Talk:Bhagat Singh

तलवारों के साए पर इतिहास हमारा बनता है, जिस ओर जवानी चलती है उस ओर जमाना चलता। जय गुरुदेव भगत सिंह जी 🙏❤️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:408A:1C34:411D:2C22:876A:B866:DC53 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

About bhagat singh biography in telugu

Voice 223.196.193.14 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

jai hind

Jai bharat

Jai lsro

Jai bhagat singh

Jai DRDO

bhagat sin 2402:8100:2565:120E:144F:2E05:B308:B813 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What was the education of agar Singh

add more information 203.194.97.136 (talk) 15:19, 13 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

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)

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)