Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

@EarthDude: Could you clarify why was my edit reverted. Now the content is sourced, the quote is itself listed on Wikiquote page on V. D. Savarkar. I don't think Sampath is any kind of a fringe theorist, also the content no where mentions anybody's opinion, it tells facts. I don't understand the problem in acknowledging he being a prominent author, however may he be...is this article only to blacklist him on all grounds...? I agree his writings were nationalist oriented, but that doesn't mean you exclude those... IND123456 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The content you seek to add, and similar variants, have previously been contested by several editors. You need to gain consensus before adding such content to the article. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I am always open to discussion. IND123456 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude: Aren't we continuing this discussion on the topic...? IND123456 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT and don't engage in edit warring. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

why don't we discuss the topic then...? Please IND123456 (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't want to discuss but want to revert. I don't understand why you want to do so. I asked twice, but after almost a month I reverted your revision. Please don't repeat what @Mx. Granger: said while discussing about James Mill. Why don't we try to discuss, modify, compromise and reach a consensus? IND123456 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already stated reasons for why I disagree with the inclusion of this content. Again, please see WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT. We can't add all minor and marginally related information to Wikipedia articles. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:09, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if we are to exclude the para regarding the biography authored by 'Chitragupta', why are we not thinking about his writings. What ever he wrote, it may be nationalist or political or whatever. But he wrote many songs, poems, dramas and plays, novels and nationalist history. Isn't it worth adding from a npov? IND123456 (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The exclusion of that was from the lead, not the article itself. And our perception of what qualifies as important aspects of his life is not relevant. What matters is what reliable sources say and how much they discuss it. His poetry, novels, and the like, are a topic which most reliable sources don't discuss and of the ones that do, most don't go into much detail. Again, please see WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

The article refers to Vikram Sampath's Savarkar book at several points, mostly on points of fact. That book appears plagiarized. That makes it not WP:RS. I want to replace all citations to better sources, if there are no objections. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

completed. Shahinshah121 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

While doing this, I could not verify a quote from an essay that Sampath says Savarkar wrote. I found the essay, but only from a dubious source, and it did not have the quote. I removed the quote and the conclusion drawn from it. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing in the reviews that suggests it is unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

you need to read this section Vikram Sampath#Plagiarism Allegations Shahinshah121 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Plagiarism doesn't make it unreliable, does it? None of the critics said that it had false or incorrect material. While I agree that we should uphold good standards of sourcing, that alone shouldn't be grounds for getting rid of valid content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @Shahinshah121 I would have to agree with @Kautilya3, and that just some opinions about plagiarism do not make the book unreliable. Numerous scholars, both Indian and Western have praised the book for its research, though they may disagree on certain points, which is fairly normal in scholarship. We cannot just exclude one of the most recent biography on such grounds. I hope you agree. IND123456 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZDRX: It would be good if we discuss the issue of citing Sampath's book here. IND123456 (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence that Sampath plagiarized parts of the book. I think that means we should avoid the book as not WP:RS. also Wikipedia has detailed guidance on how to avoid plagiarism, so I do not think we can ignore it. Shahinshah121 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I would like to have you active in this discussion, please express your opinion. IND123456 (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you not aware of the fact that Vikram Sampath comes off more as a fanboy of Savarkar rather than an academic? There is a frequent public debate surrounding the accuracy of some of the narratives presented in his books. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 05:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"frequent public debate" does not cause a biography written by a historian published by a publisher of repute to be unreliable. Please try again. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There are too many redflags. You haven't addressed any of them and it would be a waste of time to. The consensus was established in 2022 not to use Vikram Sampath as a source. See Talk:Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar/Archive_1#Caste Today his reputation is worse. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read this comment again, this time slowly, perhaps, to understand it better, and ask me for further elaboration or clarification if need be. I also don't see the consensus you're referring to. It does not exist in the archived discussion you linked. Unless such consensus exists elsewhere, you made it up. Please don't, it is disruptive and counterproductive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@ZDRX: The archived discussion you linked is just a discussion, and it is no where stated that earlier discussions cannot be challenged, or overturned in light of new ones. IND123456 (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Sahinshah121, WP:PLAG is about plagiarism by editors on wikipedia, not about sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

...not to say that plagiarised sources should be used. Please see below on why that doesn't apply to the Sampath book, though. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• The book has received 19 cites since January 2023, including by Janaki Bakhle and Vinayak Chaturvedi in their scholarly biographies of Savarkar. First, neither Bakhle nor Chaturvedi have accused Sampath of plagiarising them in his 2019 book. Bakhle addresses the plagiarism of a 2010 article by her in a 2017 article of his, though she suggests "unintentional result of shoddiness in writing and publication" and not duplicity from Sampath. Chaturvedi simply doesn't say anything about plagiarism in Sampath's 2019 book, but does imply so for the 2017 article. The Vikram Sampath#Plagiarism Allegations section, I will note, is written rather badly in its representation of the sources. The fact that Bakhle hasn't accused Sampath of deceit or that she does not say anything about the book, is notably omitted. Chaturvedi is even more thoroughly misrepresented, to the point of falsifying his statements: our article says "Chaturvedi expressed his disappointment at Sampath's lack of ethical standards" cited to this and this article, the first states Chaturvedi saying "it is very disappointing to learn about this situation" and the second article doesn't even mention Sampath. Such cherry-picking and misrepresentation in a WP:BLP is rather concerning. But more importantly, the book itself is not accused of plagiarism by these two (esp. not by Chaturvedi who is claimed to have been plagiarised in the book and not just the article), has continued to be in circulation and has continued to receive engagement in scholarship since 2023. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have no comment on the arguments presented by Sampath in the book. But any editor wanting to improve this article should probably be reading more books, rather than trying to disqualify on dubious grounds those books already present here with whose arguments they disagree. Truschke et al. leveled their accusations at Sampath, based mostly on his 2017 article, so his membership of Royal Historical Society would be reviewed and revoked—but that has not happened. Given Bakhle and Chaturvedi's comments, I'd say Sampath's 2017 article indeed should not be used anywhere on wikipedia, but that does not extend to his 2019 book. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It doesnt matter how you personally view it. Vikram Sampath has a poor reputation when it comes to history, and his hagiography cannot be used as a source. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  The reviews I pointed out right at the beginning do not validate your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Reception was mostly negative. Also see past consensus at Talk:Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar/Archive_1#Caste, establishing why we should not use Sampath as source. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:38, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm seeing mixed reviews in the section linked by Kautilya3, and I'm not seeing this supposed consensus you keep referring to, "establishing" anything, in the discussion you link. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Then you are not reading it properly. Most of the reviews say the book lacks critical approach towards Savarkar. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm reading it all right. Many reviews there do say that, not most. The "mostly negative" bit is uncited and I've tagged it as such. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  "It doesnt matter how you personally view it" well good thing I haven't offered any personal commentary on it. For the rest of your daitribe against Sampath, [citation needed]. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you were not motivated by your personal assessment then you wouldn't be wasting time asking these useless questions. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please keep comments about other editors' motivations to yourself and WP:FOC. Do you have any meaningful contribution to make to this discussion, or just PAs? UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  @ZDRX: If you don't mind, I may ask you to improve on your politeness. This is a formal discussion. Also, here do not comment on editors personally not on their so called personal motivation which is invisible to me in light of the evidence presented by @Kautilya3 and @UnpetitproleX IND123456 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I possibly see the reasons for your prejudices on your userpage @ZDRX. IND123456 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  IND123456, WP:FOC applies to everybody, including you. It might be tempting but responding to PA with PA is not constructive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ya, I realise it, my apologies. IND123456 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I guess you must move some of your prejudices about both Sampath and his reviewers. It would be better if you studied the earlier discussions you yourself linked and the comments by @UnpetitproleX above. Please do not war here for this sort of cherry picking and avoiding sources which appear to be inconvenient to you. Please do not put unjustified accusations on academics whose work you are not familiar with nor are you with the reviews by peer scholars. IND123456 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Bakhle and Chaturvedi said that Sampath plagiarised. Shahinshah121 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please read the comment again. If you're having trouble doing that, I will repeat myself: Neither Bakhle nor Chaturvedi have accused Sampath's book of plagiarism. I also have both Bakhle's 2024 (pub. PUP) and Chaturvedi's 2022 (pub. SUNY Press) biographies of Savarkar, both of which contain the Sampath biography books in their bibliography and neither accuse the Sampath biographies of being a work of plagiarism—Bakhle does point to the article's plagiarism, Chaturvedi doesn't say anything at all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  You have said that each author did not note the plagiarism in one publication. They did in other places. Besides, the plagiarism is obvious if you read the examples, and that makes the work not WP:RS Shahinshah121 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please do not misrepresent what I said. Both Bakhle and Chaturvedi have not said anything about any plagiarism in Sampath's biographies of Savarkar anywhere at all, not just in one publication. Bakhle has said so for his 2017 speech-turned-article while Chaturvedi hasn't directly said so about that article either. The 19 cites after 2022, do not support your contentions. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Shahinshah121@ZDRX: But how is it that all the book, if claimed is infected plagiarism. For example if a archive document is being cited and discussed, then any one may visit the National Archives at Delhi and verify it. I don't find reason to discard the book as a RS. It is not his opinions or conclusions which we always need IND123456 (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that plagiarism makes a work not reliable. Wikipedia's thorough policies on avoiding plagiarism, so that Wikipedia does not become unreliable, seem to agree.

  Also, this article cited Sampath on four or five things. I could not verify one of them. So we have a case of dubious information. I think it would take independent research, verifying that what Sampath says is accurate and not plagiarized, to cite Sampath. It seems better to use reliable sources.

  @UnpetitproleX should read through those 19 citations. some of them are about the Hindu nationalist tilt of the book and criticize it. others are not WP:RS Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Plagiarism would make a work unreliable, yes, but mere accusations of plagiarism, unproven and which have had no impact on the continued publication of the books by Penguin books (a publisher of repute), and their continued engagement in scholarship, does not make a work unreliable. We also cannot declare the 2019–2021 biographies unreliable based on the fact that the 2017 article may have been plagiarised. There is a fundamental difference, and I have continually told you this, at this point your arguments are just WP:IDHT. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @UnpetitproleX should look at the book plagiarism claims. it is convincing. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have looked at those claims. They are not convincing, especially so because the book has continued to be in publication through Penguin and because the book continues to be freely cited despite the plagiarism accusation. Moreover, the accusation's stated goal was a "review" of Sampath's Royal Historical Society (RHS) fellowship; not only is Sampath still a fellow as of July 2026, but RHS did not even think the accusation to be credible enough to launch a review. When no independent third party has found the 2019–2021 books to be plagiarised, why would we conclude so based only on accusations? UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Dozens of scholars agreed there was plagiarism. I don't think we can speculate on what RHS is doing or what Penguin thinks.

  I assume good faith, but you are trying really hard to defend a dubious source that was not critical to the article. I think this argument is done. Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Dozens of scholars agreed" in a letter which many of them publicly denied ever having signed? That letter? UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wow! So these "scholars" are also fraudulent? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  And I have indeed read through some of those cites—two of them are from Bakhle and Chaturvedi, as I told you in my very first comment here. But you continue to not hear. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @UnpetitproleX is misrepresenting (I will assume unintentionally) the plagiarism accusations. Sampath's 2017 essay plagiarised Bakhle and Chaturvedi. The 2019 book plagiarised others, like Majumdar and an undergraduate thesis. When asked about plagiarism of their work, Bakhle and Chaturvedi said it was plagiarism. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is the letter where the accusations were made, which claims (let me reiterate, claims) that apart from the 2017 article, parts of the first volume of the two-volume biographies were plagiarised, but only offers a single paragraph as evidence, a paragraph which according to Sampath, is a result of a common source cited by both Sampath and Schaffel (who Sampath is claimed to have plagiarised). What is this common source? AM Shah's article.

  The letter containing the accusations was addressed to the president of the Royal Historical Society, of which Sampath continues to be a fellow as of July 2026, and which did not consider the accusations to be credible enough to even launch a review of Sampath's fellowship. Sampath's biographies have also continued to be cited by many academics since then. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The actions of Royal Historical Society are irrelevant when it comes to verifying the credibility of plagiarism accusations. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. user @UnpetitproleX should also stop misrepresenting this issue. they conveniently forgot to mention these examples Shahinshah121 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not the one holding up a forged letter as evidence in this discussion, am I? UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, ZXDR, the actions of the Royal Historical Society, to whose then-president Emma Griffin the accusations were directly addressed to, and whose elected fellow Sampath was and continues to be to date, are far more important for deciding reliability and credibility than the opinions of wikipedia editors such as you and I. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  RHS has stated no opinion. I am trying to assume good faith but @UnpetitproleX has misrepresented sources and omitted sources in this discussion. now they are claiming to speak for RHS. Shahinshah121 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Which source have I misrepresented, pray tell? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Shahinshah121@UnpetitproleX@ZDRX: If you could permit, I would in the upcoming 3-4 days study all the arguments and sources advanced here, read some new ones if possible and give a detailed report to you regarding the issue, with quotes from various articles and sources. IND123456 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Shahinshah121@UnpetitproleX@ZDRX@Kautilya3: kindly let me know of the above, so that I will act accordingly. IND123456 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I reverted again. I warned user@UnpetitproleX about editing warring here and on Hindutva page. User needs to gain consensus before editing.

User@UnpetitproleX added a reference to Hindol Sengupta. I removed it and it should not be reinstated. His 2023 book is not WP:RS. Academic reviews said that it "seems to whitewash political Hinduism to a certain degree and must be examined critically" and said "there are certain conceptual problems that I felt were not adequately addressed, and second, errors of fact or argument that I fear will not escape the informed reader." This is dubious for WP:NPOV and "errors of fact" make it something we should not use.

I also posted this message on Hindutva talk page. Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, Sengupta is a trained historian and his book was published by Rowman & Littlefield, which is an academic publisher of repute. Second, all reviews of academic monographs and academic books are supposed to be critical—that does not make them all unreliable. Third, I did consult Amiya Sen's review in Springer before I added Sengupta, which is how I know you have cherrypicked from it. Amiya goes on to conclude: "Sengupta’s work I consider important for three reasons. … it is a timely and useful corrective to Left-Liberal over-determinism of Indian history and culture. … it offers a just and effective counter-narrative to the colonialist reading of our past and by some residual practitioners, with their ill-informed characterizations of India and Indians. … This deeply fissured society now needs the hermeneutics of healing and mutual confidence building among various communities. This is a message that I believe Sengupta delivers eloquently." And fourth, you were reverted by Joshua Jonathan, not me, so the accusations of WP:EW on multiple article talk pages and the frivolous warning on my user talk page, are all unfounded PAs, if you ever do this again I will ask for administrative intervention. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

please WP:AGF and follow procedures.

Sengupta has a PhD in international relations and is an IR professor.

most academic reviews do not allege "errors of fact." that is a serious thing. I think we can't refer to Sengupta for facts and should use better sources. Shahinshah121 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

He was trained in international relations and history as a Chevening Scholar at Worcester College, Oxford. His book ticks all boxes of WP:RS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

International relations is not history. I don't know if a lower degree in history qualifies him as a historian. @UnpetitproleX please share source on history degree at Worcester College. his page does not give source.

you have not addressed "errors of fact" or how this reference improves the article. Shahinshah121 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It is mentioned on his biography at JGU which you yourself linked right above. It would be better if you actually read the sources you keep presenting to avoid selectively quoting them like you did Amiya Sen or now Sengupta's JGU biography. We can only AGF to a certain limit. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer an independent source. faculty usually write their own biographies.

it looks like you have nothing to add on the factual shortcomings, how using Sengupta would improve the article, or whether a one-year masters degree in "international relations and history" means he is a historian.

I suggest that you look at scholarship by PhD-holding historians on Savarkar and caste. there is lots. then you can propose changes here to gain consensus. Shahinshah121 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User@joshua jonathan please remove re-addition of Sengupta. This is a new addition and consensus must be gained on talk page before adding. Shahinshah121 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The article contains several references to it; why should we remove the source but not the references?... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan we can discuss adding. but WP:ONUS is on you to show it improves the article. this was in dispute when you added, so you need to revert and gain consensus first. Shahinshah121 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Some thing doesn't get through? You removed the source, not the references; that doesn't make sense. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I am sure that the section on caste can be improved, and any faults with it corrected. But that is not going to happen if one editor keeps reverting its inclusion. Justifying reverting it on the basis of WP:ONUS does not wash, when only one editor wants the section removed and at least three editors agree that there should be such a section (i.e. there appears to be a consensus to have such a section). Regarding errors - decent book reviews point out errors in the books being reviewed - a lot of good books by academics contain errors.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Amiya Sen also does tell us about which "errors of fact" he is referring to:

On page 260, note 6, it is wrongly stated that the Brāhmo Samāj intended to take Hinduism back to the Vedas; on the contrary, in modern India it was perhaps the only religious body to renounce faith in the Vedas. In the same note, Rammohun’s year of death needs to be corrected to read 1833. Saguṇa and nirguṇa represent not Divinity with or without form (296n64), but the presence and absence, respectively, of cognizable human qualities in the Divine. There is something seriously wrong in the enumeration of Notes with respect to Chapter Three.

None of these are related to what Sengupta is cited for, that is, the Seven Shackles quote or Savarkar's role in helping establish Patit Pavan Mandir. The content itself is not even being challenged, no sources presented to dispute. As you said, all academic works are bound to have a level of error. All academic works are also bound to have critical reviews (in fact, reviewers are encouraged to be critical—that is how scholarly writing works). But to use a critical review to declare unreliable the work of a scholar published by an academic book publisher of repute after peer review, is absolutely bizarre. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - There is another review of the Sengupta book, which can be found at https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.1111/rsr.17644. My assessment is that this book is a lightweight political commentary, trying to fiil the gap in right-wing "scholarly works". But it is not particularly well-informed. Defer to more solid scholars like Chaturvedi and Balkhe.

On the issue of caste, I think it is reasonably well-established that Savarkar opposed caste. There is no surprise there because he wanted to build a monolithic "Hindu nation" and caste divisions would get in the way. For the same reason, the RSS claims to oppose caste. But the reality is that all these movements are dominated by upper castes, especially Brahmins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of the content I added is cited to Chaturvedi and Sabastian—Sengupta is used for a quote that already existed in the article prior (but was removed momentarily on rather frivolous grounds) and for the Patit Pavan temple; that is, he's not used for anything controversial. Chaturvedi and Sabastian are used for the more significant aspects. I will add Bakhle as well, say, in a couple days. Her analysis on the positionality of Savarkar is certainly intriguing. His opposition to caste was just as superficial as Gandhi's but significantly more radical. I can't see any reason why we should be excluding it, especially when recent scholarship has focused on it as much as it has. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, Amiya Prosad Sen is a veteran historian while Amisha Saikia is a doctoral assistant. One at the height of their career and other just beginning. His review so I thought to be of more significance and thus his review is the one I consulted before adding Sengupta. Saikia's is certainly helpful too, but can perceived bias in an author be considered grounds for discounting their work when said work is published by publishers of very high repute? I would argue not. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Shahinshah121@UnpetitproleX@Joshua Jonathan@Kautilya3@Kautilya3@Toddy1: In my opinion, we need to get out of the dogma that if a reviewer is a bit critical regarding a work, or if he points certain shortcomings or errors, it should not make us believe that the work does not qualify as RS. I am making this statement pertaining to all contested sources including Dr. Vikram Sampath's biography. I must also not that in my view, after reading the discussion above, I see that already a majority of editors favour addition of Sengupta, and so they did in the case of Sampath. I see consensus already reached in case of Sengupta, only one editor disagrees with reasons i don't see to stand in light of the counters presented by @UnpetitproleX@Toddy1 and others. Also, we must not map each opinion which seems to be different to being a Right or a Left...at least when concerned with topics such as these, those reasons appear vague, and reducing. @Shahinshah121: I think you must stop arguing when you have been challenged beyond what the reasons you suggest can hold to. IND123456 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Many scholars such as R. C. Majumdar refer to Savarkar as a revolutionary. Could we add it? Your thoughts @UnpetitproleX, @Toddy1, @Kautilya3, etc. IND123456 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

But that could mean anything - for example, the invention of Persil in 1903 was revolutionary.

What the lead currently says is "also published books advocating complete Indian independence by revolutionary means.^[6]". That is a meaningful statement - and it is written inside text that adds context.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Like minded editors possibly meatpuppets attacking left , right and centre with unsubstantiated frivolous edit summaries and changing goal posts JnhoIVe (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't find @JnhoIVe's version any wrong. I am considering the content it added and do not engage in the alleged warring. IND123456 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2026 (UTC)