Talk:Udham Singh

POV

This article starts off by referring to the subject's "martyrdom" and continues with terms like "brutality". It needs a severe POV-ectomy. Zoe 06:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to make the article less POV. I am not done yet. I will make more changes later as I try to get more information on Udham Singh. I have left the POV tag on for now. Syiem 12:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the article with Mohammed Singh Azad (making that a redirect), and I cleaned everything up. I left the POV tag for lack of knowledge of the subject and what the conflicting POVs may or may not be. I've also left some comments in the wiki markup where I think things need to be clarified and where I think a footnote is in order to support a potentially POV statement. — BrianSmithson 14:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Udham Singh was an Indian revolutionary and freedom fighter, considered to be one of the most famous martyrs of the Indian freedom struggle. For this reason, he is often referred to as Shaheed Udham Singh (the word shaheed means "martyr"). He is also believed by many to be one of the earliest Marxists in India. He died for the freedom of India. I think there is no need to use POV tag any more as there are lot material and books are available in India which prooves that Udham Singh was a freedom fighter not a killer. DeepakKamboj 11:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many sources back up your claims; the fact is that from the perspective of the guy he shot, he's a killer. I'm reinstating the tag, as the article needs another go-over to remove POV statements. — BrianSmithson 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, if any body shots and kills other person, he is killer. This means all the Indian freedom fighters were killers and not martyrs who died for the freedom og India. So Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azaad, Subhash Chander Boss are killers not martyrs. This definition is also implies to the British rulers in India at that time. All Britishers were killer who were killing innocent people in India at that time. Also forces in Iraq were killer who was killing other people. So this is not a correct definition of defining a killer. Then how would you define a martyr and freedom fighter. Everybody in India, belives, knows and claims that Udham Singh was a freedom fighter and martyr not a killer. I think we should remove the POV tag. - DeepakKamboj 09:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not according to me. According to people who were alive at the time (the man was tried and executed for murder), some of whom are presumably alive today. I have no stake in this; Udham Singh was unknown to me until I found this article. My main gripe right now is that your bias is very clear on this talk page, so I think the prose of the main article needs to be combed over for POV. I'll try to do this later. Again, remember that I have no POV on this; I'm not for or against Udham Singh's legacy. — BrianSmithson 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian,

I have tried to cleanup the article and did some formatting. Will you please help in the cleaning process so that this article will prove to be best source for information on Udham Singh. - DeepakKamboj 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are taking such an interest in this article. But I wanted to point out some ways that your editing is sometimes POV. Take this paragraph, for example, which you recently added to the article:

It was the fateful Baisakhi Day, 13th April 1919 when thousands of unarmed, innocent & peaceful sitting Indians had assembled in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar to register a peaceful protest against the misdeeds of Britishers, British Imperialism and the arrest and deportation of Dr. Satya Pal, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and other under the infamous Rowlatt Act. Udham Singh was present in the Jallianwala Bagh and serving water to the assembled people along with his friends from Centre Khalsa Orphanage.

In this example, I have italicized those terms that are POV. I realize that to you Udham Singh is a hero and a patriot. But you need to try to approach the subject as if you are a complete outsider with no feelings for or against Udham Singh. Keep that in mind (objectivity) when you write, and you should have no problems with the NPOV policy. — BrianSmithson 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mirror.jpeg overwrote a picture of a mirror that was used in Mirror. If someone can fix it, great; otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. Tintin Talk 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tintin, Thanks for fixing up the photograph. - DeepakKamboj 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak, you have to add a license to the Image:Udham mirror.jpeg, or it will soon get deleted. You can find the list here - copyright tags. Add the proper one in the license section. Tintin Talk 17:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still POV

To the anonymous contributor who keeps removing the NPOV tag: Read the text of that template. It says that "the neutrality of this article is disputed." I dispute the neutrality of this article. It fails our Neautral Point of View policy miserably. Take just these two sentences as example:

Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the heinous criminal massacre, which General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer had perpetrated on innocent Indians under Michael O'Dwyer's rule, and which O'Dwyer had, unfortunately defended. Although condemned by few conservatives at the time, numerous patriotic Indians however, regarded this justified revenge as an important step in India's struggle to end British colonial rule.

To be neutral, this should probably read:

Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the O'Dwyer's part in allowing British soldiers to fire into a crowd of unarmed Indians, an act O'Dwyer later defended. Although condemned by conservatives at the time, many Indians then and now regard the killing as justified revenge and an important step in India's struggle to end British colonial rule.[A source citation goes here.]

Please concern yourself with facts and don't use loaded words like "heinous" and "unfortunately" unless you are presenting someone else's opinion. Your opinion has no place in an encyclopedia article. And until the article is combed for other such terms, the NPOV template must remain. — BrianSmithson 04:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassins

I'm not sure why Category:Assassins should be removed. Singh stalked a prominent man and shot him in retaliation for political actions that man had taken. That's pretty much the definition of assassin: "One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person."[1]. If supporters of Singh think that the word is too negative, then keep in mind that assassination is not necessarily a completely negative thing. Governments the world over have and do have assassins on the payroll. This is not an issue of good or bad, black or white; it's about what words mean. Singh was an assassin, and that doesn't negate any good he may have done for India. — BrianSmithson 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible comments and Singh's aliases

I forgot to mention this yesterday when I made my changes to the article. I've added a few comments to the text. These are only visible in edit mode, and are highlighted by the markup . Most of these are simply requests for footnotes in places where something potentially contentious is stated.

Also, the article includes this list of aliases: Sher Singh, Udham Singh, Udhan Singh, Ude Singh, Uday Singh, Frank Brazil, and Ram Mohammed Singh Azaad. Some of these are referenced later in the article, but others are not. I think it'd be nice to say in the biography section exactly when he went by what alias. For example, if he called himself "Frank Brazil" while he lived in the US, then make a small note of it: "He returned to India in 1924, reaching the U.S. that same year. There Singh went by the alias 'Frank Brazil' and became actively involved with freedom fighters of the Ghadar Party, an Indian group known for its revolutionary politics and its legendary member, Lala Hardyal." — BrianSmithson 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More POV creeping in

Please watch the POV. Captions such as "Udham Singh: Restored pride and dignity to a butcherd and humilated Nation" have no place on a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Likewise, labelling Dyer as "one of the butchers" is POV. We are neutral observers; it's enough for us to simply post the picture with no comment pro or con. — BrianSmithson 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material inappropriate for Indian Independence Movement

An anon has added lot of information on Udham Singh to the above. I have reduced it and am copy-pasting the actual material here so that interested editors can incorporate some of it in this article. TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udham Singh was yet another outstanding patriotic revolutionary and militant nationalist after Bhagat Singh. He was born on 26th December, 1899 in Sunam (then in Patiala State). His former name was Sher Singh but on receiving baptism in Sikhism, he was named as Udey Singh or Udham Singh.

From early age, Udham Singh got interested in revolutionary literature and books. He was also very much influenced by Marxist and Bolshevik ideology. Revolutionary activities of Bhagat Singh and his companions played a key role in moulding and shaping the future course of his life. Udham often spoke of Bhagat Singh as his guru and role model.

The Jallianwala Bagh tragedy proved a turning point in Udham's life. At that time, he was a matriculate student in Central Khalsa Orphanage Pultighar, Amritsar. He had volunteered to serve cold water to the gathering at the Bagh on the fateful day of Jallianwala Massacre. Therefore, he had witnessed moment by moment of the unfolding of the tragic drama on April 13, 1919 and was himself hit by bullet on his left arm. After General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer had indiscriminately massacred a wholly unarmed, innocent and peaceful gathering, Udham Singh had helped carry the dead or wounded on the stretchers to the cremation grounds or for medical care. He was deeply moved by the bloody scene and the national humilation; and he took a solemn pledge in front of Golden Temple to inflict a befitting penalty on the main culprit, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the Governor General of Punjab (Eminent Freedom Fighters of Punjab, 1972, p 239, Dr Fauja Singh).

This event had plunged Singh into active revolutionary politics.

Udham set out to give a practical shape to his solemn pledge. His goal was to reach upto his target at London. First he managed to reach Africa in 1921. Later in 1924, he reached USA where he got very actively involved in the revolutionary activities of Ghadar Party founded by revolutionaries like Kartar Singh Sarabha, Sohan Singh Bhakna and legendary Lala Hardyal. Udham actively worked for three years for the freedom struggle with the overseas Indians in USA. Then, on invitation from Bhagat Singh, Udham returned to India in July 1927 with 25 revolutionary companions and a consignment of arms to speed up the freedom-struggle. By that time, he had become a clean-shaven Sikh. When in Amritsar, Udham was arrested by Rambagh police on account of his being in possession of arms, revolutionary tracts and booklets and some objectionable postcards which belonged to and were published by Ghadar Party in USA. This arrest is believed to have occasioned by a tip-off given by some of his aquaintance. Udham was prosecuted under section 20 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment in October 1927 (See: Udham Singh alias Ram Mohammad Singh Azaad, 2002, p 106, by prof Sikander Singh).

In the court, he had stated that he had intended to murder British Imperialists who were ruling over Indians and that he fully sympathised with the Bolsheviks, as their object was to liberate India from foreign control.

Udham was released in October 1931. In the following years, he continued his revolutionary activities and also worked on plan to reach London. In early 1934, when on a secret visit to Kashmir, Singh duped the police and escaped to Germany from where he ultimately reached London towards the middle of 1934, and joined engineering course there to cover his real motives since his real object was something totally different. He purchased a 6-chamber revolver and a load of ammunition.

For a long time Singh was on the look-out for a suitable opportunity to get out his chief target, Sir Michael O'Dwyer (See: Eminent Freedom fighters of Punjab, p 240, Dr Fauja Singh.

While in London, Udham had gotten numerous opportunities to knock him down, but he was actually looking for a right chance when he could make a big capital out of his intended object and internationalize the event.

At last, the long awaited opportunity came on 13th March 1940 about 21 years after the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy. On that day, a joint meeting of East India Association and the Royal Central Asian Society was scheduled at Caxton Hall and among its prominent speakers was listed the name of Sir Michael O'Dwyer. Concealing his 6-chamber revolver in the book specially cut for the purpose, Udham managed to enter the Caxton Hall and took up his position against the wall. After the end of the meeting, when the gathering had stood up and Michael O'Dwyer was moving up towards the plateform, apparently to speak to Lord Zetland, Singh moved closer to the stage, whipped out his revolver and fired his shots specifically targetting his precious pray. O'Dwyer was hit twice and thus yielded his ghost instantaneously. Then Singh fired shots at Lord Zetland, the Secretary of State for India, who was injured but not seriously. Sir Luis Dane was incidently hit by one shot, broke his radius bone and fell to the ground with serious injuries. A bullet also hit Lord Lamington whose right hand was shattered.

Smiling Udham leaving the Caxton Hall after his arrestUdham Singh did not intend to escape. He was arrested on the spot and later produced before the court. When the court asked about his name, he replied "Ram Mohammad Singh Azad" which demonstrates that Singh was beyond the bonds of race, caste, creed, or religion (See: Eminent Freedom fighters of Punjab, p 240, Dr Fauja Singh).

During his trial, Singh revealed to the court: "I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it. He was the real culprit. He wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him..... " (See: CRIM 1/1177, Public Record Office, London, p 64).

As was expected, he was sentenced to death by hanging. He died on the gallows in London on June 12, 1940.

Though in March 1940, the Congress leaders like Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mahatama Gandhi had condemned the revenge by Udham Singh as sensless, in 1952 however, Nehru had applauded Singh with the following statement which appeared in the daily Partap: " I salute Shaheed-i-Azam Udham Singh with reverence who had kissed the noose so that we may be free" (Quoted in: Udham Singh alias Ram Mohammad Singh Azaad, 2002, p 300, Prof (Dr) Sikander Singh).

Udham Singh's act was rare example of a firm and successful determination maintained for many long years to avenge a national insult and humilation and to restore the pride to its people.

References:

Eminent Freedom Fighters of Punjab,1972, Punjab University Patiala, by Dr Fauja Singh. Udham Singh alias Ram Mohammad Singh Azad, 2002, by Prof Sikander Singh.

This is basically what this article looked like before we cleaned it up. Probably the same anon we had to semi-protect the article to combat. — BrianSmithson 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

The page is unlocked for now. It's been a while since we locked it; I figure we can see if the same POV edits creep in again. — BrianSmithson 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militant

removed the word 'militant' to political activist . Bharatveer 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason? I'm restoring it — He killed a man and advocated violence. How is that not applicable? — BrianSmithson 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when the word " political activist" is more apt here, why are you insisting on the word "militant"??

I am going to change it once more Bharatveer 07:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is killing someone political activism and not militant? I'm restoring it until you provide a better argument. — BrianSmithson 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.This is the first opening sentence of the article. 2.So it will be more appropriate if the word 'Political activist ' is used there. 3.He did not spent his whole life killing people ;assasination was done as a part of his political activism 4.If you are so insistent on describing him as a 'militant' ; you can insert another line for that. 5.Lastly why are you childishly clinging on to that word????????

Hope these argument satisfies you. I am going to change it now Bharatveer 16:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is killing someone "political activism"? Please refrain from making personal attacks. You seem insistent on "political activist", so I'll keep that wording. But "militant" should stay. This guy was no dove. My main objection, however, is that this article is in a precarious position with regards to the neutral point of view policy. It was blatantly biased at one point in favor of Singh, now it is mostly neutral. By removing words like "militant", we are tipping the scales once again toward being too pro-Singh. This man is not universally recognized as a martyr or a patriot, and the article needs to reflect that. — BrianSmithson 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem in having the word 'militant' in the article. My best wishes for you in making this world free from biases. As for your words , that Udham singh is not " universally" recognised as a martyr or a patriot , that needs to be decided NOT by you But by the universe itslef.

That universe is slowly but surely awakening now and it will decide its own martyrs and patriots ;Till then, may be this article can remain this way. Bharatveer 03:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Bharatveer 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Brian Smithson English?. Udham Singh fought for injustice, didn't Europeans fight against the Nazis? Its seems that when any none European country fights injustice there is always someone like Brian Smithson who opposses it. As there was no war against the british's illegal occupation of india, great Krantikar's (freedom fighters) like Udam Singh had no choice but to take matters in their own hands.

I have respect for Gandhi but he was to soft with the British and the British took advantage of it. He led a non- violent struggle but innocent people still got murdered by the british and Gandhi forgave them.

If there was an armed struggle against the british indepence would have come much quicker, people would have been more prouder and Bharat(India) would have been a much better place. Bharatwasi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.54.178 (talk • contribs) .

No, I am not English. My stance is that the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. I agree with you that the colonial era of world history was a travesty for the colonies. I agree with you that the massacre perpetrated by the British in India was inexcusable. However, saying such things in a neutral encyclopedia article is precisely the kind of thing that the neutral point of view policy was created to prevent. — BrianSmithson 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADLER or ALDER St?

Did he live in ADLER St or ALDER St near Commercial Road? I live right next to Commercial Road, and as a Google Maps search will show (enter the post code "E1 1EE" in the search box) there is an ADLER St very close to Comm Road. But there is no ALDER St in London. Does anyone have any reliable information on this? --Peripatetic 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the police file (Mepo 3/1743 London PRO) it states that his address was 9 Adler street, Commercial Road, E.

Edit of caption to portrait

The caption to Udham singh's portrait allows a quick introduction to who he is, what he did, and what he is perceived as. The continued reverts by User:BrianSmithson seems vandalistic and an attempt to enforce his POV, or prevent the depiction of factual info on the claims that it is redundant. Caption used is not POV and argument made by Brian is baseless and hagulatory194.159.185.5 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before you go around throwing about accusations of it. I have no point of view on Udham Singh. Unfortunately, many others do, and they enjoy editing his article. There is no reason to include a bunch of redundant information in the caption to his picture; it is only an invitation to insert point-of-view terms such as "martyr" and "avenging" and weasel phrases like "regarded as". Who regards him as such, and why should their point of view be the one presented in the caption? Better to leave it at the bare minumum: His name, and preferably the date the photo was taken. This is how many, many, many Featured Articles on Wikipedia do things, including Rudolf Vrba, Felice Beato, Salvador Dalí, Paul Kane, Robert Lawson (architect), El Lissitzky, Sylvanus Morley, Benjamin Mountfort, Francis Petre, John Vanbrugh, Diego Velázquez, Roman Vishniac, Norman Borlaug, Georg Forster, Barbara McClintock, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Michael Woodruff, and David Helvarg. I got through the Education category and then realized it wasn't really necessary to go further because none of these Featured Articles has a caption remotely similar to the one you are trying to use for this article. They give very simple information: Name of the person pictured is always there, then sometimes the location where the image was taken (or the artist who painted the portrait), the date taken/painted, birth and death dates. Nothing else. Featured Articles represent Wikipedia's best practices. Sorry, but I'm reverting again. — BrianSmithson 12:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC

Compromise

It is neccessary to include what it is that Udham Singh did, and why it is that he did what he did, for it is very very very important part of the entire Indian Freedom Movement. I believe it is a compromise if we put in the caption what he did and why , without POV words (I ill not include the words martyr, or avenge but will say that he shot Dwyer who he saw as complicit in the Massacre). Laslty, Jallianwallah bagh is held the same in India (and I believe the world around) a Nazi extermination is in Europe, and I am not sure if you understand that. I will say even if it sounds like POV, but it is neccessary to emphasise this background.

I understand your opinion perfectly. My argument, however, is a stylistic one, outlined above. Wikipedia's cream-of-the-crop articles include no information other than bare basics, such as name and time of photograph. Why should this one be different? — BrianSmithson 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this. I do understand your argument. But the thing is, although other articles (the best ones) have no information, I don't think that's to say that including such info or background would rule out the article from improvement. Especially for a historical and controversial characters and issues, I think it helps to have such info as the reader would be able, at a quick glance (to the portrait for example) understand what the context is. Moreover, in the basence of information of when the protrait (specific to this case) was taken, I think merely putting Singh's name under the protrait would be bland and unaesthetic and would also be pointless.194.159.185.5 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical - as opposed to militant or patriotic

"militant nationalist" is a British POV. The opposite of it would be to use the word "patriotic nationalist" - which would be an Indian POV. Hence, I changed it to radical - which is a synonym for militant according to MS Word as "radical" is a more balanced word. Jvalant 04:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. — BrianSmithson 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree. "Radical" has obvious negative connotations at have no place in an encyclopedia, and therefore I would argue to delete it. Wikipedia would be taking sides by using that term (the British POV - have you ever heard anyone call themselves radical lately?)