The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems someone who edited this page has a problem with Veer Savarkar. A freedom fighter is not allowed to be recognized as a freedom fighter, and a special condition is put to prevent others from doing so. Add the adjective 'Freedom Fighter', as well as 'Social Reformer'. Please demand if any evidences or citations required, I will present them accordingly. India2024 ( talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
There's a significant bit of code producing the text "Savarkar was an atheist" in the first paragraph that has seen some edit warring recently:
For background, "Savarkar was an atheist" was added in this edit on 15 December 2019, and the source was added on 28 August 2020; it's been stable since then. The argument that he can't be an atheist because he was Hindu doesn't hold up: our article Hindu atheism explains the concept of atheism within Hindu philosphy. The provided source ( [1]) contains this text:
Nothing expressed Savarkar's tough-minded atheism better than his refusal to allow any Hindu religious ritual or rite when his wife died, notwithstanding public protests and Satyagraha by some of his followers. He did not even want her body to be brought home, saying that it was “no use lamenting over the dead body” (Keer Citation1950, 529–530).
Besides the citation, the article pretty clearly (in the "religious and political views" section) describes how Savarkar worked to divorce Hindu identity from religion, and was a critic of Hindu religious practices. I don't think this removal was valid and certainly hasn't been adequately justified, but I'd like to hear other opinions before I restore it. (Courtesy ping Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, PSDA1) Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The separation Nandy suggested between religion and nation was also not quite right. Savarkar was not truly or fully an atheist, as much as he projected himself as a rational, modern thinker. Neither, however, did he fully abjure the fundamentality of the ideas of sacred and profane, transposing them onto a modern political ideology that simultaneously drew its power from religious traditions and affective modes of representation, while recommitting them all to a modernist project of national unity and strength. [1]
References
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)
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
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems someone who edited this page has a problem with Veer Savarkar. A freedom fighter is not allowed to be recognized as a freedom fighter, and a special condition is put to prevent others from doing so. Add the adjective 'Freedom Fighter', as well as 'Social Reformer'. Please demand if any evidences or citations required, I will present them accordingly. India2024 ( talk) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
There's a significant bit of code producing the text "Savarkar was an atheist" in the first paragraph that has seen some edit warring recently:
For background, "Savarkar was an atheist" was added in this edit on 15 December 2019, and the source was added on 28 August 2020; it's been stable since then. The argument that he can't be an atheist because he was Hindu doesn't hold up: our article Hindu atheism explains the concept of atheism within Hindu philosphy. The provided source ( [1]) contains this text:
Nothing expressed Savarkar's tough-minded atheism better than his refusal to allow any Hindu religious ritual or rite when his wife died, notwithstanding public protests and Satyagraha by some of his followers. He did not even want her body to be brought home, saying that it was “no use lamenting over the dead body” (Keer Citation1950, 529–530).
Besides the citation, the article pretty clearly (in the "religious and political views" section) describes how Savarkar worked to divorce Hindu identity from religion, and was a critic of Hindu religious practices. I don't think this removal was valid and certainly hasn't been adequately justified, but I'd like to hear other opinions before I restore it. (Courtesy ping Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, PSDA1) Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The separation Nandy suggested between religion and nation was also not quite right. Savarkar was not truly or fully an atheist, as much as he projected himself as a rational, modern thinker. Neither, however, did he fully abjure the fundamentality of the ideas of sacred and profane, transposing them onto a modern political ideology that simultaneously drew its power from religious traditions and affective modes of representation, while recommitting them all to a modernist project of national unity and strength. [1]
References
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)
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