Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Add the term 'Freedom Fighter' for Swatantryaveer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

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)

He is not a a freedom fighter, just a hindutva activist who would bow down to the british for his needs. Witchilich (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. That's why Wikipedia avoids both terms, preferring neutral terms like "activist" which describe what he is known for without assigning a moral value to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

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#H0norific, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#Autobiography, Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar/Archive 1#Requested move 18 August 2021. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• 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 ([1]) then explains that Savarkar used the "Veer" moniker for himself in his pseudonymous autobiography, in 1926, but it doesn't say that was definitively the first use. These two explanations don't conflict, then, and we should either mention both in the article, or neither. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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 [2] in Marathi language says V.D. Savarkar was first called "Veer" by Kashinath Raghunath Vaishampayan in 1924 during a speech at Yeola, Nashik. This is mentioned in the book [3] title: "दोन तात्या"( Marathi) written by Dr. B. V. Datar मंदार १ (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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#Caste). What really matters is that the information has to be supported by the WP:RS and that is clearly missing here. Surely a lot of attempts have been made by Hindutva brigades to whitewash almost all facts about the founder of the ideology who is Savarkar himself. But if they attracted attention of reliable sources then we could see that too. Capitals00 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)

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)

Confinement Vs movement restriction

@Ivanvector: Savarkar was restricted from traveling from 1924-1937.[4] 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)