entirely and do not reinsert per WP:CON and WP:BRD.Given the importance of the subject in WP:INDIA and Indian freedom struggle at the least we should revert to a stable version for now until a clear consensus on this issue is reached. Razer ( talk ) 07:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree that the subject had much of an important role in Indian Freedom; however, these allegations were merely rumors and near-certainly untrue. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These really look like unsubstantiated rumors which can be found about just anybody who has been somewhat popular. I removed it per above comments. NHS2008 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with others, such slandering must not be allowed. Users who include such unsubstantiated rumours repeatedly and sometime even try to intimidate those who oppose must be banned. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Death Cause
User:Nikkimaria was this intentional ? I could not understand the edit summary or the reasons for removal. Please elaborate. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi User:DBigXray, this is in reference to Template:Infobox person/doc - this does not appear to have been significant to notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the link and the kind reply. I was under the impression that you wanted to do something else and this was unintentional. Now that it is cleared, I agree with the removal. IMHO an edit summary along the lines of "unnecessary due to non remarkable death " would have been better.  D Big X ray ᗙ  16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020
Put Swatantryaveer before his name..he was that time famous leader of hindus and one of the early group of revolutionaries. Adityadk28 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  D Big X ray ᗙ  17:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Autobiography
Two years after the release of Savarkar from the prison, a biography of Savarkar titled "Life of Barrister Savarkar" and authored by Chitragupt was published. The second edition of the book in 1987, was published by Veer Savarkar publication, the official publishers of writings by Savarkar. In the preface of the second edition Ravindra Randas, mentioned that "Chitragupta is none other than Veer Savarkar". This disclosure brought his autobiography under scrutiny.

The book enthusiastically praised Savarkar for his courage. Through the book, Savarkar using a pen name assured the reader of the heroism of Savarkar and stated: "Savarkar is born hero, he could almost despise those who shirked duty for fear of consequences. If once he rightly or wrongly believed that a certain system of Government was iniquitous, he felt no scruples in devising means to eradicate the evil."

The book also mentioned that Savarkar: seemed to posses no few distinctive marks of character, such as an amazing presence of mind, indomitable courage, unconquerable confidence in his capability to achieve great things”. “Who,” he asked about himself, “could help admiring his courage and presence of mind?"

Pinging page contributors, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric, User:Akhiljaxxn, User:RegentsPark, User:Vanamonde93 and User:Kautilya3. @All, I found it strange that this important fact was missing here, I have added it. It seems that Razer did not like the content and removed it with a rather frivolous summary. May I have your opinion on this content above.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please dont misinterpret by statement. As I mentioned in the edit summary, I have no problem with the addition of this section. What I objected to was the bundling of other unrelated trivial changes in the pretext of this edit.  Razer ( talk ) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok. thanks for clarifying. I mentioned what I felt, so I am glad that you did not meant it. I was reverting an IP vandalism and in the same edit I added the section. Is there a rule that I need to make 2 edits ? if there is one, then I am not aware, so please point me to it. While reverting me, you restored vandalism by the IP in reverting me,  I have removed it again.  D Big X ray ᗙ  20:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Razer. I have simply reverted the article back to Nikkimaria's version and then added the new section. I am not the one who made these other changes. Please do not blame me for it. Blame the IP vandal.  D Big X ray ᗙ  20:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Alright. There seems to be a confusion. I have self reverted my edits as it seems like "Radical" was in the original stable version and the IP changed it to "Revolutionary". Although I still prefer the term Revolutionary, I understand that the current consensus is with the radical version. Again, I should know better, but the whole confusion would have be avoided if you would have first reverted the "Vandalism" and then made your changes. With a cursory glance , It looked like you made some trivial changes with the addition of a separate section. Razer ( talk ) 20:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * all right. Glad, it is clear to everyone now.
 *  D Big X ray ᗙ  20:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note:- Salam notes ...Incidentally, he is said to have added the prefix 'Veer' to his name himself through a biography, he himself authored. Called Life of Barrister Savarkar, the book came out a couple of years after Savarkar was released from prison...., wich he sources to Kulkarni. Now, Kulkarni (largely) asked a rhetorical question but never provided any conclusive answer in his piece for The Wire.I note that a copy of the alleged autobiography (1987; available over a site run by his extended family) don't use the part. word Veer anywhere. R.A. Jahagirdar, an ex-judge of Bombay High Court has mentioned (pg. 142) of a total lack of clarity in the published literature about this epithet and derived (from personal correspondence) that Mrs. Bhopatkar, a legal counsel of Savarkar ,and the editor of Bhala, a Marathi periodical had dubbed Savarkar as Veer.The equation of Chitragupta to Savarkar also looks extremely dubious, to my eyes given that he (quasi-magically) asserts it (Pg. 4-5) based on a single line of the biography:- It was a sunny morn, the skies were clear, the beautiful roads so shady, so hospitable, so reviving, were dotted here and there by small ponds where the swans and other water birds gaily quacked and cackled, and the water lilies bloomed. How does the usage of the lines lead to the conclusion? What other sources than Salam, in the scholarly domain, accept this at face-value? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I now see that the alleged autobiography published in entirety over an anthology about Savarkar (ed: V. Grover) indeed starts with Shri Swatantra Veer Barrister Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose life we mean to sketch, is the second son of the highly. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I see that M. Zubair, co-founder of AltNews.in provides a picture of the first page of the original 1926 book and it does not tally with Grover's copy. No mention of Veer in the first page, and frankly, it corresponds with the copy held by his family-run site. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There was an updated edition (1939), in between. Did Grover choose that edition? Anybody who can access the bibliography? But did the 1987 edition choose to ignore the 1939 version? Weird.
 * Now, if the 1939 edition mentioned "Veer" contra 1926, we can't tell that the epithet was self-awarded for the updates were incorporated by some "Indra Prakash" and moreover, "Veer" had already entered popular discourse, by that time. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Savarkar's official website may have those. The wiki article doesn't state that Veer was self awarded.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm but my doubts about Chitragupt==Savarkar remain. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Vinayak Chaturvedi notes  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Over Perception, Narration and Reinvention: The Pedagogy and Historiography of the Indian Uprising (Mutiny at the Margins: Volume VI) (ed: Crispin Bates), Chaturvedi notes:- &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 10:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Over Savarkar (1883–1966), Sedition and Surveillance: the rule of law in a colonial situation, Janaki Bahle notes:- To the best of my memory, she was speaking somewhere where she rejected Chitragupta being Savarkar.  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A Hons. thesis (though not a HISTRS) notes  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To draw a conclusion, we need to re-write the section about autobiography and re-title it, as well. There exists considerable doubt about whether Chitragupt was Savarkar. Page . &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pincine's above-referred thesis notes:-  &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Absent any response, I have incorporated the elements of doubt. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Absent any response, I have incorporated the elements of doubt. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, to contribute to the 'Veer' debate, I have just added a Biographical section with citing a book published in 1924 two years before the 'Chitragupta' in which Savarkar is refered as Swatantraveer. Please review the edit. TIA. Santoshdts (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

we don't need to include details of every biography in this article
Hi,. While reverting my edit you have reasoned: "we don't need to include details of every biography in this article" could you please elaborate on that. The edit I made was with regards to when and who gave the title Veer to Savarkar. I had cited a cover page of a book as WP:RS. As there was a lengthy debate on this topic on Talk page, to add a WP:Honorifics Veer and the same was accepted with WP:CON though, it did not have any reliable Sources much before I edited the page. What I did was just added a reliable source to show that Savarkar was referred as Veer in a 1924 Book (As popularized as in 1926 by Chitra Gupta). If you are convinced about my intentions, I request you to Revert my edit, or if you feel the Section I've edited is inappropriate for this passage, may please add it to relevant Section. TIA.
 * I thought you were assuming that the section was for biographies of Savarkar. I don't see any discussion about "veer" on the page, that would be a more appropriate place. Also, you would need a reliable source that shows that this was the first use of veer in conjunction with Savarkar or that that's where the veer came from. --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion I referred to: which followed some discussion on this issue. The discussion was centered around a Biography "Life of Barrister Savarkar", which was published in 1926. With reference to this I provided another source clarifying that the prefix Veer was added 2 years before the said biography in 1924 and I've also cited a cover page of that 1924 book. I hope my edit did not flout any guidelines or deviate from the article. Santoshdts (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020
SwantantryaVeer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is the full name of the patriot For Mahatma Gandhi you must instead mention Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Varad52 (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This must be done Varad52 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be specific, provide reliable sources and make sure your suggestions are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Error in section "Restricted freedom in Ratnagiri"
"Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse". At that time, Gandhi was well and alive! How can you claim that Nathuram Godse was Gandhi's assassin? Do you have any source to corroborate the fact that Nathuram Godse had decided to murder Gandhi as of the year 1924? Kindly remove "Gandhi's assassin" phrase from this section unless you can provide proof that he was already committed to the assassination plot. 122.177.216.231 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how language works. Godse is best identified as Gandhi's assassin and, just as we would say "At Forest Hills, folk-rock legend Paul Simon ..." as a way to identify which Paul Simon we are referring to (though, obviously, Paul Simon was not a folk-rock legend in high school), we can, and should, write "Gandhi's assassin, Nathuram Godse" to indicate that the Nathuram Godse in question was the one who shot Gandhi. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Extradition case
Want to add more to the facts of the extradition case. Damned697 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please propose your content here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
Aditiy (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) He was represented by Karl Marx's grandson Jean Longuet in The Hague for his international human rights and wrongful detention court battle in which his legal case was argued. Jean Longuet persisted and personally handed over the copies of the memorandum to the members of the court.


 * This seems like a very specific detail to include in a fairly short section of this article. Longuet is only mentioned in one paragraph of this fairly lengthy source devoted entirely to this one episode, so it seems too much to me to include him in such detail in our two or three paragraphs. Can you explain why this detail should be included in this article in view of Wikipedia's policy WP:WEIGHT? &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020
Revert this change as influences is not a supported Infobox person parameter. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed, thank you. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021
Indian freedom fghter Radram (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations
The section of text added by contains a copyvio of this source – the paragraph starting "The cow was, for him" is directly copied from the source, which has a copyright notice at the bottom. , since you've full-protected the article I can't add the copyvio-revdel template, but could you revdel all revisions including the text added by AryaGyaan at 11:13, 23 April 2021 (including mine, sigh)? Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversies surronding Savarkar
For the sake of completness as an encyclopedia article, the article should also cite various controversies surrounding Savarkar. I see no mention of any controversies in the main article except his involvement in Gandhi's death. To mention few


 * Savarkar's letter to British asking for a premature release as well as plead of loyalty to British Raj. Followed by his non participation in any national movement for Indian Independence








 * Savarkars aggresive hatred towards Muslims and suggestion of using rape as a tool for punishment










 * There are mixed opinions amongst historians whether or not Savarkar was a womaniser. This topic has been popping up in various newspapers every now and then but I dont see a mention of this anywhere in this article. Being a womanizer is a big deal in this part of the world, the below book citation makes generalization of the topic

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar Borhade (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

adressing the points
These is the talk page to adress the issues of the user u|Dhattaa the first claim of u|Dhattaa is that i have copied mostly from savarkar.org but the truth is i have used diverse sources like quint,indian express,Savarkar Samagara etc the second claim of u|Dhataa is that my another source is my own book.Fistly,the books's name is Savarkar:_Echoes_from_a_Forgotten_Past which is written by Vikram Sampath not my me. Now.that i have adress the claims, I don't find resonable that my edits have been reverted.That why,I request u|Deepfriedokra agian add my text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryaGyaan (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for locking this page
Today is Savarkar's birthday, Hindu nationalists are removing various parts of this page showing that Savarkar supported Nazism and Fascism. Please lock this article to prevent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molkaka (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This was done at the time for a month, then expired. More edits to this article are reverted than not, so I've put it on autoconfirmed required in the hopes this will free up more time for constructive editing. If anyone feels this is too much or too little protection, feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to think/discuss about changing all reference to 'Bombay' to 'Mumbai' .. Thank you..
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.197.230 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mumbai didn't officially get that name until 1995, so using it in this article would be anachronistic. -- Beland (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some Sentences Seems to be missing under "Muslims" tag or whatever that is called.
I feel it looks incomplete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushilShandilya (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the stray text "On the other" was accidentally added to this section by this edit. I have removed it; it does not appear any text was incompletely deleted at that time. -- Beland (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to fix the hyperlink
Hi there,

The hyperlink of hindutva ideology that Savarkar's wiki page redirects to, speaks of a different/concocted exclusive ideology as is practiced today by perhaps some people. That page has minimal to no mention of hindutva as Savarkar ideologised it. It's ambiguous/misleading that we attribute his name as a founder on an ideology he didn't even form by hyperlinking to this new age hindutva page, just because someone decided to use the same name for their new movement. 'The Hindutva : who is a hindu' "book" wiki page is of Savarkar's own book with the "themes" section being the hindutva that he professed/founded. Please redirect the mentions of hindutva on Savarkar's page to the "themes" section of his book page to avoid the ambiguity. Alternatively, this savarkar biography article has its own sub section on Hindutva which is focused on Savarkar's hindutva - you can redirect it to that itself. Just not to the standalone hindutva article which is unrelated to Savarkar.

Thank you, TruthBeforePolity (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, to add the recently released (only chronicled?) biographies of this person to the "further reading" section. The biography link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savarkar_(book) TruthBeforePolity (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar → Veer Savarkar – Veer Savarkar easily qualifies to be the title under the WP:COMMONNAME clause. A simple google search of "Savarkar" reveals that almost all of the contemporary discourses address him as "Veer Savarkar". Although Veer being a honorific title, allegedly self styled, it supersedes it for being used commonly, just like how MK Gandhi's article is Mahatma Gandhi. Appu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Appu (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the modern sources addressing him as "Veer" are doing so in a non-neutral light, as though glorifying Savarkar many years after his death somehow enhances Hindu nationalism. In particular the use of the honorific seems to have been appropriated by OpIndia and Modi allies, meanwhile sources from Savarkar's own time are quite mixed. Better I think to use his full name. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose – in applying the WP:COMMONNAME test in a politically charged topic area we should be careful to rely on . Independent scholarly sources appear to refer to Savarkar as "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar" or "VD Savarkar". I also agree with Ivenvector's analysis above. Wham2001 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021
Change "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Madame Cama's home in Paris." to "Hoping to evade arrest, Savarkar moved to Bhikaiji Cama's home in Paris." 1.39.30.28 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of The Holocaust in Fascism section

 * What I think should be changed: It should be mentioned in the Fascism section, that some comments of savarkar praising Nazis were made before the Holocaust began
 * Why it should be changed: Because the current version forms a perception that he supported the holocaust, event though his comments were made before that event
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

2405:201:D006:904B:6031:1085:CDE0:EE (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It does not appear there is consensus for this change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I have added dates and precise comments to avoid misimpressions on a reader. Cheers. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * More at 1, 2. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing 'This was omitted in his later writings; his 1925 Hindu-pad-paatshahi included Hindu heroes but not Muslim ones'

 * What I think should be changed: Removing the line 'This was omitted in his later writings; his 1925 Hindu-pad-paatshahi included Hindu heroes but not Muslim ones' from the Muslim section
 * Why it should be changed: The justification for asking Muslim heroes in Savarkar's book Hindu-pad-paatshahi doesn't make much sense since, Hindu-pad-paatshahi was just a biographical book about Maratha rulers, who were Hindus for obvious reasons. There is no source provided for this line either.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): http://savarkarsmarak.com/activityimages/Hindupadpatshahi%20%20Eng.pdf

Yosoko (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wiki, You have wrongly mentioned Swatantryaveer Savarkar.
Dear Wiki, You have wrongly mentioned Swatantryaveer (Freedom fighter) Veer Savarkar as "Indian Politician". Please correct the search heading description from incorrect as #politician to correct as #freedom fighter. We in India praise him as one of the great freedom fighter along with Lokmanya Tilak, Subhashchandra Bose, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and many such great sons of India. Do some research before lebelling our freedom fighters as politicians. He was in British jails for almost two decades in his life for India's freedom struggle along with nationalists. By mentioning him as a politician, Wiki is insulting our sentiments. Wiki can mentiin Jawaharlal Nehru as a politician on the basis of his contesting political positions, carrying out political agendas and even enjoying political seats in government in power. Hope you will correct this promptly. Jai Hind 🇮🇳

Thanks n regards, 103.225.134.119 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion, but please see WP:LABEL for why Wikipedia generally prefers neutral descriptors (such as "artist", "politician", "teacher") over value labels ("freedom fighter", "revolutionary", "terrorist"). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia chooses to be neutral. Your sentiments matter nowhere. Appu (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for adding Revolutionary
The article can be improved by adding Revolutionary in the introductory line. Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.

Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cites him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.

Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.

Swati Parashar, professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.

Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.

TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his article on Calcutta Telegraph.

Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.

Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar part 1 and 2).

Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, a colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.

Sources: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging of war against the King Yosoko (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are not reading the sources you are citing. For example, Swati Parashar wrote:
 * Does this sound like Swati Parashar herself called him a "revolutionary"?
 * There is no point repeating your same post again. It failed to convince anybody then and it doesn't convince anybody now. If you want to make any progress, you need good sources (other than Sampath or his reviewers) and you need to represent them accurately. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Yosoko I don't know much about him, but Savarkar and his older brother Ganesh Savarkar started the Mitra Mela, an underground revolutionary organisation in 1899 in Nashik. It became Abhinav Bharat later. More from the source -
 * User:Yosoko I don't know much about him, but Savarkar and his older brother Ganesh Savarkar started the Mitra Mela, an underground revolutionary organisation in 1899 in Nashik. It became Abhinav Bharat later. More from the source -


 * I have no issue if you want to add it but others seems to differ on the matter. So you have to achieve a consensus to put it. Akshaypatill (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the article hasn't anything about this. Here are some more scholarly sources if you want to write about it. -
 * In Indian independence context, revolutionary is exclusively used only for those who advocated violence to achieve political aims. As long as the word is accompanied by a footnote with sources describing what I have written above, then there should not be any issue with calling Savarkar a revolutionary. My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If a term is used in a unique sense in India, which differs from its general meaning, we shouldn't be using it, especially in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also worth looking at what the lead used to say in the old days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Kautilya3. I agree. I don't know how significant it is in the context of national history but, Mitramela and Abhinav Bharat are quite familiar names in the history of Maharashtra (Revolutionary groups). Yosoko seemed interested in it, so I put some scholarly sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If a term is used in a unique sense in India, which differs from its general meaning, we shouldn't be using it, especially in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also worth looking at what the lead used to say in the old days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Kautilya3. I agree. I don't know how significant it is in the context of national history but, Mitramela and Abhinav Bharat are quite familiar names in the history of Maharashtra (Revolutionary groups). Yosoko seemed interested in it, so I put some scholarly sources. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding Revoluntionary in introduction

 * What I think should be changed: 'Revolutionary' should be added in the first introductory line before 'Politician'.
 * Why it should be changed: Savarkar was involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout.

Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California calls him a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.

Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.

Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.

Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.

TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.

Author and Historian, Manu S Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.

Hope this would suffice. Thanks.

Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Yosoko (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Do any of these references refer to Savarkar as revolutionary? It sounds to me like you're applying a dictionary definition of the word to other descriptions of his activities, or taking his involvement in revolutionary movements and extending the same label to him. On Wikipedia, that's a practice called synthesis - taking information from multiple sources and using it to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's a form of original research, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. If there are sources that directly support your request, please point them out specifically and feel free to reopen this request (by changing "yes" to "no" in the template text at the top of this section). &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have edited it. Yosoko (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: - As this is not likely to be an uncontroversial edit, a consensus should be developed on this page before using the "edit request" template. PianoDan (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on Revolutionary being added to introduction of Savarkar
The need of it: Savarkar seems to be involved in revolutionary activities since his early years and has been called revolutionary throughout history and biographies.

Vinayak Chaturvedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California cite him as a 'revolutionary' in his A revolutionary's biography: the case of V D Savarkar Postcolonial Study Journal.

Janaki Bakhle, Associate professor of Indian history at the University of California, mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: Echoes of Forgotten Past (Book) in India Today.

Swati Parashar, a professor at the Gothenburg University calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in an article related to Savarkar: A contested Legacy (Book) in The Hindu.

Madhav Khosla, professor of Political Science at Ashoka University, calls Savarkar a 'revolutionary' in his online article in Hindustan Times.

TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, current Director-General of the Indian Council of World Affairs mentions Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his online article on Calcutta Telegraph.

Author and Historian, Manu S. Pillai cites Savarkar as a 'revolutionary' in his review article of the book Savarkar: A contested Legacy in Open The Magazine.

Biographer Dhananjay Kheer and historian Vikram Sampath have cited him as a revolutionary in their respective biographies about Savarkar. (Life of Veer Savarkar and Savarkar: Echoes from the forgotten past).

Wikipedia defines Revolutionary as 'In politics, a revolutionary is someone who supports abrupt, rapid, and drastic change, usually replacing the status quo.' Savarkar received Two transportation for life (a total of fifty years) at the Kala Paani, Port Blair which was the first and only colonial prison settlement established by the British. Savarkar was convicted for waging war against the King for providing arms in Jackson’s murder case.

References: Vinayak Chaturvedi Janaki Bakhle Swati Parashar Madhav Khosla TCA Srinivasa Raghavan Manu S Pillai Dhananjay Kheer Vikram Sampath Waging war against the King Yosoko (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite apart frpm the fact that this does not meet WP:RFCBRIEF at all, you shouldn't jump straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC without exhausting WP:RFCBEFORE. For instance, have you asked for assistance at any WikiProjects? There are six listed at the top of this page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Caste
Please consult this discussion. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Keer should be used as a source when scholarly sources are available. I don't think he's politically biased, as much as his shtick was writing flowery biographies of historical figures for a popular audience. There's also a due weight concern here; is there enough material on Savarkar's views on caste to include here at all, and if there is, is it all discussing his efforts to end caste-discrimination? I know there's discussion of his views on caste in sources that examine his views on nationalism, and this might be worth mentioning; but I see we already have a brief discussion of this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not claim that Keer is "politically biased"? To quote from the linked thread, Keer is an unreliable hagiographer.
 * As of now, I think there is enough material for a line or two on his anti-caste credentials: consult the quotes from Megha Kumar and Aparna Devare. If we wait for a few more months, Vinayak Chaturvedi's upcoming book (SUNY; 2022) as well as Janaki Bakhle's intellectual biography (2023) will be helpful to the cause. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're saying Keer is politically biased, I was explaining myself at length. I'm not convinced we need more content than currently exists, just explaining my position, in the interests of a stronger consensus. I would hope that the user inserting this content would join the discussion, but given that they were obviously responding to twitter commentary, I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

, you have used two articles by Vikram Sampath, who is not only an uncritical biographer but also (apparently) a plagiarist. Another two citations are to Keer, who is widely accepted to be a hagiopgrapher. Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.

That leaves us with two more sources (arguably, the most reliable of the lot but short of HISTRS), which you have misrepresented. Shamsul Islam writes that Savarkar had defended casteism as an integral component of Hindu nation but nonetheless fought against untouchability - this was not because of some grand egalitarian vision but preventing conversion of LC Hindus to Islam! Ashraf repeats such a narrative. And this is indeed the consensus in scholarship, as quotes from Megha Kumar and Aparna Devare attest to. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * TrangaBellam, whether Vikram Sampath is uncritical or not should be determined by peer reviewed studies published in papers spitting infallible facts. Not only there is no such paper, but some low quality amateur web articles tried to contend that "Sampath quoted a letter by Ambedkar to Savarkar, but only one, not more", as if Ambedkar should be writing dozens of letters for the author to accept his view as sacrosanct. Such amateur rebuttal belongs to TikTok, not an erudite pursuit like Wikipedia, so until a sacrosanct peer-reviewed article comes up rebutting Sampath's book on multiple counts, his "uncritical bias" is as good as imaginary. Shamsul Islam indeed writes that Savarkar did that to prevent conversion but that is entirely his own view, superimposing it on the incontrovertible fact that Savarkar did crusade for eradication of untouchability, arranged inter-caste dinners and mingling. That view, therefore, is as useful as Audrey Truschke's view that Aurangzeb did not destroy as many temples as Maasir-i-Alamgiri says but much less, superimposing her "point of view" on a primary source which is much more valuable than what she offers. Views of eminent historians do merit the occasional acceptance as mainstream strands of reasonability, but that is for truly eminent historians like Gibbon or R.C Majumdar or Toynbee, not amateur historians like Truschkey (whose works are so superficial that pages after pages can be debunked factually, something I am currently pursuing) or Islam. Whether Keer is accepted as a hagiographer is equally contested, nobody apart from you has said so, and your credentials in this regard are equally non-existent as mine, so that point is moot as well. Whether Sampath is a plagiarist is also contestable, the honourable Supreme Court of India recently gave verdict that those claims are without substance and asked for over a dozen of such articles to be retracted. Audrey Truschkey, one of the "accused" in that trial, tried to get an online document up claiming that this was "harassment" and avowed that it was signed by lot of eminent personalities (including "Zakir Naik", true to her spirit), many of whom immediately tendered their refusals of having even ever seeing that document, much less signing it, upon which she characteristically retracted that document and blamed it all on "Hindu RW", so there goes your evidence of "plagiarism". However, Savarkar did indeed defend casteism, and hence, the logic that he fought against casteism mainly for practical grounds rather than egalitarian ones, is justified, so I have no qualms if you mention the same in the article, or in fact, I myself will do it later. But everything else is factual, and I will revert your removal as many times as you revert it without ample reasons. 19:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Promising to edit-war isn't helping your case, nor is using unreliable sources. If we're contextualizing Savarkar's opposition to castism, I'm not opposed to elaborating on it. But 4kb of text is undue weight, your text needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone ("Savarkar held that those who regarded such inhuman faith as abhorred the touch of a human being and yet gladly touched animals like dogs and cats were themselves a blot on humanity." is language that's barely appropriate to an Op-Ed, let alone an encyclopedia) and your section title isn't neutral. More importantly, you are the one seeking to add content to this article; you need to establish consensus in its favor. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The edit-war was started by TrangaBellam originally when she removed three entire sections without any concrete reasoning, despite ample citations present in the content. As for the tone, I will modify the tone to fit the standards here, I merely reverted the original content for that part. As for adding content, I am adding content with sufficient citations. Sampath has been claimed to be "plagiarizing" and "uncritical" - neither point stands proven as of today except some opeds with as much credibility for one cause as that of Hindu RW opeds to its opposite. Unreliability itself is a touchy subject, Eaton is considered a reliable source, yet he bundles Shah Jahan's destructions of 70 temples in Varanasi alone as just "one temple destruction" (further discounting that Shah Jahan had in fact ordered for all temples to be destroyed in the province of Allahabad, and Varanasi was just one place of note in Allahabad, there were many more), as you can see in the Scroll article by Girish Shahane. Eaton is routinely cited blindly by pretty much every historian working on Mughals, from Audrey Truschke to Romila Thapar, so in turn those studies are equally problematic when it comes to reliability, and those studies are often used in Wikipedia on relevant articles as "authentic reliable source". 19:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is meant for discussing Savarkar and relevant scholarship. How is Richard M. Eaton's scholarship on destruction of temples by Muslim rulers in premodern India or Audrey Truschke's scholarship on Aurangzeb relevant to our subject?
 * Please obtain a consensus from RSN for using Sampath; we are not beholden to Courts of India but to academic scholars. I notice that you have carefully skipped addressing the issue of abominable citations, that I had raised.
 * The only substantial argument is that nobody apart from [me] has said Keer to be a hagiographer. Please consult Judith M. Brown's review of the work in Archives (British Records Association) - Vol 9 - Issue 43 - p. 178-179 - April 1970. Or, Jyotirmaya Sharma. “History as Revenge and Retaliation: Rereading Savarkar’s ‘The War of Independence of 1857.’” Economic and Political Weekly 42, no. 19 (2007): 1717–19. I can go on. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Supreme Court of India was in context of you calling Sampath a "plagiarist", it has not been proven, the only known international historian of some repute to have called him so was Audrey Truschke, and when directed by Supreme Court of India to retract her statement on grounds of it having little substance, she ended up displaying a document about her harassment, forging signatures by eminent personalities who rejected her claim of having signed the document, upon which she retracted the document (curiously enough, she had also mentioned Zakir Naik as a signatory, which certainly is an indicator of the authenticity of her claims).
 * I mentioned Eaton because you mentioned "uncritical", Eaton is just an example of a historian whose work is considered near-Biblical in it being used a reference by all and sundry, and yet a Scroll article by Girish Shahane shows how much he misconstrued and dissembled to the point of being qualified as "uncritical" as well, and yet he is used copiously in articles that are directly affected by his "uncritical" view - example, the article on Aurangzeb. So that is not a cogent argument for rejecting Sampath as a solid source, none of Sampath's work has had any factual refutal yet, unlike Eaton's.
 * Regarding Keer, the historians you offer are not significant enough that their opinions can be used to completely repudiate a substantial work on Savarkar. Brown is another historian in another university, there are hundreds of such universities around the world, having thousands of historians, and each will have opinions that are personal, many modern historians often consider Jadunath Sarkar a "colonialist", that doesn't mean that Sarkar cannot be quoted as an authoritative source on Indian history. The fact that Keer has been labelled as hagiographer by some and hence his work may need additional citation to justify its presence here is acceptable, which is what I have mostly done here.
 * Which abominable citations you are talking about? As for RSN, Sampath's books have been well received by many eminent personalities (I can share links to reviews and articles), the burden is on you to prove that they are biased and the book's content is not good enough or in fact erroneous and hence those praises are not a good ground to justify its usage here. Sampath is a Fellow of Royal Historical Society as well, which is a rather prestigious position, accorded to eminent historians, so onus is on you, really, to disprove the authenticity of him and his books. Cupidvogel (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the only known international historian of some repute to have called him so was Audrey Truschke
 * No. Our article says, Chaturvedi [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Irvine] expressed his disappointment at Sampath's lack of ethical standards; Bakhle [Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Berkeley] requested that Sampath offer a public apology for what was unequivocal plagiarism and retract the publication.
 * Once again, I will stay away from digressions on Eaton et al.
 * Indeed, we do not cite Jadunath Sarkar or R. C. Majumdar (or Toynbee or Gibbon). We accord a higher preference to recent scholarship. There exists an uniform reception of Keer as a hagiographer.
 * For using Sampath, you need to approach RSN or WT:INB - please convince others and prove me wrong. Our article on the book features three historians —Bakhle, Pillai, and Bhattacharya—reviewing it and uniformly condemning it for being a well-researched but uncritical piece of work. Parashar and Khosla are not historians but political scientists. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither Chaturvedi nor Bakhle remotely qualify as historians of "international repute" (neither do Truschke, for that matter, except that she is directly involved in this matter), plus Bakhle is the subject of the plagiarism row, and hence she has to be recused as an authentic source. Being a professor in a university hardly qualifies one to be "internationally reputed".
 * Whether you cite Sarkar/Majumdar or not hardly matters, historiography cannot be refused simply because it is old, it can and should be refused only when there is recent historiography which is substantial and authentic and proves conclusively that the older historiography is incorrect. And that, too, extends only to the portions that have been discredited, not the remainder of the works which still stand unblemished. Toynbee has been discredited on many counts indeed, but neither Sarkar nor Majumdar has been factually refuted, at least in the contexts mentioned here, and hence they do not belong within the ambit of this discussion.
 * The entire uniform reception of Keer as a hagiographer exists only in your imagination, but I get it that you have couple of administrators who will side with you no matter what, so I will remove him as citation and find another source.
 * Pillai has some reservations about the book, but he also praised it a lot, there is hardly any book which stands praised end to end, that does not mean that you will use that as a tool to discredit people at will citing that "yes, this work had <x> features but not <y> features, hence it must be repudiated". However, I will remove this source as well.
 * Apart from Sampath and Keer, is there any contentious source in the content I had added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupidvogel (talk • contribs) 06:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That question has been answered long ago: Three citations are to op-eds by "Rajiv Tuli" (member of the state executive of Delhi RSS) and "Vinay Nalwa", whose credentials are unknown. One citation is to Savarkar himself and one is to The Bridge Chronicle, which is not a RS.
 * I do not see how Sarkar or Majumdar belong in the contexts mentioned here, which is about Savarkar and caste. If they have written anything these topics, please bring them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , Cupidvogel is not learning. They have restored the substance of their edits—on this occasion, using a new set of dubious sources—despite being twice reverted by me and V93. I will appreciate another page-block. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment by Cupidvogel to the next subsection. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Round 2
Among the new sources is a popular biography by "Chirayu Pandit" and "Uday Mahurkar". Pandit's scholarly credentials remain unknown while Mahurkar's appears to be a quid pro quo relationship to the incumbent ruling party in India. Interestingly, the book is foreworded by the supremo of a Hindu Nationalist organization. I cannot find any reviews over mainstream media. Yet another popular biography by "Vaibhav K. Purandare" has been cited. I am uncertain about Purandare's qualifications but a review over The Caravan is uniformly negative.Two blogs (open the link) by a "Rajesh Pathak" (credentials - ?) have been used. Consult WP:TOI in particular.Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * which part of the new sources is dubious? How is it that any source which writes about Savarkar is automatically dubious? What exactly constitutes "dubious"? None of what I stated was a matter of interpretation that can be clubbed as dubious, for example, "Savarkar did it because he thought " can be construed as dubious, but "Savarkar built a temple for Dalits called Patit Paban mandir in 1931" cannot be dubious, since there are multiple sources corroborating it, and the temple indeed exists in Maharashtra. What is your proof for the new sources being dubious?
 * I will make this easy for you. You cannot use any non-academic source at this article; consult the section on fascism that I wrote.
 * If you had bothered to read the thread linked at the top of this section, you would have come across this comment: Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Cupidvogel, the basic problem here is that you don't seem to understand what due weight means. Wikipedia does not reproduce any and all information found in sources; we summarize what sources say, giving more weight to higher quality sources. Savarkar is a very well-studied subject. Reams of scholarly material exist. Under the circumstances, using books from the popular press is questionable at best, and the popular media should only be used when there's essential biographical detail not covered by better sources. It isn't enough for the temple to have been mentioned in one or two sources; you need to demonstrate that a discussion of the temple is necessary to any faithful summary of what high-quality sources have to say about Savarkar's views on caste. And as the person seeking to make the change, the onus is on you to establish consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022
Request that Indian Politician as description be changed to Indian Freedom Fighter 122.172.86.36 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Violates neutral point of view per WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER. Also unsourced. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No source
No reliable source cited for many statements like below:

“Savarkar was openly critical of the decision taken by the Congress working committee in its Wardha session of 1942 to a resolution which said to the British colonial government: "Quit India but keep your armies here", which was intended to defend India against a possible Japanese invasion; Savarkar was opposed to any form of Britain's presence in India whatsoever.” 2A02:810D:B5BF:FB5C:6491:5DF1:2E02:3F22 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

discussion about Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade
Dear Luke Emily, I have read your remark hence I have provided this citation below.

https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade

I am from Veer Savarkar's native province of Maharashtra hence can state that Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade (not to be confused with another author Sadashiv Bhaskar Ranade) was a prominent writer in that era. Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in 1924 hence the book written by Chitragupta in 1926 in any case cannot be regarded as the first to describe him as Veer as someone else had already done that 2 years ago.

https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade Nikhilc83 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

, the english source is not mentioning the writer. Also, the writer does not change the fact that he called himself brave while writing in the third person(even if someone else did that 2 years earlier). I am not an expert on the subject and we can ping other editors. If there are too many opinions, it may be better to move 'veer' to the body and give all opinions. Also, please can you translate the title of the source in English, please?LukeEmily (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luke Emily, Let us understand first of all that Veer Savarkar is a venerated freedom fighter in India. It is not agreeable that a respected person is described in the first paragraph of his introduction itself that he called himself a hero in 1926 (when there is ample evidence that a contemporary writer of that era gave him the same title 2 years ago). Facts speak beyond the barriers of language. The book mentioned in the citation is in the Marathi language which describes itself as a biography of Veer Savarkar. This is a web citation but i have images stored with me of the original book of Swatantraveer Savarkar by Sadashiv Ranade of 1924 edition duly stamped by the publishing house as well as by the library which housed it. Thanks to you for considering my request and appreciate your kind cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilc83 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022
Remove. The source is WP:BIASED mouthpiece as National Herald is owned by Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi of INC,. 2409:4073:2E80:6E9F:89AC:944D:8395:6F49 (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Removed National Herald as it is not reliable on wikipedia. Replaced by other sources. I am not sure how reliable they are but we should remove the statement if they are deemed unreliable and no reliable source is found. Pinging as he/she was the one who added the source and the statement.LukeEmily (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , whether it was penned by Savarkar himself or not is secondary. If he is widely known among his followers as "Veer", then that alone is notable in the lead, the detailing part should go to the body, per MOS:OPEN and MOS:LEADBIO.--2409:4073:10D:E254:5960:E4D:E4D4:5005 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I moved it to the second sentence and removed it from the first sentence. It is quite small anyway. You can discuss with the editor who added the penned clause if you want to move it. I was not aware of this fact before and assumed that the title was given to him later by the Govt of India or some prominent person.LukeEmily (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022
Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records.

Please Remove Below Line as it is incorrect: penned by Savarkar himself, in a biography that he wrote about himself under the name "Chitragupta".[3][4] Nikhilc83 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fact: Writer Sadashiv Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in his book in 1924 among available records. Nikhilc83 (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , the fact is that he did write a book about himself in the third person and called himself "veer"(brave). It is also not clear who Sadashiv Ranade was, was he also a pseudonym? I dont have any issues with any text but it has to be well sourced. Even if there is a book or article in 1924 that calls him "veer", it still does not change the fact that he did write a book under a different name where he used the prefix. I have modified the text to remove the word "penned", only that he used the name to refer to himself(by writing as a different author). That is quite accurate. If you have more reliable sources we can add more information about this. Please discuss this with other editors.LukeEmily (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have fixed the syntax and added both sources. Please can you find an english source that mentions Ranade? Ranade is mentioned on the page now but it is not clear why the English sources do not mention him.LukeEmily (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Luke Emily, keeping both references is ok of Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book of 1924 and Chitragupta's source of 1926 however then Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's reference ideally must come first as it was 2 years earlier than Chitragupta. Moreover Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade's book is in Marathi and does not have an English translation however it is widely known in provincial circles and is available on Amazon too. Nikhilc83 (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022
Add before “In 1948…” 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. Gopalchan45678 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't see how this trivial information is important. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023
Under the Religion and political views : Hindutva, add a statement "Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar considered Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj as one of his GURUs and has been a follower of strategies of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj." Bapathv (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023
Please include sentence Indian freedom fighter. 94.15.103.87 (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

the origin of Savarkar's honorific prefix Veer
please change "He started using the honorific prefix Veer ("brave") since he wrote his autobiography." to "He was referred to with the honorific prefix "Veer" ("brave") after author Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade wrote the short biography Swatantryaveer Savarkar Yanche Sankshipt Charitra." Shivani2123 (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Provide source for the claim that he supported 2 nation theory
"He also supported the two-nation theory." Factpineapple (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fake information
This article is full of wrong and misleading narrations about Sri Savarkar who was a great freedom fighter. Might be fabricated by Jihadi - Congress supporters 117.214.56.202 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please give details of the "fake information" you have seen in the article so that other editors can review that information.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear Luke Emily
Dear Luke Emily, I have read your remark hence I have provided this citation below.

https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade

I am from Veer Savarkar's native province of Maharashtra hence can state that Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade (not to be confused with another author Sadashiv Bhaskar Ranade) was a prominent writer in that era. Sadashiv Rajaram Ranade described Savarkar as Veer or Swatantraveer in 1924 hence the book written by Chitragupta in 1926 in any case cannot be regarded as the first to describe him as Veer as someone else had already done that 2 years ago.

https://archive.org/details/swatantraveersavarkarsadashivarajaramranade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilc83 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-british activist
It seems "Freedom fighter" is not allowed to describe Savarkar. Can we use the term "Anti-British activist" instead? Afterall, he spent a total of twenty-seven years either in jail, or under restricted movement for his anti-british activities.I also don't mind if activist is substituted with "terrorist" or revolutionary.The latter is usually prefered in India for people who advocated violence to end British rule.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anti-British activist who wrote mercy petitions to the British and complied with them until the end of time. That made no sense. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't add his anti-British terrorist activities in the lede then people unfamiliar with his story wouldn't know why he was incarcerated by the British colonial authorities. Yes, one can say he repented, and asked for mercy when facing a life sentence on the Andaman islands.￼Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Confinement Vs movement restriction
Savarkar was restricted from traveling from 1924-1937. 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)
 * 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)

Cause of Death Rename
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)


 * @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)

Sigh
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)
 * 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)

Ambiguous reference
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)


 * The reference I am talking about is Citation no.6 "Salam 2018, p. 32." मंदार १ (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * There are also several old discussions on this which may be informative: Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)

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)


 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * @Capitals00 This source 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  title: "दोन तात्या"( Marathi) written by Dr. B. V. Datar मंदार १ (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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). 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)


 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * Yes your proposed sentence makes sense. Capitals00 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Life of Barrister Savarkar" seems irrelevant to the discussion, because nobody has said that the term "Veer Savarkar" appeared in it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 The book is not irrelevant as multiple sources including "The Wire" mention that this book is their reference. मंदार १ (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even the source like "National Herald" mentions that this book by Chitragupta (Pen-name of Savarkar) calls Savarkar a Veer. In that article the book's name is slightly changed to "Life of Veer Savarkar" keeping the author same(Chitragupta). I think they had typing error since no other book with title "Life of Veer Savarkar" is to be found.
 * This is the article by the National Herald.
 * https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/is-a-bharat-ratna-in-the-offing-the-real-savarkar-and-his-brave-admirers
 * If multiple sources are referring to the same book, then it does become relevant to the sentence and current discussion. You can see the article from Deccan Herald as well.
 * https://www.deccanherald.com/india/10-interesting-facts-about-vinayak-veer-damodar-savarkar-769628.html
 * Special note : Dhananjay Keer's book has the title "Veer Savarkar" and not "Life of Veer Savarkar" to rule him out from current discussion. मंदार १ (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like @Capitals00said above if the book "Life of Barrister Savarkar" is the source of Savarkar calling himself Veer( also said by various references he has given), then we should put the book's name in the article and not limit it to Talk page. मंदार १ (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dhananjaya Keer wrote that book decades after the autobiography from Savarkar. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 That's why I want to keep him out of discussion. मंदार १ (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are not reliable sources for history, especially not when owned by political parties. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

From the Chaturvedi book
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Kautilya3 The Wire has said it though. मंदार १ (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It didn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wire and Jansatta concludes that the 1926 autobiography called him "Veer". Capitals00 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * See National Herald. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The sources describe that, "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, also referred to as Veer Savarkar by his followers", "popularly hailed as Veer Savarkar by his acolyte followers", and "Savarkar, who is referred to with the prefix Veer (fearless) by his admirers". 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Misleading Information
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)

Hindu atheism
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:
 * Special:Diff/1212526377: "Removed the line stating that Savarkar was an atheist. Since he was a Hindu, he cannot be an atheist."
 * Special:Diff/1212615177: restored, "deletion of sourced content"
 * Special:Diff/1212987066: removed, no edit summary
 * Special:Diff/1213078573: restored, "unexplained removal of sourced content; edit has been reverted previously"
 * Special:Diff/1214222966: removed, "Far complex than a 'label'"

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 contains this text:

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, , ) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On this issue, Janaki Bakhle has this to say:
 * 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)
 * 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)

Inaccurate information
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)
 * 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)

Sikhistan
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
 * It looks like it was partly a primary source and partly a Jinnah's commentary. And it is not covered in the body. I am removing it as WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. I have added one more source. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Not "WP:FAKE" because the book by Shamsul Islam verifies the content. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. 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."
 * 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)