Jump to content

Talk:Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Newslinger (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 2 May 2024 (→how is pinkvilla a reliable source?: Tag disrupted discussion and strike block evasion (WP:BE, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nenetarun)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

[edit]
Ghogare.rohan (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please change The film has been criticised for distorting history and for promoting one-sided agenda to This film is masterpiece and portray the true character brave freedom fighter of india . The veer savarkar is the father of Modern India who shaped its history. [1]All the true events of his intriguing life have been depicted and a Balanced Perspective[2]Ghogare.rohan (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This film is masterpiece and portray the true character brave freedom fighter of india . The veer savarkar is the father of Modern India who shaped its history. [3]All the true events of his intriguing life have been depicted and a Balanced Perspective[4]

 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. Cannolis (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
change The film has been criticised for distorting history and for promoting one-sided agenda to This film is masterpiece and portray the true character brave freedom fighter of india to This film is masterpiece and portray the true character brave freedom fighter of india . The veer savarkar is the father of Modern India who shaped its history. [5]All the true events of his intriguing life have been depicted and a Balanced Perspective[6] Ghogare.rohan (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is pinkvilla a reliable source?

[edit]

Hi RangersRus,

please explain this edit , please undo it as pinkvilla is a ocmmunity page, not a reliable source at all ; Please refer WP:RS

Goodfacts666 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodfacts666. WP:ICTFSOURCES. Pinkvilla falls under reliable source list and is used heavily on most film pages. RangersRus (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RangersRus : As per WP:USERG, community magazines/websites cannot be considered as reliable sources. Goodfacts666 (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read through WP:ICTFSOURCES? This will answer you question. RangersRus (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RangersRus : please take it to discussion

++ adding The_Herald .. Goodfacts666 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove yet. The discussion shows Pinkvilla listed under reliability in WP:ICTFSOURCES. Report to 3rd opinion if you need but do not remove edits from source that is used on Wikipedia for films. There is another discussion in place so wait till then. RangersRus (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we edit this article? This article has been edited by someone today (March 28 2024) with wordings that is promoting his/ her propaganda, is Wikipedia being run for a certain community or only certain groups of people. Why can't anyone else edit this article and remove the "propaganda and false content" that is added by this user.

[edit]

Why can't we edit this article? This article has been edited by someone today (March 28 2024) with wordings that is promoting his/ her propaganda, is Wikipedia being run for a certain community or only certain groups of people. Why can't anyone else edit this article and remove the "propaganda and false content" that is added by this user. Oshinaka (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

[edit]

(biographical propaganda film] This text needs to be removed from this article. Who is deciding what is what, this looks like it Wikipedia is the wild wild west, you guys are letting anyone come in add text to articles to post their propaganda without any checks or approvals. There is a lot of content that has been added to this article to promote the propaganda of the article writer. Oshinaka (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Someone else has removed the term "propaganda". I would've agreed with removal anyway, since there aren't significant amounts of sources that explicitly calls the film propaganda, and the second lead paragraph and the rest of the article makes it clear enough that the film distorts some historical facts to promote its viewpoint. Liu1126 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996 Let a consensus be reached before reverting edits Smart Sherlock (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting @Liu1126 to join the discussion once again, for the removal has been undone twice by @Abhishek0831996 Smart Sherlock (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view on the matter is as stated above. To add on to that, WP:CONTENTIOUS states that labels like these are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. The only source in the article that uses the term "propaganda" is the Koimoi source; the other sources seem to imply the same thing, but don't explicitly use the label. Liu1126 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the words "propaganda biography" were first added by a user (not intending to tag them here) with a known history of vandalism, and removal of content without any substantial reason, leading to loss of a neutral POV. @Haani40 may corrobate in this regards, as they have reverted the repeated cases vandalism done by that user on certain articles. Smart Sherlock (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe I have been reverting a new user's vandalism on other articles also. I hope you agree that it should stay "out".-Haani40 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

Each review need not occupy its own paragraph and they need to be paraphrased than quoted in extenso. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

[edit]

"change: THE FILM HAS BEEN CRITICISED FOR DISTORTING HISTORY AND FOR PROMOTING ONE-SIDED AGENDA, BUT HAS RECEIVED PRAISES FOR ITS ACTORS' PERFORMANCES. to THE FILM HAS BEEN CRITICISED MOSTLY BY THE LEFT INTELLIGENTSIA OF INDIA FOR DISTORTING HISTORY AND FOR PROMOTING ONE-SIDED AGENDA, BUT HAS RECEIVED PRAISES FOR ITS ACTORS' PERFORMANCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RIGHT WING APPRECIATED THE FILM AS THE BALANCED RETELLING OF THE STORY OF A GREAT REVOLUTIONARY WHO CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE ARMED MOVEMENT OF INDIAN INDEPENDENCE.[7]

I think this is needed to be told instead of directly alleging that the movie distorts the history on the basis of some articles written by a bunch of people. TylerK79 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles by film reviewers/critics valid as historical sources

[edit]

@Grabup Main body of the article claims that the movie is historically inaccurate, one sided based on few articles by film critics/reviewers, while making it seem like a verified claim.

So atleast need to add context that the film is criticised by film critics else the sources should be from qualified historians. Coffee Beans 19 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee Beans 19, The cited sources are reliable secondary sources, you said "While making it seem like a verified claim", Yes The Indian Express and Hindustan Times are reliable sources, because they verify facts that's why they are reliable. Grabup (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the authors are not historians I am just proposing to add who the authors are in main body
For other biographic films the pattern seems to be that there is a separate section detailing historical accuracy and is not part of the main body Coffee Beans 19 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee Beans 19, Authors are not need to be historians, the sources are reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES, You can read WP:RS to know about Reliable Sources in more details. Grabup (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee Beans 19, Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources says, If you have reliable sources which says that the movie shows the accurate history then you can cite here. Grabup (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: i have given enough evidences still you are looking for few more. Looks like you are not aware of Indian independence history and rather it seems you are not bother to go through it, Anyways Ghogare.rohan (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghogare.rohan, Your cited source Moneycontrol mentions “What works for this film, which can and possibly will be debated for historical inaccuracies” The source does not says that the film shows the accurate history. And your other source is a blog site totally unreliable. Grabup (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup:
You mentioned that the references I rendered were unreliable, but how did you make sure or verify that the references already provided were reliable????? If you are telling me those references number 11 and 12 (pinkvilla and News 18) are reliable, it totally insane.
If you want, you can study books written by many great writers, viz., Dhananjay Keer, S.L. Karandikar, Vikram Sampath, Arvind Godbole, and many more. Without studying anything, people can write whatever they want in Pinkvilla and News 18. So I do not expect anything from a self-proclaimed Wikipedia editor or watchdog, so get fair information.
i already mentioned "ANYWAYS". I am not here to debate/argue with whoever you are because you are totally unaware of history and just relying on few pinkvilla and News 18 information ....hahahahaha
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/randeep-hooda-swatantrya-veer-savarkar-is-anti-propaganda-film/articleshow/108214104.cms
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-is-brilliant-biopic-101711098668591.html
https://marathi.abplive.com/movie-review/entertainment/movie-review-swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-review-biopic-randeep-hooda-ankita-lokhande-released-on-22nd-march-by-chandrakant-shinde-abp-majha-entertainment-bollywood-latest-update-marathi-news-1266981 Ghogare.rohan (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghogare.rohan, Pinkvilla and News18 are reliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES, If you want to question the reliability of these sources you can start a discussion at here, or at WP:RSN. Grabup (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my discussion. For Wikipeadia these might be reliable but for Historian these are not certainly not. I do not want to visit wikipeadia for their unreliable and unauthenticated information. Lets conclude this discussion. Ghogare.rohan (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, You have not provided any reliable sources to back your words, Wikipedia does not provide unauthenticated informations as all our information is backed by idependent reliable secondary sources. Grabup (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is your perception that wikipedia do not provide unauthenticated information but thats not the reality. Ghogare.rohan (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anyone can write anything about film reviews based on their political vendetta or narratives and Wikipedia proclaim that as a independent reliable secondary source. Ghogare.rohan (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghogare.rohan, These reliable sources are not “Anyone” they are reliable news sites, We don’t accept anyone’s article as reliable as you cited a unreliable source. These news sites have fact checking team and they verify facts before publishing that’s why they are considered as reliable sources. Please read WP:RS.
After reviewing your account I found that you are most likely not here to build Wikipedia rather than just to remove this well sourced portion. Grabup (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup : How about these references
which i mentioned above?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/randeep-hooda-swatantrya-veer-savarkar-is-anti-propaganda-film/articleshow/108214104.cms
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-is-brilliant-biopic-101711098668591.html
https://marathi.abplive.com/movie-review/entertainment/movie-review-swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-review-biopic-randeep-hooda-ankita-lokhande-released-on-22nd-march-by-chandrakant-shinde-abp-majha-entertainment-bollywood-latest-update-marathi-news-126
Ghogare.rohan (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghogare.rohan, The first source The Times of India, is the saying of the director and actor, so, it is primary source, should not be added. Because obviously he will talk good about his film.
The second source is Hindustan Times, It already used in the article to back the line which you wanting to remove, the source says, “As a result, Swatantra Veer Savarkar ends up being a one-sided narrative”
And the third source is in Marathi and there is no consensus about the source at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Grabup (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality & Balance in Lead as per WP:NPOV

[edit]

The lead seems to use some strong language which may lack neutraliality as WP:Neutral and WP:NPOV policies.

We may need more Consensus on "distorting history" :

Is Business Standard such a reliable source

Most quoted sources references are probably Not-Reliable per Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Only clearly Reliable reference is "Indian Express", as per WP:RS

Hence, until a consensus is found, more balanced language from the "Indian Express" language will need to be added, as per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

Adding from Indian Express: The film presents a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar from his childhood, including the key events from his life, often in a near-worshipful tone towards the central character.

The film has also been praised for many aspects, which are not mentioned in the lead. Please discuss replacing "distorting history" with more Neutral language for consensus. RogerYg (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerYg, Maybe you are not aware of WP:ICTFSOURCES. Business Standrard and other cited sources are reliable source as ICTFSOURCES. Grabup (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, yes the sources are fine for Film articles. I stand corrected on business Standard. Anyway, still WP:NPOV needs to taken into account. RogerYg (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s start a discussion to make Consensus, if you want. Grabup (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead also prays the movie by saying “ but received praises for its actors' performances.” Grabup (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grabup (talk),
I noticed that you reverted my edit, from WP:RS source, without any strong valid reason
The film presents a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar from his childhood, including the key events from his life, often in a near-worshipful tone towards the central character.
The edit is important as the the lead is missing anything about the film's very brief summarized storyline, which is included for most Wikipedia movie articles.
See Gandhi (film)'s lead
Gandhi is a 1982 epic biographical film based on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, a major leader in the Indian independence movement against the British Empire during the 20th century.
RogerYg (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RogerYg, Read WP:Weight, which says “ Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.” Grabup (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Gandhi article, this is not a Indian film. Directed by an International director. Grabup (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RogerYg, I don’t have problem with your edit “The film presents a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar from his childhood, including the key events from his life, often in a near-worshipful tone towards its central character.” This can be added at the lead, at the first paragraph. Grabup (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it needs some more sources. Grabup (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swatantrya Veer Savarkar is a 2024 Indian Hindi-language film. The film presents a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar from his childhood, including the key events from his life, often in a near-worshipful tone towards its central character. Directed, co-written, and co-produced by Randeep Hooda, who also plays the titular role of Savarkar.[8][9] It was released in theatres on 22 March 2024.[10][11]
It can be like this or anything other you can suggest here. Grabup (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this edit should go in the second paragraph of the lead, because "worshipful tone" is an opinion and not appropriate for the opening lead sentence, which needs to be more neutral as per WP:NPOV.
It is sourced from the Indian Express article :
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/movie-review/swantantrya-veer-savarkar-movie-review-randeep-hooda-propulsive-in-reductive-one-sided-narrative-9228018/
"What we get is a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar, the arc being drawn from his childhood"
"You could argue that Hooda’s intention was to right what he considers are historical wrongs towards his hero, and there’s not an iota of doubt of the near-worshipful tone the film bears towards the central character."
RogerYg (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Second paragraph (of lead)

The film presents a detailed biographical sketch of Savarkar from his childhood, including the key events from his life, often in a near-worshipful tone towards its central character.[9] The film has been criticised for distorting history and for promoting one-sided agenda[8][9][10][11] but received praises for its actors' performances.[12][13] RogerYg (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:WEIGHT, we need more citations backing your edit request. Grabup (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, here are three more citations (already used in the article) broadly mentioning that it is a biographical film (with details) and a worshipful tone.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-is-brilliant-biopic-101711098668591.html
"Spanning over a decade including both pre and post independence era starting from 1857 to 1966, the film unapologetically narrates the story solely from the point of view of its much controversial protagonist. And it doesn't battle an eyelid while doing so, especially when mounting him as a worshipped figure with ideals that many might not have agreed with initially, but would still eventually come to terms with."
https://www.freepressjournal.in/movie-review/swantantrya-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hoodas-stellar-act-is-the-highlight-of-the-tiresome-film
"Actor Randeep Hooda tries his luck in bringing forth the untold tale of a patriot Veer Savarkar, who fought for India’s Independence. With the runtime of 178-minutes, Hooda’s biographical film is bothersome."
"Randeep, who marked his directorial debut, makes a film highlighting Veer Savarkar’s contribution to the Indian Independence, his writing abilities, his thought process, noted work for the people of pre-independent India. He took his own sweet time in enlightening Veer’s pain, valour, shortcomings and so on." RogerYg (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/swatantrya-veer-savarkar-randeep-hooda-announces-release-date-of-savarkar-biopic/articleshow/107262663.cms
"The film promises a compelling journey, bringing to life the visionary and firebrand persona of Swatantrya Veer Savarkar. Alongside Hooda, the cast includes Ankita Lokhande and Amit Sial in pivotal roles. Zee Studios, Anand Pandit, Randeep Hooda, Sandeep Singh, and Yogesh Rahar collaborate as producers for "Swatantrya Veer Savarkar."
"The film aims to provide a fresh perspective on the historical figure." RogerYg (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RogerYg, Thanks for these, now I have no issue with you proposal, happy editing. Grabup (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks for the healthy discussion & good points to help imrpove this article. RogerYg (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/movies/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-the-director-outshines-the-actor-in-strangely-fascinating-yarn-article-12515291.html
  2. ^ https://awbi.in/swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-review/#google_vignette
  3. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/movies/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-the-director-outshines-the-actor-in-strangely-fascinating-yarn-article-12515291.html
  4. ^ https://awbi.in/swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-review/#google_vignette
  5. ^ https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/movies/swatantra-veer-savarkar-review-randeep-hooda-the-director-outshines-the-actor-in-strangely-fascinating-yarn-article-12515291.html
  6. ^ https://awbi.in/swatantra-veer-savarkar-movie-review/#google_vignette
  7. ^ https://hindupost.in/society-culture/swatantryaveer-savarkar-iconic-revolutionarys-honor-restoredat-andaman-modi-govt/>
  8. ^ "Randeep Hooda says he locked himself up in jail to prepare for Savarkar biopic". Hindustan Times. 26 February 2024.
  9. ^ "Randeep Hooda pays tribute to freedom fighter Swatantryaveer Savarkar on death anniversary, shares experience from Kalapani visit". Mid-day. 2024-02-26. Retrieved 2024-02-26.
  10. ^ "'Swatantrya Veer Savarkar': Randeep Hooda announces release date of Savarkar biopic". The Economist Times. 30 January 2024. Retrieved 26 February 2024.
  11. ^ "Randeep Hooda's Swatantrya Veer Savarkar Trailer Gives Glimpse of the Man Most Feared by British". ETV Bharat News. 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.

Shabby writing

[edit]

The lead mentions,

The film has been criticised for distorting history and for promoting one-sided agenda ...

But in the body, we have nothing on either locus — the fundamental question of how did the film distort history has been left unanswered. Such are the perils of fixing the lead without bothering about the body. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

[edit]

Carl A. Harte 162.216.141.52 (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Jamedeus (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swatantrya_Veer_Savarkar_(film)&oldid=1221818747"