Talk:Patit Pavan Mandir

Started a new page on Patit Pawan Mandir

I have started a new page on Patit Pawan Mandir in Ratnagiri. The temple (mandir) has a special significance in the social history of India. However I did not find any mention to this great place anywhere on the wikipedia. This is just the starting point and I am going to add much content in due course. I will appriciate if anyone else puts more information on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yateenp (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What's Controversial About this Temple?

I spent a lot of time researching this page, and came out with what I thought was a pretty good article here, where every statement was sourced: , but most of it was immediately removed for being "unreliable sources". Now, someone has come along and removed sourced information from the article again . This temple is obviously controversial... why? Denaar (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Savarkar was a fascist and he formulated the Hindutva ideology which has also been described as fascist. Many sources you had used openly praised him, were very promotional of the temple, or were from fringe news sites, such as "apnisanskriti", "newsbharati", or Maharashtra Times. You even used some sources from the Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu nationalist party which follows Hindutva. Indian media as a whole has fallen under quite a lot of controversy for its increasingly right-wing and pro-government outlook under the current administration (see Godi media), so it is generally good practice to only use the sources listed as generally reliable at WP:RS/PS, those being The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Wire (India), and Newslaundry. — EarthDude (Talk) 03:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a place to discuss your personal point of view on Hindutva, this is a place to discuss improvements to the article.

It is not reasonable to suggest we only use current news sources to discuss history that is is 100 years old, and that's not at all what WP:RS suggests. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics".

I have been going edit by edit through the history of this page, and these are all sources that have been provided by editors here, including the BBC article and multiple published scholarly books.

• Keer, Dhananjay (1966). Veer Savarkar (2nd ed.). Popular Prakashan, Mumbai.
• Trehan, Jyoti (1991). Veer Savarkar: Thought and Action of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 978-81-7100-322-8.
• News Report about twitter reference to the template, debating the contributions of Savakar and Keer:
• News Report about the same (dead link)
• Bhave, Y. G. (2009). Vinayak Damodar Savarkar: The Much-maligned and Misunderstood Revolutionary and Freedom Fighter. Northern Book Centre. ISBN 978-81-7211-266-0.
• Sampath, V. (2021). Savarkar (Part 2): A Contested Legacy, 1924-1966. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 96. ISBN 978-93-5492-071-4. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Grover, V. (1993). V.D. Savarkar. Political Thinkers of Modern India: V.D. Savarkar. Deep & Deep Publications. p. 505. ISBN 978-81-7100-425-6. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Sharma, J.N. (1998). Encyclopaedia Eminent Thinkers (vol. 12 : The Political Thought Of Veer Savarkar). Encyclopaedia of Eminent Thinkers. Concept Publishing Company. p. 106. ISBN 978-81-8069-492-9. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Seshadri, H.V. (1988). R.S.S. A Vision In Action. Rashtrotthana Sahitya. Jagarana Prakashana. p. 196. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Travel House Guide to Incredible India. Travel House. 2004. p. 271. ISBN 978-81-241-1063-8. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Jayapalan, N. (2001). History of India. Atlantic. p. 134. ISBN 978-81-7156-914-4. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• Bharatiya Janata Party (2003). BJP Today. Bharatiya Janata Party. p. 8. Retrieved 1 Jul 2023.
• आंबेडकर और सावरकर में क्या जाति के मुद्दे पर वैचारिक दूरी थी? -विवेचना". BBC News हिंदी (in Hindi). 14 Apr 2023. Retrieved 3 Jul 2023.
• Smith, Walter (2003). "Ratnagiri" . Oxford Art Online . Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-884446-05-4.

Denaar (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Everything I said has been stated in reliable sources, and is also given in their respective articles. My point about Indian media was specifically regarding the news sources currently used in the article. Out of all the sources you have given, seven sources are openly promotional and give high praises to the subject; they are not neutral and are thus not reliable. Out of the rest of the sources, all focus on Savarkar primarily and only talk about the temple in passing mentions, which does not qualify the criteria for WP:NGEO. As per NGEO, constructions cannot inherit notability from people. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Promotional means "marketing materials" that are selling a product. A book written with a positive or neutral point of view of a subject is not "promotional". These are in depth, researched, scholarly, published books. And yes, books with a positive bias toward a person are allowed per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. Wikipedia articles must be neutral, but the sources we use do not have to follow the same requirement that editors here follow. What these books show is a strong pattern, across decades, of people discussing the subject in the same manner, which show their point of view is a mainstream one - we don't have sources that contradict them outside one news article. That article doesn't establish notability, but it does explain why the topic is controversial today. Denaar (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition, WP:BIASED is a guideline, not policy as above, but it goes over in more depth this same concept. On this guideline WP:SIGCOV it tells us "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The coverage in the books provided is more than a trivial mention, despite the main topic not being the temple. Denaar (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)