Talk:Bhagat Singh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citizenship and Nationality

Citizenship and Nationality of Bhagat Singh has to be Indian. He was fighter against Britishraj Souravbalan (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read MOS:ETHNICITY which states, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. ... if the person is notable mainly for past events, (this will be) the country where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable." Bhagat Singh was a citizen of the British Raj or the British Indian Empire. India on Wikipedia is about the Republic of India. Bhagat Singh lived in Lahore which is not in the Republic of India. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation uses Hindi and not Punjabi

Even though the IPA uses the Punjabi pronunciation, the audio file uses the Hindi pronunciation. Either it could be removed or a Punjabi one could be added. — SourceIsOpen (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Bhagat_Singh

Please make the below correction, to at least some tribute to one who actually did some selfless contribution just to free his own motherland from invaders!!!

Nationality:- India Citizenship:- INDIA (Bharat) Occupation:- Freedom fighter and NOT A REBEL! Cause of Death:- Fight for his motherland

 Not done The consensus is that people who died pre-independence are not identified as Indians because India, as it is today, did not exist at that time. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How did Bhagat Singh and his friends and Chandar Shekhar Azad died

As bhagat is no more than also he is in our hearts forever bhagat Singh fought for freedom from british and his friends mainly Sukhdev , Rajguru and Chandra shekhar azad . As bhagat Singh,Sukhdev and Rajguru was hanged but Chandar Shekhar who started to fight with British officers but Chandra Shekhar Azad was killed because his teammate cheated him and told his every information to Brithish when he was in Allahabad park then only his teammate informed the British that he is there then only Chandar Shekhar Azad died while fighting and today also people go for walking there

This is by Tech Rishi008 I have read biography of bhagat Singh from there I have took this Thanks you TECHRishi008 (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TECHRishi008 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TECHRishi008 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A line mentioning Bhagat singh as terrorist is wrong as he was a freedom fighter

2409:4063:6D99:9A2:0:0:1E4B:2313 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 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. Living Concrete (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

In "Early life" section, please wikilink the "National College in Lahore" to the following

National College in Lahore 58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I linked the full name, National College of Arts, instead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

it is 28 September 1907 is the date of birth of the legend of Bhagat Singh 2409:4071:4E9F:CE69:9D96:76D1:48BD:C88C (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (2)

Bhagat Singh Birthday written on Wikipedia is 27 September 1907, But his actual Birthday is on 28 September 1907. As per the source I'm requesting editor to change it to 28 well here below I'm providing you the source where NDTV is prestigious news channel of India and also on YouTube you will see many videos and biography where 28 September is mentioned.

https://starsunfolded.com/bhagat-singh/

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bhagat-singh-birth-anniversary-10-stirring-quotes-by-freedom-fighter-2108049 Patelviraj018 (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Patelviraj018: I'm sorry but the scholarly sources as well as the major tertiary sources Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as well as his standard biography published by Oxford University Press say otherwise. Please see WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. We do mention in the footnote that some authors consider the 28th to be his birthday and the first biography by his contemporary Sanyal names a date in October. We have also cited two academic sources for the 28th. But the consensus of both the scholarly sources and reliable tertiary ones remains 27 September 1907. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

}} Nishantktiwari (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 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. Eevee01^(talk) 14:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Date Of Birth of Veer Bhagat Singh ji

The actual Date of birth of Veer Bhagat Singh ji is 28th September 1907.

It is always celebrated on 28th September.

But on Wikipedia and on some other websites it is showing 27th September 1907 which is wrong.

Please someone correct it, it is very important for Indians that people learn the right information about our Freedom fighters. PrinceMehta2001 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (3)

Change birth date from 27th September to 28th September. Okavinashok (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

In note b "He was secretary of the Kirti Kisan Party..." a refname[25] is used, however the associated ref has been deleted. The missing ref is;
<ref name="Tribune2011">{{cite news |first=Roopinder |last=Singh |title=Bhagat Singh: The Making of the Revolutionary |date=23 March 2011 |url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110323/main6.htm |work=The Tribune |location=India |access-date=17 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150930145024/http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110323/main6.htm|archive-date=30 September 2015}}</ref>

Could someone please add the details back into the article.
Also the ref "Govind" is no longer in use, but is still included in the reflist. Could someone please comment it out. Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

English

About Bhagat Singh stator place what we remember him 2402:3A80:449:1204:A7CB:A01:58E7:4036 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

When was Bhagat singh married

The answer 2405:201:D005:70B2:F98F:57F2:8584:3706 (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] Appu (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Description

Bhagat singh is Indian revolutionary hero undoubtedly and this should bev his description thanks 21aryan (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Who was Bhagat Singh

Pls don’t give me the answer from internet Hygupta (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Hygupta (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bhagat was such a good revolutionary.

Yes or no Hygupta (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bhagat singh revolution

Bhagat singh revolutionary has impact on all india and inspiration of Millions of young people. 21aryan (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it has Hygupta (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

he was born on 28 september 1907 Denis2882gamer (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See footnote a Cannolis (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Criminal word is not appropriate

While describing the work of Bhagat Singh. The word criminal should not be used. Although they have taken up the law in their own hand, but that is due to the freedom of motherland. The person killed by these freedom fighters were anarchist and also murdered many native Indians. Moreover these people are decorated public figure of an independent democratic nation. Also icon for Indian youth and their fight for independence. Thus they cannot be called as criminals. 2402:3A80:1986:F982:A0B5:702E:6F4C:A236 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Anarchist?

[2] @Fowler&fowler, what reliable sources say that Singh was an anarchist as a defining trait of his life? If anything, a prior talk page post makes it look like the opposite. czar 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Please read the quote from Jaffrelot in footnote 12. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

His Janus-like appearance reflected his two sources of inspiration (Bolshevism and Anarchism)

This isn't a strong enough claim to say that Singh was an anarchist. Plenty of people are influenced by anarchism without being an anarchist. Our standard for adding categories is that it has to be a defining trait of the person's life, which this footnote does not support. Is there something I'm missing? czar 13:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not cherry picking, but reading more comprehensively, as in:

The revolutionary repertoire has changed with time. Replete with religious references at the beginning of the twentieth century, it has become secular in the inter-war period. Purely nationalist, to begin with, it became, with time, progressively internationalist and proletarian (involving the workers and the peasants), while recognizing, little by little, the rifts, no longer only of classes but also of castes and religions. The man who epitomizes this transition is Bhagat Singh. His Janus-like appearance reflected his two sources of inspiration (Bolshevism and Anarchism), the Marxist one becoming dominant by the late 1920s. Bhagat Singh, who died when he was 23, was an exceptional person, as A.G. Noorani pointed out, because of his ‘intellectual strength’. But his evolution has been followed by others, including Shiv Verma, one of the founders of the HSRA. Verma, however, admitted in a 1986 article, that if in 1928 the firm resolution to turn away from ‘anarchism and to make socialism an act of faith’’ had been taken, ‘in practice, we held on to our old style of individual actions’ It took us three years to realize the limitations of individual action. We moved towards socialism with measured steps, and it was only after our arrests that we had enough time and enough books to read, to discuss, to return to the past, and to arrive at the right conclusions.' But it was too late for the HSRA which had been decimated by repression since not only many leaders were arrested but others, like Bhagat Singh, were executed or killed in an exchange of fire with the police, like Azad in 1931. It was not before the 1940s that the Communist Party of India was to fulfill Bhagat Singh’s prophecy by taking up the cause of revolution ...

In other words, it was only after their arrests, said one of the founders, that they had enough time to read the books. Sources aside, though, obviously, any story about any group, five of whose members plan a murder, then (i) two of whom mistake a 21-year-old on probation for the police chief, (ii) one of whom (Bhagat Singh) then pumps six or seven bullets into the dying man, (iii) while they are escaping, another Azad kills an Indian policeman Channan Singh who chases Bhagat Singh (iv) return to their rooms and alter the posters to show the 21-year old as their instead target instead of the middle-aged police chief, (v) then return to downtown Lahore and slap their posters in a few places, ... has enough elements of farce, enough fits of spontaneous individual impatience, anger or bravado, and enough intellectual dishonesty to betoken anarchism not socialism. Anarchism as a political philosophy has been much more internally inconsistent and also gratuitously violent than socialism. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say he is an anarchist. I've already linked the guidelines that his association with anarchist philosophy needs to be a defining trait of his life to warrant categorization as such. I.e., it should not require anywhere near the deduction above. (Also we define anarchism much differently than described above.) How would you like to proceed? I recommend reverting your edit. Alternatively, you can either share additional sources or open this to third parties. czar 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, it does. But I'm happy to provide simple declarative statements in scholarly sources. Please give me a few minutes. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added five more citations. They go from simple noun phrases, e.g. "The Indian socialist-anarchist Bhagat Singh" to more complex analysis. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: By the way, where did I say, "He was an anarchist?" I hadn't paid attention to this earlier, but I say only, "borrowing ideas from Bolshevism and Anarchism, ..." I haven't really said much about anarchism in the lead (which is what I have written). Is it stated categorically later in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Oh, I see. It is the Categories at the bottom of the page that you were addressing. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to them, and I'm not sure why I did that time. You are welcome to remove the Anarchist Category if you think the revamped sources are not enugh to pin him down. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks czar 05:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Change 27 September to 28 September 103.177.184.96 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022 (2)

Date of birth is wrong. Real date is 28 th September not 27th 210.246.18.137 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉️] 16:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth date

Why the birth date is 28 Sep, it's 27 Sep , we're reading since childhood, on Punjabi Wikipedia it's also 28 Sep, many are requesting to change this to 28, but not being changed, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komalrajiana (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Komalrajiana: References 1-6 and footnote (a) in the current version attest that both September 27 and 28 are mentioned as Bhagat Singh's birth date in reliable sources, and therefore the wikipedia article too should definitely mention both (as it does). The current version of the article does appear to give more weight to the latter date but I haven't looked into the sourcing deeply enough to have an opinion on which, if any, of the two should be given precedence. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: who has edited the article extensively, and may have an informed opinion. Abecedare (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

September 27 is the predominant date in the sources. My understanding is that for years it was the date on which Bhagat Singh's birthday was celebrated officially in the Punjab and by India's federal government. Then Google appeared. It was founded on 27 September. India's wide-eyed press thereafter had little time for Bhagat Singh on that day. I will find the sources and settle this matter once and for all. Last September we received a lot of flak for carrying the 27th, despite the fact that Britannica, ODNB, and a number of other scholarly sources carry that date. (But as the footnote explains, there is a smaller number of reliable sources that have the 28, and a few a date in October.) All things being equal, my conjecture is that the 28th is a post-internet phenomenon. So hold on please, @Abecedare: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging @Komalrajiana: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks F&f for volunteering to do the needed lit survey. Really appreciated! Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm done. The sources are stacked. As this is a frequent problem, I request that they be allowed to remain, especially for tomorrow which is his death anniversary. There is a source that seems to validate the Google conjecture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks F&f for doing the hard work. I have no issues with the stacked presentation. The multiple references are useful to establish predominance of the 27 Sep date, while stacking prevents the ugliness of the date being followed by ^{[1], [2], [3], [4]...} in the main text. I have made a minor tweak though so that any reader following up on the superscript over the date is led to the footnote that acknowledges the alternate birthdate(s) and explains why wikipedia is favoring the 27 Sep one. They, if they then so wish, can look up the exact references for each date that you listed. Hope that presentation change is ok with everyone. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The page very shamelessly uses the word "mistaken" for retaliation of indian freedom fighters.

Choose your words wisely it is hurting sentiments and it is not true nobody in India considers it a mistaken retaliation. What kind of editors do you guys have and what were you crowdfunding all that money for if you cannot correctly run even the protected pages 49.36.208.157 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare: For your attention. That John Saunders, a 21-year-old intern was mistakenly shot instead of the Senior Police Superintendent James Scott who had ordered by baton charge, is well, widely, and reliably documented. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are new secondary sources based on primary source data and interviews which state that BS was depressed as was Rajguru about killing an innocent man. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what "crowd funding" etc is, but your response to that would be better. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the confusing is between reading the '... mistaken retaliation...' as "it was a mistake to retaliate for the death of an Indian nationalist" (which is a normative judgment wikipedia can't make) vs "it was a mistake to kill John Saunders as part of that retaliation" (which is what I think the sources say, and what Singh et al regretted). Is there a way to rephrase the lede sentence to make it clearer that we mean the latter? Abecedare (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

F&f, how about "...participated in the murder of a junior British police officer and an Indian head constable, mistakenly holding them responsible for the death of an Indian nationalist."? Abecedare (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That will create other problems, as Chanan Singh was shot not because he was taken to be the primary culprit, but because he gave chase (which is a problem with the current formulation as well). In fact, the Punjab police department used to have a service for him for many years after India's independence. I'll come up with something shortly. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking of that constable-shooting objection soon after I posted my suggestion. One way out would be to say, "...participated in the murder of a junior British police officer and an Indian head constable, mistakenly holding the former responsible for the death of an Indian nationalist." The downside being that while you and I may be very comfortable with such a sentence construction, it may make the sentence harder to parse for a general reader. Never easy to balance precision, concision and readability. Will let you mull on it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Abecedare: I've left the constable out mainly because he was killed by the "covering fire" of a third assailant, and also because most sources don't mention the constable. I guess BS was an accessory to the killing of the constable, but that is not needed in the lead. "Mistaken murder" should be fine. I've left it as "what was to be retaliation for the death of an Indian nationalist." That was very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

Date of birth of Bhagat Singh is 28 September. Unfortunately, it showing wrong date of birth as 27 September. Can you please fix it. 138.229.30.88 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the first footnote in the article and the sources cited therein. Abecedare (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Where was Bhagat Singh born?

The name of the place is Khatkar Kalan, near Nava Shahar, Punjab India and NOT Banga a village of Faisalabad District, as mentioned in this article. Pramod Kaushal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramodkaushal (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

His complete name is Bhagat Singh Sandhu, gets his surname from his father Kishan Singh Sandhu Preetsandhu86 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉️] 03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox place of birth

All villages in the subcontinent were identified in the following manner in addresses:

Village and P.O. X,
District Y,
Z province,
India.

Before 1947, the term "India" meant the British Raj, or British Indian Empire = British India Princely States. "British India" denoted the collection of Presidencies and Provinces directly ruled by the British; the "Princely States," the collection of states ruled nominally by Indian rulers, their rule overseen by the British in a system of paramountcy. Punjab province was in British India so we need write no more. Had he been born in Patiala State, however, the correct place of birth would have been, ..., Patiala State, British Raj, or British Indian Empire.

These days, as India is also the common name for the entity Republic of India, "British India" is sometimes used informally to disambiguate the pre-1947 undivided India from the contemporary one (especially in newspapers), but the terminology is not precise. So, summing up: if someone was born in a province, as Bhagat Singh was, write "British India;" if they were born in a princely state, write "British Indian Empire." In other words, what is there in the info box right now is the correct place of birth. Banga is a village; villages require both the district and province. Please don't change it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Bhagat singh

Baghat singi 103.15.63.146 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"Bhagavath Singh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bhagavath Singh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 20#Bhagavath Singh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

About Bhagat Singh

Paragraph 2409:4040:D91:A4A7:0:0:7089:290B (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

His birthday on 28 september 1907 Ansh.r.bhagat (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

157.35.62.123 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

His birthday on 28 Sept 1907

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Hello I request you to rectify Bhagat singh ji date of birth from 27 th September to 28 th September.

He is an honour for us and wrong date of birth is hurting our sentiments Bhagatsinghfanksandhu (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read the many citations with elaborate quotes in the article. It is thought that the birthdate (and -day), which the most reliable sources always considered 27 September, was changed in the early 2000s by the publicity seekers after Google was founded on the same day and India's wide-eyed press began to cover Google instead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022 (2)

Ansh.r.bhagat (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

His birthday on 28 september 1907

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

To support the change refer THE TIMES OF INDIA published on 28th Sep 2022 Aynygy (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

Th official date of birth is 28th September 1907 kindly change it asp Aynygy (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The current given date is explained in a footnote. Changing this will require consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

About bhagat singh

Female melodious 2402:3A80:CD2:624D:0:0:3AC9:A5D4 (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bhagar singh biography

Bhagat 106.66.28.196 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

gandhi

kannada 103.89.235.58 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Improvement

Hey, what would be some good starting points or pointers to get this to be a GA level? I already feel that it is a pretty good one, it would be nice to have it shown what needs to be done here, not just for myself but any others that come along. Thanks. :) SP00KYtalk 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth

I'm removing the references to a date of birth of 28 September. This appears to have been en-wiki's fault, possibly a typo, though I haven't tried to conclusively prove that. The sources currently linked on this article that support a birth date of the 28th and not the 27th both postdate this edit: [3] which was an import from en-wiki, and are likely WP:CITOGENESIS. -- asilvering (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

157.39.199.247 (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to correct your information as wikipedia is popular for his correct informations.

Bhagat Singh was born in KHATKAD KALAN a small village now this village is part of Punjab (India) not in Faislabad (Pakistan). This village is now in district NAWANSHEHAR now known as SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR,located in doaba Province in Punjab india. Kindly do needful.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

142.113.215.58 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bhagat singh ji is a shaheed please remove word died 🙏

 Not done: What? Are you trying to say he's not dead? Cannolis (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

2001:569:7DEA:C600:3B6E:78E0:6516:F896 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)please change the bhagat singh's photo bhagat singh wear turban not hat

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Tollens (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

Hon'ble Bhagat Singh birth date is 28th September 1907, which is wrongly written here as 27th September 1907. Please correct it.

Reference: 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6. So on. Taruneshparashar (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

See the many much more reliable sources already in the article citing the 27th to be his birthday. The 28th became popular only after Google (whose founding date is 27 September 1998) became well-known in India, and the Indian media, dizzy and wide-eyed, began to gush about Google on the 27th. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Prime Minister of India Celebrated Bhagat Singh Birth Anniversary on 28 September and also in previous year like 2019 Prime Minister of India and Vice President of India Celebrated Bhagat Singh Birth Anniversary on 28 September. References 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 and I think Prime Minister of India and Vice President of India are more reliable sources then news media. And NOT only this year Every year prime minister of India Celebrates Bhagat Singh Jayanti e.g., 2020 2022 2023 WikiAnchor10 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are all post-Google phenomena. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh's famous essay, "Why I am an Atheist," was published on his first birth anniversary after his death, which was 27 September 1931. I'm sure the sources abound. For years, India's government celebrated his birthday on the 27th. That is, until Google was hogging the headlines. I'm sure the sources abound. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See the official AKASHVANI: Vol. XLVI, No.39 ( 27 SEPTEMBER, 1981 ) - Page 16, the official All India Radio. It says, "Birth Anniversary of Sardar Bhagat Singh Sunday". You can check that it was indeed a Sunday in 1981. 28th was a Monday. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And here is some scholarly backup:

• Phanjoubam, Pradip (2016), The Northeast Question: Conflicts and frontiers, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-1-138-95798-5

  Consider this. 27 September is the birthday of Google. This day is also the birthday of well-known and respected Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh, though some claim 28 September to be his birthday. For all the years after Indian independence, Bhagat Singh’s birthday was what the Indian media remembered on 27 September, with the union government’s Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) issuing large eulogising display advertisements ahead of the day, reminding the nation of the day’s significance in the Indian independence movement and nation-building. But by the turn of the twenty-first century, amidst the excitement of changes brought about by the liberalisation of the Indian economy and its consequent growing integration with the global market, all major Indian news channels and newspapers began enthusiastically remembering Google, carrying features on this phenomenon of the digital age for days, and in the process, virtually marginalised the memory of Bhagat Singh to the periphery of the media’s, and therefore, the public’s consciousness. Obviously, the paradigms of history writing are yet getting set for another revolution. If history is the story of the State, as Carr suggested, then history telling must also have to change with the transformation the nature of modern States is going through.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And the posthumous introduction to this own works:

• Singh, Bhagat (2007) [1931], Lal, Chaman (ed.), The Jail Notebook and Other Writings, LeftWord Books, p. 22, ISBN 978-81-87496-72-4

  Bhagat Singh’s comrade in jail and later editor of his Selected Works, Shiv Verma, records that Bhagat Singh prepared four manuscripts in jail: (1) The Idea of Socialism; (2) Autobiography; (3) History of the Revolutionary Movement in India; and (4) At the Door of Death. It is not clear if Verma actually read or saw these manuscripts, or simply heard Bhagat Singh saying that he is working on them. However, clearly Bhagat Singh did write something, and what he wrote was smuggled out of the jail by Kumari Lajjawati of Jalandhar. Lajjawati was secretary of the Bhagat Singh Defence Committee and a Congress activist. She visited Lahore jail frequently to discuss the legal aspects of the case. Lajjawati showed the papers to Feroze Chand, editor of People, the Lahore paper established by Lala Lajpat Rai. Feroze Chand was to publish selections from these writings in his paper. This is how the celebrated essay ‘Why I am an Atheist’ was published after his execution on September 27, 1931, his first birth anniversary.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Fowler&fowler's RS employing "charismatic" in a short description

Scholarly text books

Text books that use "charismatic" in a brief description of Bhagat Singh

Jeffrey, Craig (2017). Modern India: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-19-876934-7. Congress was often split on the question of the extent to which all protests should be non-violent. Gandhi, though highly influential, had opponents. It is particularly important to recognize the existence of a socialist, radical wing within the nationalist movement. Historians often discuss this wing with reference to Bhagat Singh, a charismatic Indian revolutionary executed by the British with two other revolutionaries in 1931 for murdering a British police officer. Misra, Maria (2007). Vishnu's Crowded Temple: India Since the Great Rebellion. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-300-13721-7. LCCN 2007936529. The slavishly pro-Moscow communists left room for another form of Marxism, more fully blended with nationalism. In 1928 the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA), an out-growth of the older revolutionary tradition of the Punjab, was founded in Lahore. Led by a charismatic 22-year-old student, Bhagat Singh, it departed from its pre-war terrorist lineage by adopting Marxist militant atheism as its ideology. The HSRA favoured acts of 'exemplary' revolutionary violence. Young, Robert J. C. (2016) [2001]. Postcolonialism: An Historical introduction (Anniversary ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 324. ISBN 9781405120944. LCCN 2016025068. Even within Gandhi's own closest political entourage his prohibitions against violence were interpreted with some liberality, the understanding being that violence against people was unacceptable, but violence against property was permissible. In political terms Gandhi's position also served to distinguish him clearly from the violence of the Bengali Hindu, Maharashtran chitpavan Brahmin, and communist terrorists, such as the celebrated group under Surjya Sen that carried out the Chittagong Armoury Raid in 1930, the followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, or the charismatic Bhagat Singh's Hindustan Socialist Republic Association. Although this terrorism was carried out by small groups and never seriously endangered British rule, its militancy, its increasing frequency from 1930 onwards, and its popularity greatly worried the British Government of India and led to fierce repression. It also made the government much more receptive to the liberal Congress Party that adopted Gandhi's stance of non-violence. As always in liberation struggles, militant 'extremists' encouraged the administration to negotiate with the moderates. Nair, Neeti (2011). Changing Homelands: Hindu Politics and the Partition of India. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-674-05779-1. The charisma and sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and thirteen other prisoners could unite the entire spectrum of political opinion in the Punjab and beyond, a significant achievement for a particularly fractured Congress, but for reasons never clear, the non-violent hunger strikers failed to move Gandhi very much. At any rate, the "Punjab wrongs" brought Indians from the rest of India into the politics of the province, courting arrest, writing in the press, and returning their medals of honour in protest against British imperialism."

• More coming

Scholarly monographs

Monographs that use "charismatic"

Maclean, Kama (2016). A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence, Image, Voice and Text. Penguin Books. p. 184. ISBN 978-0143426332. Chapter 8, Controlling Political Violence, Prisoner as Pedagogy: The bulk of the memoirs, oral histories and visual artefacts that I have drawn on to demonstrate the intersection between revolutionary and Congress activity in 1929–1930 are so heavily focused on the lives and adventures of personalities, especially the charismatic Bhagat Singh and the more enigmatic Chandrashekhar Azad, that evidence of revolutionary energies being chanelled into Congress activity in the aftermath of their deaths becomes elusive. From the perspective of Manmathnath Gupta, after the loss of these two figureheads, the revolutionary movement 'became divorced from its moorings and was more artificial and people came into it because of romantic glamour attached to it, not out of any deep idealism.' Chenoy, Kamal Mitra (2021). "Russian Revolution and the Global South". In Chenoy, Anuradha M.; Upadhyay, Archana (eds.). Hundred Years of the Russian Revolution: Its Legacies in Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9789813347854. Indian communists, who became active in the early 1920s and called for independence from Great Britain in 1925, became a significant force in the 1930s and 1940s and influenced several other progressive movements inspired by the Russian Revolution. Most popular and well known among them were the Hindustan Socialist Revolutionary Army established in 1928, whose charismatic leader Bhagat Singh and his comrades were all executed and buried in unmarked graves by the British colonialists. Grant, Kevin (2019). Last Weapons: Hunger Strikes and Fasts in the British Empire, 1890–1948. University of California Press. p. 143. ISBN 9780520301009. LCCN 2018057018. In this year (1929) the power of the hunger strike was demonstrated by members of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association before and during their trial in the second Lahore conspiracy case. This case was widely publicized because several of the defendents had been involved either in the assassination of a police official and a head constable or in the bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi. Bhagat Singh, the charismatic leader of the group, had participated in both actions Tickell, Alex (2013). Terrorism, Insurgency and Indian English Literature, 1830–1947. Routledge Research in Postcolonial Literatures series. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-87715-2. LCCN 2011019599. Under its charismatic leader, Bhagat Singh, the HSRA carried out several high-profile terror-attacks, including the assassination of J. P.Saunders, the Lahore assistant superintendent of police, whom they wrongly held responsible for Lala Lajpat Rai's death as the result of police brutality during a demonstration.' The HSRA also carried out two bombings: the first, a daring attack on the Legislative Assembly in session at Delhi, in which bombs were thrown from the public gallery but little damage was caused; and a subsequent attempt to blow up the viceroy's train. Bhagat Singh and a co-revolutionary, Sukhdev, were soon arrested and underwent a highly publicized trial before being executed in 1931. Baghwati Charan Vohra, another leading light of the association, died testing a bomb that would have been used to try to liberate Bhagat Singh from the Lahore Central Jail.

• More coming

Scholarly journal articles

Journal articles that use "charismatic"

Horton, A. V. M. (2016). "Book review: A Revolutionary History of Interwar India: Violence Image, Voice and Text. By Kama Maclean . pp. xx, 342. London, 2015". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 26 (3): 525–528. doi:10.1017/S1356186315000504. This monograph, built around four articles already published in academic journals, is a study of the revolutionary movement in North India with special reference to the crucial years between 1929 and 1931. Particular attention is paid to the career of Bhagat Singh (1907–31), a charismatic militant leader hanged in 1931 for a political crim committed nearly two years earlier, and the enduring popular cult which arose around his name.

Moffat

• Moffat, Chris (2018). "Politics and the Work of the Dead in Modern India". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 60 (1): 178–211. doi:10.1017/S0010417517000457. Abstract:This article provides a framework for understanding the continuing political potential of the anticolonial dead in twenty-first-century India. It demonstrates how scholars might move beyond histories of reception to interrogate the force of inheritance in contemporary political life. Rather than the willful conjuring of the dead by the living, for a politics in the present, it considers the more provocative possibility that the dead might themselves conjure politics—calling the living to account, inciting them to action. To explicate the prospects for such an approach, the article traces the contested afterlives of martyred Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh (1907–1931), comparing three divergent political projects in which this iconic anticolonial hero is greeted as interlocutor in a struggle caught "halfway." It is this temporal experience of "unfinished business"—of a revolution left incomplete, a freedom not yet perfected—that conditions Bhagat Singh's appearance as a contemporary in the political disputes of the present, whether they are on the Hindu nationalist right, the Maoist student left, or amidst the smoldering remains of Khalistani separatism in twenty-first-century Punjab.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of term "charismatic" in first sentence

Regarding this edit, the term "charismatic" can have multiple meanings making it a poor fit for the very first sentence of the article. This term requires context, and without context is ambiguous and subjective. While 'charismatic' can be supported by sources, this alone isn't enough for this to be the first trait used to describe this person. The body of the article does not directly explained or even mentioned this charisma, instead merely implying it. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, regarding this edit summary, we are both experienced editors, and I can assure you it absolutely can "work like that". My explanation was clear enough, and I have expanded it now here. If you want to dispute this change, do so on its own merits, not merely because it is the status quo. Grayfell (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Many words with multiple meanings are used in the lead sentences of articles. Sorry, but I'll respond when I have time and you have to wait for a consensus to emerge. If you edit-war, I'll get administrative help. What do you think they'll do? They'll lock this page in the consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also see WP:TERTIARY and the role of introductory textbooks in determining due weight. Craig Jeffrey's quote from his Modern India: A Very Short Introduction, OUP, 2017, was chosen after much thought from the dozens of sources that use "charismatic" or "charisma" (applied to his writing, his self-abnegation, his attire, his boldness). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note: Jeffrey's lead-like, "Bhagat Singh, a charismatic Indian revolutionary executed by the British with two other revolutionaries in 1931 for murdering a British police officer" There is no other mention of Singh anywhere else in the book. Should we ask the same of Jeffrey? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem on this page is that I have written the lead (with sources) as a template for the NPOV, scholarly, expansion of the article. There is a reason that the cites have quotes. The lead is not a summary of the article. I've done this for a large number of articles (see for example Gandhi, Sanskrit, Mughal Empire, Himalayas, Great Bengal Famine, Nehru, ...) Some have been expanded and others have not. I have some sympathy for your POV, but the solution is expanding the body, not deleting words from the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've edited your own comments to tone-down the aggression. I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I understand that both of us are here to improve the project.

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is the norm on Wikipedia, which I suspect you know. But whether this lead is a summary or not, there is still a problem. Currently, the body of the article does not mention his charisma, nor does it explain how he was charismatic. When the first sentence of the article mentions a term which is both ambiguous and which is not further explained, that creates confusion in readers.

Even from the quote provided, Jeffrey mentions Singh's 'charisma' after significant amount of context has already been provided. Jeffrey even helpfully tells us "It is particularly important to recognize the existence of a socialist, radical wing within the nationalist movement." This is what Jeffrey deems to be important about Singh, not his Charisma. If other sources explain how he was charismatic or what that means, that explanation hasn't made it into the article at all.

Even if the body did explain this term, it would still be ambiguous and confusing in its current context. This term 'charismatic' cannot help readers understand the topic without at least some additional context, and that context probably won't fit in the lead. Expanding the body to explain this would help, obviously, but it would still be a loaded and subjective term.

So until the body is expanded, this term should be removed. When the body is expanded to mention his charisma, then how this is summarized can be reevaluated. Grayfell (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the lead is no different from Jeffreys in the amount of context, only it comes at the end of the sentence. I can easily change it to: Bhagat Singh was the charismatic leader of a 1920s Indian radical socialist group, and the eloquent author of some of its tracts, who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer. (Or somesuch)

The question remains: why is "charismatic" relevant in Jeffreys and what meaning does it have (of the several of charisma)? In other words, why does Jeffreys need "charismatic" and what does a novice reader (the kind that reads the Very Short Introductions) learn from the mention of this word in the book? There were dozens of Indian anti-colonial nationalists who were charismatic (Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas Bose, ...)

I disagree entirely with the rest of your argument.

Pinging @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Drmies, DrKay, Johnbod, and Ealdgyth: if you have time later this week. I'm flat out of time and I can't in all honesty AGF this out of the blue edit. Merry Christmas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Correcting Drmies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added eight more citations (in addition to Craig Jeffrey's) all using "charismatic." These are books published by Harvard, California, Yale, Cambridge university presses; Routledge, Wiley Blackwell, Palgrave Macmillan, and Penguin. I don't have much time, but I did go back to examine when I had added "charismatic." It was two years ago and it was done after much mulling over. When so many historians published by the best publishers use "charismatic" as a descriptor for Singh in varied contexts, it becomes an essential, nearly indispensable quality of his biography. I'm still open to suggestions, but simply removing "charismatic" doesn't cut it for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OPENPARABIO is pretty clear that "charismatic" (and similar adjectives) should not appear in the lead sentence. This should be reserved for the bare facts of a person's life. I don't object to a reference to his charismatic personality being made elsewhere in the lede. ITBF (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. Can I use the noun charismatic? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In other words, rephrased, can I write: "BS was an Indian revolutionary who took part in the mistaken murder of a junior British police office in 1928, and upon going on a hunger-strike in jail before his execution was able to attract, inspire, and fascinate India's youth?"

Webster's Unabridged: charismatic (noun, 2), a person who possesses special traits that attract, inspire, or fascinate people Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ITBF has provided a better explanation of this problem, and with much fewer words. Whether or not you agree with my argument, the underlying problem remains.

Changing it to a noun doesn't fix this problem. As a noun or as an adjective, it's still reads as a WP:PEACOCK term here. One way to contextualize this, potentially, is to attribute it as an opinion (the Nehru quote in the lead is a good example of this, as it does a very good job of using attribution while also providing context). The very first paragraph is not the best place to introduce these kinds of subjective opinions.

"Attract" is vague and potentially ambiguous, and both "inspire" and "fascinate" both also read as peacock words here. Using synonyms for a peacock word which are also peacock words will not work. (The lead currently also uses the term "electrify" which is arguably even worse.) I do not want to overstate this, because these are not major problems, and of course many, many articles share these problems, but they are still problems. I think the article would be improved by the use of more neutral language.

The reason I removed the term "charismatic" was not because I disputed the sources, it was because it's a peacock term in this specific situation. I think this information is better indicated elsewhere in the lead with less ambiguous and less emotive language, such as the Nehru quote. Adding many, many sources for this ambiguous term doesn't really help readers, and doesn't really address my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Charisma" and "charismatic" are not being used as peacock or vanity terms. Neither are they peacock in this specific situation. They have specific meaning and usage in history, sociology and political science. Please read Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph's Gandhi: the Traditional Roots of Charisma.

Or the other scholarly books,

• The Age of Charisma
• Routledge International Handbook of Charisma
• Political Leadership, Nations and Charisma
• and dozens of others.

I have offered to change charisma or charismatic in the lead sentence to their specific meaning, but there is nothing peacock about it. Please read the rest of the lead. Does it have even one bone of peacock in it?

This is as far as I go. If you want to get involved in a long argument about a subject about which you have given no indication of possessing any knowledge, only of having swung by the lead of its WP article thinking it would be an easy pass, please be my guest. But if you edit-war, I will get administrative help, as I've already indicated. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And if you canvass talk page- or MOS mavens in order to create a false consensus, I will again get administrative help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Why would you even assume I would canvas? What, exactly, is your personal problem with me based on this single edit? I don't know why you say you "cannot AGF", but WP:AGF is a policy. To put it another way, your response has been excessively hostile, and I would welcome any administrative help if this hostility persists.

Nowhere in the article's talk page has this specific word been discussed before. I trust that your intention was not to use this as a peacock word, but I'm not the only reader who sees a problem with this word, as ITBF seems to agree. I have been trying, and apparently failing, to explain why this particular word is a problem.

I'm not out to vandalize your hard work. Please read what I'm saying.

I understand the word has a meaning within sociology. As I said before, the word "charisma" has multiple meanings. Even with sources, the sociological meaning is also at least partly subjective. To say that his leadership was "extraordinary", for example, is still very much a peacock term if it is used without any further explanation or context. The first sentence is a jarring and potentially confusing place for this subjective descriptor.

His birth and death date are not subjective. His status as an Indian revolutionary is not subjective. Being charismatic is subjective, and it's non-falsifiable. His charisma needs to be explained and contextualized as the assessment of reliable sources. Citation in ref-tags alone do not provide context, and neither does placing this term in the very first sentence.

Further, this is a general audience encyclopedia. Without context or attribution, this would still be MOS:JARGON.

But most importantly, assume good faith. I am not your enemy. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no response in the past few weeks (AGF or otherwise) I have made an edit which partially addresses my concerns. MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY are standard across Wikipedia, and I would strongly suggest summarizes sources in the body and building the lead off of that summary. Excessive Wikipedia:Citation overkill is not helpful and misrepresents the issue, and the use of boldface for emphasis was also not appropriate and seems slightly WP:POINTed, since nobody is disputing that multiple sources have used this term. Again, our goal is to provide readers with an understanding of the topic, and this term requires more context to be helpful to this goal. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Charisma was an essential aspect of his revolutionary status in India. There are multiple sources that use the same word. All words in the English language have multiple meanings. I haven't subscribed to the Oxford English Dictionary for 30 years for nothing. You don't have consensus here. Pinging @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Abecedare: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit, which I reverted, involved placing "charismatic" in a separate sentence. It says: Bhagat Singh (28 September 1907 – 23 March 1931) was an Indian revolutionary who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer in what was to be retaliation for the death of an Indian nationalist. ... campaign for India's independence. Modern historian and scholars have described Singh's leadership of the movement as charismatic.

"Charisma" is associated just as much with his name as "revolutionary." On the other hand, not just the ruling British, but also leading Indian anti-colonial nationalists such as Nehru considered him to be a terrorist rather than a revolutionary. (See Nehru's quote in the lead, "Bhagat Singh did not become popular because of his act of terrorism but because he seemed to vindicate, for the moment, the honour of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him of the nation. ").

So we could change it to: Bhagat Singh was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist who participated in the mistaken murder ... India's independence. Modern scholars and other Indian anti-colonial nationalists have considered him variously to be a "terrorist" and "revolutionary," and his style of leadership "charismatic." But then we have to ask if placing these descriptions at the end of the first lead paragraph gives them too little weight. Shouldn't right after the first lead sentence be a better place for these qualifications? E.g. something like: Bhagat Singh was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer in what was to be retaliation for the death of an Indian nationalist. Modern scholars and other Indian anti-colonial nationalists have described him also as a "terrorist," "revolutionary," and his style of leadership "charismatic." Bhagat Singh later ... nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence.

But someone else will say, "Why not after the second sentence?" and we can spend the rest of February 2024 achieving a consensus. The problem as I see it is that you are attempting to argue something on first principles, disconnected with the historiography of the subject matter. To spend so much time on an issue whose due weight is best captured in the lead sentence itself ends up wasting too much community time. As yet I don't see any consensus for your edit. I would rather let sleeping dogs lie until the rest of the article is rewritten using the sources in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears that you don't have consensus either. The problems I have identified still remains, and your preferred wording doesn't address that problem, so this appears to be filibustering. I've tried to explain my concern multiple times from multiple perspectives, and you have responded with hostility and by misrepresenting what I have been saying. It appears we agree that the article should be rewritten to encorporate using sources in the lead into the body. My attempts to make even modest changes have been met with thinly-veiled insults and accusations of bad faith from you. You don't have to "spend so much time" on this. You want to move this up to the second sentence, go ahead.

It's also wild to me that you have warned me against canvassing both before and after having pinged multiple admins you (apparently) think would be sympathetic to your case. Even in your revert you mention pinging admins. Is that a threat? At this point, if you're going to take this to a noticeboard, take it to a noticeboard, otherwise your behavior is canvasing.

As I hope you know, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are not the only experienced editor in this discussion. I would strongly advise you to rethink your approach here. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Third party here. This was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism/Hot articles. (1) Putting "charismatic" as an epithet in the first sentence of the article reads as a neutrality issue. There's likely a better way to put it, if it's even necessary, as the bigger issue is: (2) If it's so important to his life, why isn't it discussed in the article? The lede should be summarizing the content of the article, not introducing new info. I recommend removing it from the lede. czar 04:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with Czar and Grayfell, and have removed it from the sentence per MOS:FIRST, and re-added it later in the lead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    It's not that simple. You are all editors who have no history of editing this page. You have no history of editing modern Indian history of the late British period. How do talk page mavens, which is what appear to be, then decide that the historiography on a specialist topic is all about? As the lead editor of British Raj and India, why was I not informed on my user talk page about these .../Hot articles?

    I'm afraid this seems to an instance of someone who has appeared on a page out of the blue, attempting to play gotcha, but were challenged, and are then spending all their energy on having their way. I'm an old Indian history hand. You are welcome to have an RfC on WP:INDIA among people familiar with the topic area, but we don't achieve a consensus by dickering with a line here or a line there and then eliciting the opinion of others similarly distanced from the subject topic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    I mean WT:INDIA. Once there, invite me and the others who appear in the edit history of India and British Raj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    I will start an RfC below Fowler&fowler; you are free to invite anyone you like (including your favourite selection of administrators). Make sure you know what WP:CANVASSING is, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    I should ask: would you be interested in resolving this at WP:DRN, by the way? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    @AirshipJungleman29 and Asilvering: Some of those administrators are knowledgeable about modern South Asian history and others are not. But there are dozens of editors at WT:INDIA who are.

    DRN is helpful for situations otherwise resolvable by some version of an interaction ban. This is a content issue.

    I am traveling until Tuesday morning, US EST. Please give me until Wednesday AM for the RfC. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

    I'm now collecting some refs in a section below. I should be ready for the RfC tomorrow, i.e. March 7 morning GMT. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for that, Fowler&fowler. While we're on the topic, do you have any idea why the article does not refer to Singh as the HRSA's leader, and why the lead does not bring up that he was even part of it until the second paragraph, quite unlike the emphasis in your sources below? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    He wasn't really their leader, at least not their indisputable leader. He had joined a few years earlier. But the highly publicized acts, the charisma, his quickness, his driven personality, not to mention the larger than life persona, created in part by editorials in Indian-owned newspapers, snowballed him to a kind of giddy, confused, stardom that hadn't existed before.

    In that brief historical space his flaws were forgotten: that he had shot the wrong man, the same age as him; that he had shot him in vain, as he lay dying and defenceless, pumping eight bullets into his body; that he and his compatriots had lied by changing the prepared posters to make the 21-year-old John Saunders the object of assassination; and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    In other words, by the time he became the HRSA's best-known member, the HRSA has stopped meeting and most likely even disbanded Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    I see. So why do so many of the sources provided below ("Led by a charismatic 22-year-old student, Bhagat Singh" ... "Bhagat Singh's Hindustan Socialist Republic Association" ... "the Hindustan Socialist Revolutionary Army established in 1928, whose charismatic leader Bhagat Singh" ... "Bhagat Singh, the charismatic leader" ... "its charismatic leader, Bhagat Singh" ... "Bhagat Singh (1907–31), a charismatic militant leader") refer to him as a leader? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    Some/many authors, especially textbook authors who have gathered a large amount of historical data to tell a story that is pedagogically appropriate, perhaps, might be simplifying for their readership and purpose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    In other words, he was not a revolutionary leader like Fidel or Che or Mao or Ho or Lenin, who had the heft of years under their leadership, nor was he as original as Trotsky or Bakunin or other theorists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    As I'm thinking more about your question ... one could say that his promise outshone his record. The charisma (which is also highly dependent on the eyes of the beholder) may have been the catalyst. But, of course, it is difficult to find sources that state this precisely in this fashion. Some new ones do this in a sophisticated fashion by charting BS's misgivings about his actions, about his being haunted by the face of a dying mostly innocent man, and so forth ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29. I think an RfC would be helpful to find what the consensus actually is. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    I'll give F&f some days to respond to whether they want to go to DRN, and if they decline or don't reply, I'll start the RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

    Please see my post(s) above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    @Fowler&fowler, you can watch individual wikiprojects' Hot Articles listings if you so desire. There are lots, as you can see here: User:HotArticlesBot. I have no idea why you would expect to be notified of them.

    I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that people who have more expertise in a topic are in general better placed to assess what wording is more likely to be the correct wording. But you are the only editor arguing for this word to be retained, as far as I can see in this discussion. You argue that this is based on long-standing consensus, but you revert anyone who challenges it. You tell people to go to the Talk page, but once they are there you tell them they're wasting their time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    Personally, I'm reminded of the last two examples at User:Thebiguglyalien/Letters from the editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

    OK, thank you very much for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    @Asilvering, AirshipJungleman29, Grayfell, and Czar: Thank you all for your patience. And thank you, AirshipJungleman29, for the queries above. I've just dusted off my copy of Kama Maclean's A Revolutionary History of Interwar India and also tried to reread as best I could Chris Moffat's "Politics and the Work of the Dead in Modern India," Comparative Studies in Society and History 2018;60(1):178–211. doi:10.1017/S0010417517000457. It is clear to me that much needs to be added to the article for it to show contemporary interpretations. For now I am proposing this edit which I hope will forestall a time consuming RfC. Let me know what you think. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    "Widely interpreted to have been charismatic" is more grammatical, but Chris Moffat makes the case that BS has a rich after life in contemporary India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    I think it belongs in the first paragraph, but am not so sure it belongs in the first sentence. Personally, from the perspective of flow, I would put the charismatic part later in the lead, just before the "he electrified": joining the discussion of his ideology, it combines nicely to explain why Singh was so alluring. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

    That's a good suggestion. Thanks. How does this sound? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    I still don't see why this needs to be mentioned in the lede when it isn't discussed in the article's body. Personal characteristics are normally covered in the Personal life section and only covered insofar as the trait is instrumental, i.e., it has some kind of effect. Like we could add that he wore a moustache too but why does it matter to add? The article should show why. czar 02:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    @Czar: Political charisma, noted and written up in the sociological literature from the time of Max Weber, is not entirely a personal characteristic. Please see Routledge International Handbook of Charisma, 2021, especially page 227 for definitions.

    The lead here is not a summary style precis of the main body as it usually is in more finished articles. Rather, in a large number of controversial or complex articles, especially on South Asian topics, which have been stuck, as it were, in the Slough of Despond, I have written the lead to be an NPOV and reliably sourced template for the expansion or rewriting of the article. Examples include: Sanskrit, Mahatma Gandhi, Mughal Empire, Subhas Chandra Bose, Great Bengal famine of 1770, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule and so forth. Some have been supervised by administrators.

    One could change the contested sentence fragment to "widely interpreted by scholars to be politically charismatic ...," but I'd rather leave it in this state until his charisma is elaborated more in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    My point is that this discussion wouldn't be so voluminous if the importance of "political charisma" in Singh's life was already made clear within the article. I recommend starting there before continuing to discuss the lede. The article doesn't need to be "more finished" to warrant removal from the lede as the lede should always represent a summary of the article in whatever the article's present state. czar 12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    The same logic applied to all the unilateral leads I have written in South Asian topics over the years, some of which I have listed above. Their forms and often their contents have all—at least at the outset—run counter to WP dogma. I usually don't have the time to rewrite the articles, although I can find the better sources in short order. Given a poorly sourced article, the choice as I see it is between a poorly sourced lead and a rigorously sourced one. Given also that most people don't read beyond the lead, a reliably sourced lead perhaps does do them some service. A scrupulous MOS maven will be within their rights to remove the entire lead I have written, but what or whom will that serve? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

    I agree in principle that a good lead (and only a good lead) is better than a poor lead (and an equally poor article). I am also quite sure it is true that most people only read the lead. But the choice we have here isn't a choice between a good lead and a poor one. It's the choice between a lead that contains the word "charismatic" and one that does not. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)