Talk:Bhagat Singh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Scripts

Well in my opinion, his name must only be in Punjabi, in both the Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi scripts. The Urdu and Nastaʿlīq scripts must be removed. According to WP:ENGLISH, if Romanization is insufficient for pronouncing a name, then the native script must be used. Even though he might have wrote and spoke in Urdu, he was a Punjabi. His mother tongue was Punjabi. As such, only Punjabi must be used. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Joyson! The script for Shahmukhi and Urdu is the same. The Nastaʿlīq is a particular font for the script (calligraphy). So if his name is only in Punjabi, it is the gurmukhi and shahmukhi (read urdu) scripts that'll stay. The devnagri script will need to be removed. I don't have any strong views on this, but I feel it would be better to maintain status quo. Tinpisa (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And thanks a lot for pointing out the inconsistency in the date. I would like to request you to review the article critically, and correct the errors. I have already nominated the article for a GAN, and would like to follow it up till the article makes it as a FA. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for correcting me on the script! I concur. I will perform a spot check on this article on Friday. I might forget, so please remind me! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

• The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and as such, it shouldn’t have many references. 4 or 5 will do!
• Find a significantly better quality version of the lead image.
• I have merged many small paras, and short sentences. Also, I have corrected some over-linking issues. For instance, common terms such as British, Sikhs, revolution, non-violence, firing squad, martyrdom, etc, need not be linked.
• I can’t understand what’s wrong with citation 70 and 71. I would appreciate it if someone reading this would take the time to fix them.
• The Randhir and Trilochan Singh garbage needs a page citation.
• The tagged info needs to be sourced.
• There is a contradiction about the village he was born in. Infobox says Khatkar Kalan, while the first section says Chak No. 105.
• Citation 23 is a Hindi source. Provide excerpts from Hindi with its accompanying English translation.
• Section “Hunger strike and Lahore conspiracy case”: It is mentioned that almost all the Indian nationalist leaders paid tribute to Jatin Das’ death. Who are the exceptions? These should be mentioned.
• Sub-section “Special Tribunal”: Name the Governor of Punjab, and his chief-secretary.
• Section “Execution”: Name the Superintendent of Police (political) Criminal Investigation Department.
• Section “Last wish”: Please state the names of those scholars who are doubtful of Randhir Singh’s claims.
• Likewise in “Saunders family” sub-section.
• Dramatic escape: Mention name of Durga Devi Vohra's husband, Bhagwati Charan Vohra.
• Song titles shouldn’t be italicized.
• There is an inconsistency in the dates. Both American and British variants are used here. Since you are the main contributor, i will leave it to you what variant of dates you prefer.
• I have also created some red links. Please do not delink them. These are notable figures. Someone else can create an entry on them.

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 19:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Tried to clean up the {{cn}} tags as much as I could. Sources for the remaining ones need to found. Names are not available in the sources quoted. They are available in other sources (we know the years). There are two books by Rana in 2005. Have marked one (Chandrashekhar) to clarify. If there is a better way, please do tell me. Section 'Hunger strike'. Mahantma Gandhi is the notable exception (as I have not found any source that mentions his name). Don't have access to all the refs (esp the Trilochan Singh, Randhir Singh and the hindi ref) Will try to fix the pages and quote the text when I get hold of it. Thanks once again! Tinpisa (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! I plan on purchasing 'Photos Of The Gods': The Printed Image And Political Struggle In India (2004). There is a colorful artistic depiction of Bhagat Singh on page 126. I will scan it and upload it here. The photo was first published in 1940, so it should be in PD-India. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to find photos of Bhagat Singh to post. Would a painting or picture (as you suggest in the book above), be OK for the article's lead? Tinpisa (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. lol. You must not have seen the paintings, or else you would have never asked such a question. If a better quality version of the current image is unavailable, then it's all right. The current one will do. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhagat Singh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Following Gandhi's withdrawal of the movement after the violent murders of policemen Could you rephrase this, the meaning is unclear. Did Gandhi withdraw from the movement? Or did he stop the campaign?

   Rephrased to : after Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement following the violent murders of policemen. Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

   He was 14 when, on February 20, 1921, the custodian of Nankana Sahib (the birthplace of Guru Nanak) and his men, fired on Akali Dal protesters. What did this have to do with the Young Revolutionary Movement?

   Suitably altered the sentence to make it chronologically correct. Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

   and became popular amongst the youth Which youth?

removed the word youth. Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. which had prominent leaders like "such as"

Followed your suggestion. Modified to such as. Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. '' A year later, upon being pressurised by his family, "upon being pressurised"?

Suitably reworded to A year later, pressurised by his family who wanted him to get married. Rechecked usage of word pressurise from Oxford dictionary(#2, with the comment (also pressurise)). Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. after about five weeks of his arrest

reworded to about five weeks after his arrest.Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. OK, the prose is nearly there but needs copy-editing throughout to improve the grammar which is somewhat lacking at the moment. When that has been done, I will look at prose and MoS again.

Thankyou for the review, Jez. I do hope these modifications clarify the meaning of the prose and meet the MoS guidelines. I eagerly await your comments. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Can we do something about the multiple use of the word "approvers". I have fixed two instances but it is clearly not good grammar.

   and issued an order intimating the accused missing preposition, "telling" would be better.

   Special Tribunal There is a lot of uneccessary repetion in this section. Please rewrite in a simpler summary style

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Adequately cited to RS, spot checks OK, no evidence of OR

   However I note that there are a large number of close paraphrases or straight cut and pastes from [2]. Thus I have to fail this until the article is rewritten, removing all such instances. Another copyright source whi has been copied is [3]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficiently good coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and tagged, captions OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

   Failed due to extensive copyright violations. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been assisting the nominator in this sort of area and have gone through the article. However, you are a better copyeditor than me, so you may wish to check. I await your thoughts. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jez, for the review! The article has been given a thorough copy-edit by Grandiose and me. The sentences mentioned above have also been suitably reworded. I look forward to your comments. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvios

Duplication detector reports; [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There may be more. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote parts from India Law Journal, and the other sources. Have not rewritten what has been reported by the sources as having been said by notable persons, and which are attributed in quotation. Please check. Tinpisa (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Attention Admins: Rewritten article

Hi! I have substantially re-written the article here. Would be grateful if this article is checked and moved to the main page and the copyvio tag is removed. Thanks.--Tinpisa (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Am writing afresh here, as advised by LeadSongDog here. Tinpisa (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you NortyNort for cleaning up the article. My effort is not needed. Admins are requested to delete it. Tinpisa (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, fix citation 39. It doesn't point to any reference. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 08:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Tinpisa (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Arya samaji are hindu not sikhs

khalistan supported sikhs always repeat that "sikhs are not hindus" similarly "ARYA SAMAJI ARE HINDUS NOT SIKHS" the main aim of arya samaj is to spread hinduism and to ask people to reconvert back to hinduism. Bhagat singh was born into arya samaji family he never learn "KHALSA OR GURU TEACHINGS HE WENT TO ARYA SAMAJ SCHOOL in lahore TO LEARN VEDIC TEACHINGS" then how can anyone claim that he is sikh, many sikhs have hindu names that dont make them hindu similarly turban dont represent sikh his family was ardent arya samaji family.122.161.78.118 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

His father was a staunch Arya Samaji, but Bhagat Singh himself was raised a Sikh! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 11:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Arya Samaj was a concept by Swami Dayanand, which preached simplicity in the religion. It has been reported in the books on Bhagat Singh, that Bhagat's grandfather was personally initiated by Swami Dayanand into Arya Samaj. In this piece Bhagat Singh stated:

My grandfather under whose influence I was brought up is an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist is anything but an atheist. After finishing my primary education I joined the D.A.V. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for full one year. There, apart from morning and evening prayers, I used to recite “Gayatri Mantra” for hours and hours. I was a perfect devotee in those days.

Till the late 19th century, there were sanatan or ‘traditional’ Sikhs believing that they were followers of the Gurus, but had no problem with the Hindu traditions. The sanatan sikhs were predominantly conservative Sikhs, concerned with sustaining and protecting the society in which they had been nurtured; and permitted different Sikh identities and different modes of worship. Many sanatan sikhs adopted the Arya Samaj and were different from the radical group of 'Tat Khalsa' for whom Sikhs were no Hindus; Khalsa membership was the objective of all Sikhs and that the Khalsa membership required obedience to the Rehat. Arya Samaj was very widespread in Punjab, especially in the region around Lahore.

Stating that since Bhagat Singh's grandfather was an Arya Samaji, hence he was a Hindu and not a Sikh is just original research and synthesis. All sources point to Singh being a Sikh. If there are some verifiable and reliable sources that state his religion as Hinduism, please present them. Tinpisa (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Various Corrections

The lathi-charge was witnessed by Bhagat himself according to this source - http://archives.dawn.com/2007/09/26/ed.htm#4 Any comments or counter suggestions before I make the changes? - Ashubhalaa (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is another source that states that Bhagat Singh was present during the lathi charge. However, there are other sources like this that state that Singh was not present. Hence, it could be stated that some sources state that Singh was present, while others dispute this. However, this would not add anything substantial to the article. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does add substantially to the article, in that it states the reason why Bhagat Singh was aggravated for the murder, i.e. because he saw the lathi-charge as a first hand witness. - Ashubhalaa (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the "Assembly bomb throwing incident" does not have any reference to the reasons which formed the base of such an act. Yes, he was inspired by Auguste, however, according to this source - http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1929/04/08.htm - the Trade Dispute Bill and the Public Safety Bill, which were unjust in nature, were the reasons for the bombing, so as to "make the deaf hear". Kindly comment.

- Ashubhalaa (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed that in the section "Assembly bomb case trial", there is no mention of Asaf Ali, who was a congress party member and a lawyer and who defended Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt in the case. The following source substantiates the same - http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume1/issue_3/bhagat_singh.html

- Ashubhalaa (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The section you mention ran into difficulties with copyvio of India Law Journal a few days ago, and was completely re-written. Please bear this in mind while adding something to the article. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Hunger strike and Lahore conspiracy case" the statement that the case proceedings were carried out in the absence of the accussed, follows the statement that Prem Dutt threw a slipper at Jai Gopal. The two statements seem to create a correlation, that does not exist. Actually, the revolutionaries cited various reasons to Rai Sahib Pandit Sri Kishen as to why they didn't wish to attend the court. This is the reason why the proceedings slowed down and therefore Lord Irwin came up with the ordinance, which has been duly mentioned in the following section. Also, please note that this was the ordinance which empowered the special tribunal to carry out the proceedings without the presence of the accused. Please see the following source for corroboration of the above - 1.) http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=refusing_court and 2.)http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=lcc_ordinance

- Ashubhalaa (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a source that brings together different aspects of the aftermath of the slipper throwing incident. You could edit the article as you like. Just ensure that the edits are sourced properly and are devoid of copyvios. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Date/Location of Photograph

Please change the Main photo of Bhagat Singh to one with a Turban. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.12.6 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has a photograph of Bhagat Singh, purportedly taken in prison in 1922. However, the biography does not seem to suggest anywhere that he went to jail so early. Can we either add details about this jail term in the article or provide more detail for the same in the photograph caption? Also, perhaps, we could verify that correctness of the date. Also perhaps its not a photograph from a jail at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.155.250 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to sign the above. Anyhow, it turns out that the photograph claims that it is one of Bhagat Singh awaiting his trial but wrongly states the year to be 1922. I assume this should be 1931. Can we verify this?

122.162.155.250 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Parijat

Can someone clarify the correct Date of birth of this hero? I remember 28th Sept is said to be his B'day but in this article it shows the birth day as 27th Sept. Please we have to get it corrected or clarified .. we should not have any confusion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari.hopes (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The reference that is provided in info column state that" Sardar Bhagat Singh, the second son of the family, was born, on a Saturday,28th September , 1907"..however the date of birth is mentioned as 27 september. I changed the date according the reference but someone reverted my edit.I want editors to take a note of this.If no evidence are found that his date of birth is 27, i think the date should be changed back to 28 september.Prav001 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhagat Singh/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am starting review. Others can join! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the article (prior to starting the review and going to read the article few more times) and it is generally looking good. I'll make notes as I go, dealing with the lead at the end. I'll need at least one week to complete first round of reviewing.

Overview

• Red Links

I feel there are too many read links, specially in Modern Day section. I don't think most of these pages will be created soon. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section and Infobox

Notes on Lead section

Lead Section

• was an Indian nationalist considered to be one of the most influential revolutionaries of the Indian independence movement. He is often referred to as Shaheed Bhagat Singh, the word Shaheed meaning "martyr" in a number of Indian languages.
  - I think this needs citation! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Indic scripts

Following recent consensus you can think of removing Indic scripts from lead section of the article! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• European revolutionary movements and was attracted to anarchist and marxist ideologies.

- In the article you have used capital M for Marxist in most of the places, so, change it to capital M? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• He is often referred to as Shaheed Bhagat Singh

-The Wikipedia article is Shahid, so, why not direct linking? You can also check, if the linking is correct, since the article Shaheed or Shahid in Wikipedia is mainly about Muslim Martyr, according to Shahid_(disambiguation). Also as you have given a short description on Shaheed, do you really need to link it? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• He is commemorated with a large bronze statue in the Parliament of India, as well as a range of other memorials.

- I feel this needs citation, and a range of other memorials - which memorials? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• Date of Birth citation in Infobox

You have two citations for death date in infobox, I think you can add a citation

• Infobox image

Bhagat Singh, conspicuously dressed in western attire to avoid recognition during his escape from Lahore to Calcutta - the caption is too long. The last part of the caption needs a citation. You can think of adding the year in caption (i.e. 1929) Also the image is cropped and digitally altered from original version, according to file description page. Though it not very important, you can think of adding an original image in infobox. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Influence

Religion Sikhism (early life) Atheism (later life) Can you explain "early life and later life" (eg. age, year)? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links

• Clean up: Please clean up external links and rearrange according to importance! Remove unnecessary links like Bhagat Singh comics --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

More points to be added --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to close review

It's been a month and the nominator stopped editing on March 4th? I'm going to close this review as failed within 24 hours unless someone wants to take over. Thanks Secret ^account 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

24 hours is a very short time, I request you to give some more time! I had seen a message of primary contributor Joysan Prabhu in nominator's talk page. I'll ask him to take over. Thanks! --Tito Dutta ^Message 01:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been another week since then and no changes; it should be failed at this point. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Doing so. A shame, but reviews aren't meant to be held indefinitely. Multiple writers were pinged by the reviewer on top of that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate! The worst problem is- here is Wikipedia there is absolutely no fix timing of starting the review. You nominate the article and wait indefinitely for a reviewer. For example this article was nominated in end of December/January, and I started reviewing in March (after three months). Most probably the nominator is in Wikibreak now.. (I had seen some his contribution, he is a good editor). I nominated an article Swami Vivekananda for GA status in March, I am eager to take a Wikibreak and can't do so since I am waiting for a reviewer. But, it is also surprising that other editors have not joined this review (if there was any other regular active contributor here). But, still it is unfortunate. Hope they can improve the article to GA status someday.--Tito Dutta ^Message 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

Please can the major active contributors to this article achieve consensus regarding citation style. The style should be consistent and at present it is far from that. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have started to review the article. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd mark it down for overuse of the word 'revolutionary'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.173.155 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A source query

What is the status of the author of this article, which we use as a source? Is he a published academic? Or a journalist? Or what? If so, where? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Religious views

There has been much warring regarding whether this guy was a Sikh or an atheist. The discussion appears to have all happened via edit summary and this is not acceptable. Please can the various parties provide reliable sources for their various opinions here, where they can be weighed up and verified in order to obtain a stable version for the article. Because there were also other issues, mostly involving puffery, I have reverted this article to a state prior to the recent warring. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am still awaiting comments here, and the warring has continued. In the absence of a reliable source verifying anything other than him being born into a Skih family, and given that he claimed himself to be an atheist, I have yet again reinstated the Atheist descriptions. This edit warring needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Give one reliable source he was an atheist except letter written from 'jail'. It would be very stupid to believe that letter written from 'British Jail' be taken as reliable fact for some of the the very basic information of his life. He was a sikh influenced by Arya Samaj. Most of HSRP was influenced by Arya Samaj. If you consider that 'letter' to be taken as reliable source for such basic thing then remember news paper faked by British that Bhagat Singh have turned Government's supporter, why not put he later betrayed? No, we wouldn't as it was clear propaganda. What people say is, he was marxist. lol. Supporting a cause =/= being that. Many communists support Palestine don't make them arabs. Those days Russia's conflict was new against imperialism. Socialism is very vague term. If Bhagat Singh and HSRP were really communists, then those days at height of communist/socialist distinctness which continued to end of world war 2 would make sure they named part Hindustan Communist Republican Army. German Socialists and Communists never allied even against Nazis because order from Moscow was strict, no alliance with 'social traitors'. At last, getting back to topic there is no reliable source that he was atheist. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be well off-course, and I note that your have provided no sources to support your opinion. You asked for a single source for the statement that he is an atheist, Alas, you've got me: sourcing is something that I have a certain reputation for on Wikipedia and you have spurred me to do some digging and resolve the Sikh puffery once and for all. So, I'll give you six sources for now. The list is, of course, an awful lot longer.

• Pinney, Chris (2004). 'Photos of the Gods': The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. Reaktion Books. p. 126. ISBN 9781861891846. - "The HSRA represented the antithesis of Gandhianism not only because of its commitment to violence, but also in its militant atheism. This, as Sumit Sarkar notes, was most marked in Bhagat Singh." There is something similar on p. 85.
• Grewal, J. S. (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press. p. 165. ISBN 9780521637640. - "Thus, there was a close connection between Bhagat Singh's atheistic position and his ideology of social progress"
• Brosius, Christiane (2005). Empowering Visions: The Politics of Representation in Hindu Nationalism. Anthem Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780857287403. - "Bhagat Singh was an atheist and socialist."
• Lal, A. K., ed. (1998). Secularism: Concept and Practice. Concept Publishing Company. p. 107. ISBN 9788170227298. - "Even the name of Shahid Bhagat Singh was misused by the BJP during the so-called Ekta Yatra by Dr Murli Manohar Joshi. Yes, the name of Bhagat singh, who was an atheist (not to speak of communal, not even religious), a Marxist (thus to Golwalkar an internal enemy and traitor) and a secularist (in Sangh Parivar's terminology pseudo-secular)."
• McLeod, John (2002). “The” History of India. Greenwood Publishing Group/ABV-CLIO. p. 109. ISBN 9780313314599. - "Bhagat Singh, an atheist and militant socialist"
• Bharathi, K. S. (1998). Encyclopaedia of Eminent Thinkers, Volume 7. Concept Publishing Company. p. 69. ISBN 9788170226840. - "But Bhagat Singh was not in favour of mixing religion with politics. He believed in Karl Marx who said "religion was the opium of the masses".Atheism was an essential part of his political ideology."

Ok? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Books are word of god. wow. Congratulations you find the reliable sources what a great work. hahaha. First of all there is enough evidence of Arya Samaj connection and HSRA's membership was fulfilled by Arya Samaj related people. Bhagat Singh maintained Khalsatva, kept everything until the Lahore case when he had to hide. And it seems childish to even imagine a communist would be a nationalist? I think you need basic understanding of what communism is. And on socialism, mild socialism is possible just like that of Nehru and Bose. Living in commie dreamland without reliable source when there are many contradiction is stupidity and vandalism on wiki. You have to give sources of his family to confirm his religion and not list of some random propaganda work. I can give thousands of books telling Gwazhawaehind of India. This don't make it 'reliable'. Personal things need sources from personal independent accounts. If you don't have then by logic, current evidence would state he was a sikh. In his conversations on what revolution of him is, he mentions his ideals is of Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Guru Govind Singh. Not foreigners like Marx and Lenin. And you completely seem to forget that RSS's birth lies in HSRA. Dr. Hedgawar was member of HSRA and was part of attack on train. You also forget that Chandrashekar was a devout brahmin and 'balbrahmachari'. Once in a raid one HSRA member was not behaving well with women, he shot him. Compare this with Russian and Chinese civil war with widespread rapes. Thing is your arguments simple are some old dusty red propaganda. So until you can't give a reliable account of relative and close associate and 'supporter' you can't claim his atheism. Yes, mild socialism with blend of nationalism I agree. Was he inspired by red revolution in Russia? Yes. Everybody was. Does it means being a commmie? well then you need to get your facts right. Until you can't come with a source of relative, personal friend and close associate in a controversial topic like his personal religion, then going by the the current present evidences of how he was brought up, his people around him, etc. suggest he was a devout and secular sikh. When you come with what I have asked only then you may change religion in infobox. I am setting it back to sikh in infobox with a section on controversy of his religion. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not because you are not following policy but rather engaging in original research. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What a wonderful claim. Wow! When people don't have any evidence left they start making such claim. It is fact that whole of RSS's leadership was from HSRA regulars of influenced. Even people like Dattopant Thengadi. You can see reference on his page. Also see Keshav Baliram Hedgewar. If you time hear the old speeches on Dr. Hedgewar by his time people. I have. RSS's manifesto was based on HSRA manifesto. Now you are doing an edit conflict. Until thing is sorted don't undo my edits again. You are just desperately thinking to hijack article of Bhagat Singh and portray him either to your commie ends or just desperate attempt to defame. Such thinks are near to conflict of interest and against wikipedia policy. I am undoing your edit, until you solve this problem don't undo my undo again. I said bring reliable source. (pro tip: Propaganda books aren't) Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources for Bhagat Singh here. I'm not interested in what other people's views on religion are or may have been because they are not relevant to his view. You might want to read WP:NPA also. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all note burden of proof. When you enter somebody is atheist despite of being born into a religious family, his organization had devout religious surrounding, etc. you need 'authentic reliable source'. Like a peer reviewed source? A book well recognized as authentic. Or a confirmed source by a person near to him. So if you have any of them only then undo my edits I would be happy Bhagat Singh's article is non biased. But putting biased information without such sources and undoing edits is called 'edit war'. I find it funny instead you put that message on my wall. It was like: I did an edit -> You reverted it -> Me being not happy as no consensus was reached reverted your edit -> You probably would reverted reversion of mine. In this scenario who is causing edit war? Edit war is happened when people try to edit before consensus is reached on controversial topic. Keep it status quo and reach a consensus first. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning. The burden is on the contributor to ensure that any statements made are in compliance with this project's policies. In this instance, the primary policies are WP:V with reference to WP:RS. Calling him an atheist complies; calling him a Sikh does not. Please note that just because someone's parents profess a certain religious belief does not mean that their children profess the same belief. Now, either come up with some sources or revert your last reinstatement, please. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have only one problem in discussing with you, you make baseless claims. I don't find any reliable source that he is atheist. Let's get to the point. When people not change their religion, they don't sing what's their religion until unless they are religious leaders. When they change it there tell this to there associates, people, parents who meet him in prison. There is no verification form them. By basic laws of logic his sikhism is 'established'. You are saying against establishment, now you have to give reliable source in form of an authentic book, peer reviewed journal or verified account of near to him. If you fail to do so, then don't think to get it back to atheist here. This is biggest crime of misleading people by your propagandist revisionist history. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sitush asked me to step in here; I'm an administrator and make the following comments from an administrative perspective. Rawal, stop it with the personal attacks, immediately. Any more of those and you'll be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Second, I'm sorry that you don't seem to like Wikipedia's rules, but if you want to change them, you'll need to take that up on the talk pages of our policies. SItush has presented 6 sources that meet WP:RS. You have presented exactly zero. Our articles must match what the sources say. It's really that simple. Of course, if you have sources stating that he was Sikh, then we should include both those and the ones Sitush suggests, giving due weight. Do you have such sources?

Let me try to put this a different way. What would you say if I came on here and starting saying he was Jewish? You'd laugh at me, right? But what if I just kept saying that everyone knows he's Jewish, that it's obvious, that it's all propaganda that he wasn't, but I never gave a source? Well, of course, you'd insist that I get a source. This is how Wikipedia works--we don't just argue about our personal beliefs. We get and present sources, and then decide how to represent those sources in articles. You don't get to just label a book that you don't like as a "propaganda book". So Sitush can revert back to the sourced version, and unless you can provide sources, you cannot revert back to your personal beliefs. I'll consider any further reverting to unsourced claims to be edit warring, and will block you per our policies. Finally, please note that I have absolutely no personal opinion about what religion Singh was. Heck, I still don't even know who he is; I've only read the first paragraph of this article. What I do know are our policies, and, at this moment, Sitush is following them and you are not. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get to the point. All his sources were non reliable. Let me debunk them one by one:

1. Photos of the Gods: The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India]: Theme of this book is art of Indian specially the paintings and photos of gods. It is published by Reaktion Books, which is dedicated publisher specially for 'art and culture' as claimed at there website. The writer have no credentials of study or research on Modern Indian history or Life of Bhagat Singh to write authentic independent work on it. Until the Author gives a reliable inline reference to his claim it can't be said. Until that is revealed using this book itself as reliable sources is not correct. I doubt this books popularity itself. See amazon page of it, no review what so ever. So this book being used as Reliable sources is debunked.

In this way other of his references who do look good are either not well read/cited. What I came to know after reading on google scholar is, the young Bhagat Singh was a Arya Samaj and Sikh. And the adult Bhagat Singh become atheist. I would give reliable well cited source:

1. The martyr: Bhagat Singh experiments in revolution, page 26. Cited by these works: “Bhagat Singh was once a devout believer, an Arya Samajist although his father was a sikh. Until his teenage years he preserved his unshorn and unclipped long hair....”

This book is good and popular and is cited by other academic work. Reason in this source of his turn towards atheism is given as he didn't think how a religiously diverse community would unite after fighting common enemy, British Empire. He have given deep reasons for that. But after reading other reliable sources from google scholars who are been cited by many people, I propose:

1. It turns out we should in religion write Sikh and later atheist on religion section.
2. Make a section on religion mentioning all views with a reliable sources and as per weight.

I am sure this would make his article unbiased. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's me just clarify some of the sources I listed, then I'll look at your comments. A random selection:

• Pinney is an academic and his book has been reviewed in, for example, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society
• Grewal is an academic (professor, no less), is published by Cambridge University Press and has had his book reviewed in, for example, The Journal of Asian Studies
• Brosius is an academic, book reviewed
• McLeod, ditto - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The martyr Bhagat singh is written by a journalist and the quote that you give does not say that he was a Sikh. The article already says that he came from a Sikh family and explains that he became an atheist. He was an atheist when he died and therefore the infobox should state that: it was his final belief and it is entirely consistent with him being a Marxist. What he may have believed as a child is certainly valid for inclusion in the article but childhood beliefs - the tooth fairy, for example - frequently do not last into adulthood and clearly did not in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, if he was involved with Arya Samaj then that would make him most likely a devout Hindu at some point, not a Sikh. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Eastern religions works little differently lol. Definitions of Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. is debated. Arya Samaj is against idol worship. It looks closer to Zorastarianism and Sikhism than mainstream Hinduism. Generally all Dharmic faiths who claims authority of Vedas are only called hindu. But Bhagat Singh though involved in Arya Samaj and follower, most sources said had not believe in mythology and legends from early times. There are mix of believes... and is common. Not going into all this, it is clear he died atheist. To build a good religion section in the article we need when exactly he started turning into an atheist. The book I cited tells it started when he started to see religious divide after Khilafat movement in which Indian muslims were fighting to safe Caliphate. And then it grew. My original point that he revered Shivaji and Gurunanak meant he wasn't atheist was wrong, as in that claimed letter of him he clearly mentioned he is against orthodoxization/instutionization of religion instead of getting ideas from great people of past. So that clear this doubt. I think lack of source form mother, etc. as atheism isn't generally consider change of dharma in India, just that not given much care and people don't really think it is going away from family traditions. So I agree this can be reasonable reason. Now can we get to the point when exactly he moved towards atheism and at what age? It looks like a gradual process I think... As early as age of 13-14 he started doubting what instutionized religion have to offer. Once we clear this, we can move to next point, ie his ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodescal (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to develop a section about his religious beliefs and you can do so without it becoming undue weight then feel free. But, please, don't source it by use of books written by journalists with no credentials as students of history etc. If that guy is referred to by academics then use the academics because they will have sifted the wheat from the chaff. And don't speculate.

My point in opening this thread was the warring that was going on in the infobox, and of which you had been a party to for some considerable time. That issue seems now to be resolved, thankfully. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mostly agree but on journalist thing, I would take care. Seeing if that article is cited and if it is, by whom. If it is well used in citing then I don't know why it shouldn't be used as reliable source. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the Sanskrit WP has a similar forum to our Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Basically, RSN will no longer accept generalised requests for comments on whether source A is reliable or not. They require requests to be in the form is "Is source A reliable for statement B in article C". That is because the usefulness of sources can vary with context. Now, the problem with journalists writing history is that they are no usually qualified to do so. However, if an academic chooses to source some statements to a work produced by a journalist then we are safe to assume that the academic has done the necessary weighing-up of the writer's reliability for the point being made. Basically, the academic is doing the job that RSN does here. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol. In Sanskrit Wikipedia, much like Latin Wikipedia we are struggling to get articles to make at least some kind of decent encyclopedia. But mostly we just translate information from English Wikipedia for long I have been thinking to make like 15 articles a day with just an infobox and main paragraph while citing sources. But I think I should leave modern history for now, area of my research is classical and ancient history so I wold contribute there instead. Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My recent revert

I've just reverted a change that replaced "nationalist" with "anarchist" in the lead section. While he certainly read and wrote about anarchism and appears to have attempted to define/promote his understanding of it, it strikes me that he was fundamentally seeking an independent India and the lead already mentions that he was influenced by anarchists and Marxists. It is a long time since I studied political philosophy but I'm not so sure that anarchy and Marxism amount to the same thing, but nationalism is clear-cut. I guess that what ever way we go here there is the potential for weaseling or peacocking, depending on your point of view, so I won't revert again. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Group of hunger strikers

Over at List of hunger strikes, I've started a discussion on including Bhagat Singh along with Jatindra Nath Das and Batukeshwar Dutt as "Indian revolutionaries" who were part of a hunger strike. The information in this article makes the case for grouping them, but I'm not sure what to call this group. Would "Indian revolutionaries" be appropriate, or is there a more specific phrase that would apply? --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh not just Singh

I have changed all references to "Singh" to "Bhagat Singh" because this is the common and accepted way to refer to anyone who is named Singh, especially Bhagat Singh. Just think of "Bhagat Singh" as one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaydock (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted you. It is "common and accepted" where? I am aware of patronymics and similar issues but the convention on English Wikipedia is generally to treat the last name as if it were a surname, except where that might cause confusion. It causes no confusion in this article because any other Singhs are specifically identified. A pointless increasing of the article's word count is not desirable. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is common and accepted in Punjab and in India in general to use the full name Bhagat Singh rather than just Singh. For example, see the book by the well-known historian Bipan Chandra, "India's Struggle for Independence". There is not a single place in this book, which has numerous references to Bhagat Singh, in which he is referred to as "Singh". In the index, he is not found under "Singh" but under "Bhagat Singh" - under the letter B. Just because other names suit themselves to certain conventions of English Wikipedia, it does not mean that Indian names which are not suitable to this convention should mindlessly follow it. The name "Singh" is meaningless in this context.Khaydock (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course the book indexes him as Bhagat Singh, just likes books would index, say, as "Winston Churchill". How the book chooses to refer to him elsewhere is entirely a matter for that author and perhaps his publisher. When dealing with subjects such as India's independence, it is inevitable that there will be a lot of Singhs mentioned; in this article, there are not. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is not just like Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill is usually referenced under the letter C as "Churchill, Winston" because he was an Englishman, and that's how the English do their names. Not so for people with teh name of Singh in Punjab. Bhagat Singh is called Bhagat Singh in any history book. I challenge you to find an example of any book written by anyone in which he is referred to as just "Singh". Perhaps there is some book written by an Englishman (or his chamcham) who does not know better, but I have not seen one. There is no quote in this wiki article in which Bhagat Singh is called only Singh. Please let it be Bhagat Singh. Your argument about saving space is specious.Khaydock (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Erm, this is English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You should also note that this article has referred to him as Singh since before my involvement and that, perhaps inevitably, it has had a phenomenal number of contributions from people who appear to be based in India. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there may be many people based in India who are afraid to go against something that seems to be a wiki rule (also this is afterall a relatively minor issue compared to the other issues being discussed). The psychology of the oppressed is such that most people just do what the boss says most of the time. But I have given some good reasons why it will be better to use the full name - and you have not addressed those reasons.Khaydock (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but you'd better believe me when I say that plenty of contributors from India have no fear when it comes to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.. A quick look at the talk pages and edit histories for a few caste articles, or the renaming discussions for Ganges would demonstrate that. Indeed, one who had no fear has only just been blocked today. So don't bring subliminal references of racism into this discussion, please (similarly sexism was one of the spurious claims made the blocked person). Oh, and I have addressed the points that you raised. There is one aspect that might assist your cause - WP:COMMONNAME - but that applies to article titles. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended you. I really do not think this is such an important issue to argue more about - it just sounds silly to say "Singh" rather than "Bhagat Singh", since this is how he is commonly referred to, and as you just pointed out, it seems to be in line with the standard practice in wikipedia to use the names as they are commonly used in other sources. If you can find other sources that refer to Bhagat Singh as just Singh, I will be happy to concede the argument. I have checked a number of English language books on my shelf and they all say Bhagat Singh. The Hindi wiki also sticks to Bhagat Singh throughout. Please don't block me, since I am acting in innocence, just tryng to improve the article.Khaydock (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You haven't offended me - it is just not a valid argument to use. Nor can I block you because (a) I am not an administrator & so lack the powers and (b) even if I was, I would be involved and so unable to use them. As I said, COMMONNAME applies to the article title, not the content. As I also said, Singh is such a common name that when writing a book-length piece it may be desirable to use full names throughout; our article is nowhere near book length. You are trying to overturn a long-standing consensus regarding this article and you are unlikely to do that overnight, if at all. However, I will see if there is any guidance that might assist your viewpoint. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen any sources other than Wikipedia where he is called just Singh?Khaydock (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is better to use "Bhagat Singh" than "Singh" too, because people with last names "Singh" and "Kaur" would be referred to with their full names, and the Indian English forms of these names should be respected. Also I think this is an absolutely ridiculous argument.Qheer (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cannot recall and I have far too much other reading to do at the moment. I am sure that your general point could be made of many, many people - eg: Dara Singh, Bikram Singh and Bikram Singh (general). I think that you face an uphill battle to overturn such a widespread method of referring to these people but, as I said, I will see if I can find anything to help. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a little suspicious when the first edit of a contributor is to this discussion. However, my primary concern is that I cannot make sense of what you are saying Qheer. What argument is ridiculous? - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Qheer is right - it is ridiculous. One ridiculous thing is that the paragraphs were getting ridiculously narrow (Who is Qheer anyway? - sounds sweet, but strange - and why does Sitush not use his second name? And what kind of a name is Khaydock?). Another thing is that I am new to wiki editing and I do not quite understand the politics of the whole process. But I am bothered that the whole discussion is just on technicalities rather than the concerns of Bhagat Singh. Also the discussion seems to be skirting questions of caste without saying what is really important. In this talk page discussion we do not know each other, or who we are talking to, pretending that our points of view and world views do not matter. Maybe we should rather spend our time creating new content, or correcting more serious problems in wikipedia, like instances of caste prejudice. Or maybe this "Bhagat Singh" vs "Singh" thing IS a serious problem. Maybe the USA is trying to push their english onto the world in ways that are anti-people, and we should resist it. I'm not sure. What do you think?Khaydock (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is not the place for an essay about where Wikipedia is or is going to, why it exists, the various motivations of contributors etc. I'll just point out that (a) you have no idea whether my username is my last name or not; (b) you are wrong if you think I am from the USA; (c) I spend almost all my time on Wikipedia - which is considerable - fixing problems related to caste and otherwise attempting to improve such articles; and (d) as with any institution, technicalities count, sometimes to a degree that can seem absurd to a newcomer. Oh, and the "who is Qheer anyway?" is because articles such as this, and discussions such as this, tend to cause people to registeer multiple accounts or work in tandem.

I know that Singh and Kaur are extremely common names among the Sikh community, perhaps almost universal; I know that probably the most common name format for males of that community is first + Singh + caste name (although I have no idea why). Neither of those seem to me to be a reason to use "Bhagat Singh" throughout the article, for reasons I have already given. And "the concerns of Bhagat Singh" are not relevant: he is dead. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are committed to the annnihilation of caste - good. Maybe we can work together - especially if you think that actually in some sense Bhagat Singh abhi bhi zinda hain... You can find out something about who I am by looking at my website khaydock.com. But really I have never heard of anyone referring to Bhagat Singh as Singh - except on this wiki site (and the versions in Indian languages of course always use the full name).Khaydock (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am committed to the Five Pillars here, neither more nor less. I suggest that you adopt the same approach otherwise you may find Wikipedia does not meet your expectations. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not overcomplicate; what do most reliable anglophone sources call him? Whatever name they use, we should try to emulate, within reason. bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - this should be a simple matter. The most reliable history books written in english always refer to Bhagat Singh by his full name, for example, Bipan Chandra, "India's Struggle for Independence". The only place I have ever heard him referred to by his last name is this wiki article and perhaps a few very recent newspaper articles which also pay blind obedience to some rules coined in the west. If this wiki article uses just the last name, it will have an effect of encouraging the silly rule of using just the last name.Khaydock (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Sitush, I see in all your most recent comments with reference to the athiest matter (where I am happy that you are taking the correct stance!) you and all the sources you site are never calling "Bhagat Singh" just by the name "Singh".Khaydock (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that you will find that the quotes are the first mention of him in the relevant chapters or even in the sources as a whole. In such circumstances, it is normal practice to give a more complete name. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now tell us how Bhagat Singh is referred to after the first mention of him.Khaydock (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea & I've no intention of reading that stuff again when you are so far out on a limb. Why not see what people at WT:INB think generally about naming people in India-related articles? There are literally thousands of articles that just use the last name after initial mention and I've never come across anyone who has expressed a problem with it anywhere until your arrival here. The only time that clarification is needed is when two or more people with the same name are being referenced in what would otherwise be an ambiguous situation.

Assassination > murder, reasoning.

G'day, just came across this article while reading in a down the rabbit hole wikithon (You know those times you start reading about one thing then end up reading another via several hundred barely related articles? Yeah, that!) and found due to OCD I had to change 'assassination' to 'murder' in the lede. Assassination requires the person be a prominent political figure. Us nobodies can't be assassinated. We can be killed, but killing doesn't imply the intentional plan or mens rhea of occasioning death. Execution also does not apply as it must be done with a state authority of some form.

Quite often edits that require the word 'murder' can cause some offense--or even batshit insane conspiratorial nonsense--as people read far too deeply into it and assume that by default 'murder = unjustified'. The justification of the killing of the police man is not in question, I am not aware of the back story nor do I care to try and judge justification. What is in question is the flow and accuracy of the article, where assassinated does not fit but murder does.

Just wanted to be clear to my reasoning as I noticed the page is semi-protected which usually means that there may be some controversy of edits; although looking at the history and the talk it appears that it is merely one of the more and more common 'on a whim' semi protects but it expires soon anyhow. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Both your change and the semi-protection are correct. It is very likely that this article will be re-protected within weeks of the current semi- expiring, but I live in hope that the anons have come to their senses. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

shayad sarkar ne abhee tak Sardar Bhagat Singh Ji ko saheed ka darja nahin diya hai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.245.33.236 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

A lot of unregistered users have been attempting to alter the date of birth from 28 September to 27 September and this has been going on for a prolonged period of time. The source in the artcle is clear that it is 28 Sept and no-one seems to be contesting anything else for which that source is used. It would assist matters if people would provide an alternate source for the 27 Sept date - we can show both if there really is doubt. So far, no-one ever has done so. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a comparison of sources - bear with me, please

1. Dr Bhawan Singh Rana has written a lot of potted biographies in the Diamond Pocket Books series. I am struggling to determine what his academic expertise may be but he claims 27th.
2. Ranjit Singh (OBE.) & Kripa Shankar claim 28th in this. Again, I have no idea of their expertise.
3. Kanwalpreet Kaur says 27th here. Like the two above, this appears to be low-level hagiography. Her expertise is in computer science and maths.
4. M. S. Gill says 28th here and here but his expertise is as a former judge. This may have some relevance, since he may have seen court documents, but it is hazy. On the positive side, Sarup is usually a decent publisher.
5. Chaman Lal says 28th per this. He is clearly a Singh scholar and has many awards to his credit. Already in the article, although as Bhupdendra Hooja (Lal wrote the introduction; Hooja did the original compilation)
6. Subhadra Sen Gupta says 28th here but she is clearly a children's writer and, this is another anthology of potted biographies.
7. Bakhshish Singh Nijjar says 28th [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luropwVYb0kC&pg=PA172 here. Although he was an academic historian, there has been a lot of debate about his reliability and I note that he differs from practically every other source on details such as place of birth.

I can't see any more at Google Books other than in snippet views. Nothing at JSTOR mentions a precise date but I am seeing a lot of citations for various publications by Dr Ashok Dhawale, who appears to have an interest in Singh and Marxism (and likely a member of the CPI(M)). As, for example, here, Dhawale says 28th September. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophies

Linking to Marxism-Leninism is undue. Reliable sources indicate that Singh was influenced by socialism, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin and umpteen other not-quite-identical strands of late-19C/early-20C left-wing thought. He was a bit of a philosophical gadfly and emphasising one strand over the others is inappropriate. The various names are already linked and anyone who wishes to pursue the issues can do so via those links and the cited sources. - hjklhjkljklkllkjjljljkljkljlkSitush (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

With the notable exception of Panikkar, most sources seem to emphasise this gadfly nature. For example, Adam says (among other digressions) that "Singh was influenced by an array of Western anarchisms and communisms and became a vocal atheist in a country where such attitudes were extremely unpopular. Interestingly, he studied Bakunin intensely but though he was markedly less interested in Marx, he was very interested in the writings of Lenin and Trotsky who "had succeeded in bringing about a revolution in their country." So overall, Singh can be remembered as something of an Anarchist-Leninist, if such a term merits use." - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Friend, I agree that right now there is no Reliable Source on the WP Article that clearly quotes that Bhagat Singh's revolutionariy ideas were shaped by Marxism-Leninism. Now, I shall add a Reliable Source (CNN), to highlight that Bhagat Singh was a Marxist-Leninist. (Not that He believed in Marxism and Leninism but clearly and unambiguously the He believed in Marxism-Leninism). And, now if Reliable Sources on the WP Article would quote that Bhagat Singh was a believer in Marxism-Leninism (a political ideology combining the scientific socialist concepts), the We can link Marxism-Leninism in the texted sentence.

IBN Live (CNN-IBN) has aired:

"[Bhagat] Singh embraced atheism and was deeply influenced by Karl Marx and Lenin. Key components of Marxism-Leninism were incorporated in his idea of revolutionary struggle. Under his leadership, the Kirti Kissan Party was renamed the Hindustan Socialist Republican Organisation. [9]

You may or may not want to use WP:BALANCE. Anyways, as always, Thank You !! ← Abstruce 11:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A news source is not going to trump academic ones and, being Indian, is very likely to have obtained its material from us. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But Dear Friend, You can replace the news Source with any academic book if You desire or may go for WP:BALANCE. Does adding a news Source violate a policy ?! Please comment. Besides, the news Source is certainly WP:Reliable, and it is not the only news Source in the WP Article !! The consensus was: whether or not to provide linking to Marxism–Leninism (Template:See also) just below the heading of the Section and not about addition of content. You have unjustly posted the Edit warring Template on My User talk page !! Why ?!

And also, please tell Me that why do You object to the addition of a news Source from CNN Network ?!

Again, The consensus was: whether or not to provide linking to Marxism–Leninism just below the heading of the Section and not about addition of content to section. Since the consensus was not about that, Your should go for a self-revert, Dear !! What are supposing this consensus is about ?! Thanks !! ← Abstruce 13:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [I though the consensus is done when I decided NOT to go re-insertion (of providing linking to Marxism–Leninism along side the heading [10] as I did earlier), which was the basis of consensus, but rather add related to content to the section. How was doing even that an Edit war ?! 13:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)]

Besides, You can see that I have NOT reinserted the linkings [11] below the heading of the Section (I choose to add related content, based on a CNN Network), but You have unjustly reverted My last Edit to the WP Article. And, I have only reverted You once, only once. But, review what You are doing !! ← Abstruce 13:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both for discussing this on the talk page. I recommend that you both stop editing the article for the moment, since you both seem to be at the 3RR line. Take the time to address each others' concerns here on the talk page, and remember to comment on the content (not the contributor). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

== Bhagat Singh's Bomb Throwing Incident == yes

Bhagat Singh Threw Smoke bombs yes - not just 'bombs' - completely different implication. His intention was not to hurt, but to get captured while they willignly surrendered! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.86.187 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I find the statement made by Kooner that Bhagat Singh's "fatal flaw" was taking his gun with him to the incident. I believe this was intentional, as Bhagat Singh took the gun with him to prove his point that he was willing to violently defend his homeland and prove to the British how dangerous and serious he really was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.210.116 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bomb Throwing

Bhagat and his associate threw decoy bombs in the court. Just saying bomb implies a different tone. they wanted to get caught as they had other agendas they could better achieve whilst being captured and during their stay in prison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.86.187 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a reliable source backing this up? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2013

I would like to be given permission to edit some of the incorrect information provided "example Bhagat was not a atheist he was a Sikh part of thesikh religion that is why he followed the teachings of the Sikh gurus. Vishaldeep Singh (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why people without accounts (and very new contributors) have been prevented from editing the article is because of the atheist/Skih issue. So far, no-one has been able to provide even one reliable source that verifies Singh was a follower of Sikhism - he even wrote a book titled Why I Am An Atheist. That said, if you do have any reliable sources for this or any other point then you are welcome to raise them here. Please note that in the event that we have reliable sources saying different things, our policy of neutrality dictates that we show all sides and thus even then it is unlikely that the statements about atheist beliefs will be removed. We'll just show that source A, B & C consider him to have been an atheist and X, Y & Z consider him to have been a Sikh. You'll probably benefit from reading other threads on this talk page because the issue has been dealt with on several occasions, always with the same outcome. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pistol dispute

Our article said

Doubts have been raised about the accuracy of testimony offered at the trial. One key discrepancy related to the automatic pistol that Singh had been carrying at the time of his arrest. One witness, Sobha Singh, told the court that Bhagat Singh had been firing the pistol two or three times before it jammed, and some policemen stated that Singh was pointing the gun when they arrived. Later, Sobha Singh was knighted as a reward for his testimony. However, the police sergeant who had confronted and arrested Bhagat Singh testified that the gun was pointed downward when he took it from him and that Singh "was playing with it."{{sfnp|Rana|2005a|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=PEwJQ6_eTEUC&lpg=PA47 47]|ps=}}<nowiki> According to the ''India Law Journal'', however, these accounts were incorrect because Singh had turned over the pistol himself.<nowiki>{{sfnp|India Law Journal|2008|ps=}}

The stuff about Sobha Singh is not in the sources; his knighthood came very much later and for other reasons. Despite appearances, Rana's alleged contradiction in the evidence - ie: that some said the pistol being fired 2 or 3 times but the arresting officer said it was pointing down at the time of arrest - is not a contradiction. Maybe Rana can't write well but common sense dictates that someone can fire a gun and then have it pointing downwards by the time of arrest, especially in a situation where it had jammed.

There is also no contradiction between Singh having the gun at the time of his arrest and him having handed it to the arresting officer at that time. The Indian Law Journal (which is full of other problems) says the arresting officer testified that "... a pistol had been found on Bhagat Singh’s person when he was arrested in the Assembly. This was not factually correct because Bhagat Singh had himself surrendered the pistol while asking the police to arrest him." What the ILJ is disputing here is whether the officer discovered the gun on Singh's person at the time of arrest or was given it, which is truly pedantic.

Since there really is no evidentiary dispute here, I'm at a loss as to why our article is (a) saying that there was one and (b) saying that the stuff about the gun was just one of those disputes even though the sources mention no other. I propose that we tone this down big time. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Randhir Singh and Related Dates

According to me no citation is required for the following line: "Singh was condemned on 7 October 1930 contradicting his presence in condemned cells on 4 October." Because: a) Section on Special Tribunal Says - "On 7 October 1930, the tribunal delivered its 300-page judgement based on all the evidence and concluded that participation of Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru was proved beyond reasonable doubt in Saunders' murder, and sentenced them to death by hanging." Thus, The first date is already cited. Before the accused has been condemned, they can not be present in the condemned cells. b) The second date appears in the same section and has been cited before.

Ashubhalaa (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've no idea how it may have worked then but there are cases in the UK where people were put in condemned cells simply due to overcrowding or because of a need to separate them from other prisoners. I can even remember one of Britain's last hangmen chatting about this - he ran a pub just down the road from me. I don't think that we can assume occupation of the cell is verification that a person has been condemned. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The following link leads to a book on Bhagat Singh by Bhawan Singh Rana. Please check the pages 92-94. It says that the sentences were read out to the condemned only after they were declared on the 7th of October. Only after which the prisoners were moved to Cell No. 14, which was intended for the condemned. This proves that Bhagat was not in the condemned cells before this date. And hence, I am making the edit and citing this book. =>

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PEwJQ6_eTEUC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=bhagat+singh+sentence+read+out&source=bl&ots=-gqkYWHmua&sig=glnpiILlSb-MYG5FdWML1rGXs4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fkY-U7XDJaHQsQSw5oGgDw&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=bhagat%20singh%20sentence%20read%20out&f=false

Ashubhalaa (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014

Bhagat singh was born on 27 September 1907 not on 28 September 1907... Humble request please correct it. 14.140.93.243 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 DoneCorrected to 27 Sept and sourced to britannica. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

The date of birth is mentioned as 27 sep. Please correct that to 28 sep. Jagadhees (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please note that, as explained above, the date was changed because of Bhagat Singh's article in The Encyclopedia Britannica {http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1913029/Bhagat-Singh as can be seen here], so you will need [[WP:RS|reliable sources] that outweigh The Encyclopedia Britannica before this is changed. Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

PLEASE CHANGE HIS BIRTHDATE FROM 27 SEPTEMBER TO 28 SEPTEMBER 115.248.50.28 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC) (Ref:http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request. Simple Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source for anything.
As stated above, you need Reliable sources, (plural) in order to outweigh The Encyclopedia Britannica before this is changed. - Arjayay (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I researched this a bit and perhaps Britannica [12] is wrong about Bhagat Singh's date of birth. this, a news item from The Hindu, says his birth was celebrated on Sunday (the 28th). An this from the Indian Express says the country celebrated his birth on the 28th. Seems unlikely that people in India would get it wrong (unless everyone was taking his date of birth from our article!). Any ideas on how to categorically verify this? --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick notes:

• A google books search shows that there is genuine division on whether he was born on the 27th or the 28th.
• To make matters worse: His biographer Sanyal, claims that these estimates are in fact a misinterpretation, and that the true date of Singh's birth is Oct 19 1907 (see pages 19 and 26). The original source of Bhagat Singh's birth date seems to be a pseudonymous profile by "S Nirvansh Singh", who attests that Bhagat Singh was born "in samvat 1964, on the 13th day of Ashvin month, Saturday, at 9 pm". However, editors of this volume produced by the Bhagat Singh Foundation (which includes that profile) argue:

The reference is incomplete. It doesn't mention whether it was shukla (light) fortnight or krishna (dark) fortnight. Nor is the recording correct, for neither in the light half nor in the dark half the 13th day was Saturday. Some scholars have computed this incomplete, wrong statement to be the 27/28 September 1907. How did they reach this conclusion, is not exactly stated by them.

Jitendra Singh Sanyal, a close associate of Bhagat Singh and his first biographer accepts that Bhagat Singh was born on Saturday in the month of October 1907. Saturday in this month fell on 19 October. Hence the correct date is 19 October 1907

So we need to add a footnote along the lines, "commonly thought to be born on either the 27th or the 28th of September, 1907, although some biographer have argued that his date of birth was actually October 19th of that year." Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the book "S. BHAGAT SINGH AUR UNKE SATHIYON KE DASTAVEZ, 2003 ( ਸ਼ਹੀਦ ਭਗਤ ਿਸਂਘ ਅਤੇ ੳੁਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਾਥੀਅਾਂ ਦੀਅਾਂ ਲੀਖਤਾਂ ) " Author/Writen by his Nephew Prof. Jagmohan Singh son of Bibi Amar Kaur younger sister of S. Bhagat Singh the actual Date Of Birth is 28th of Sep 1907 as per verified by S. Bhagat Singh's real family member and the all India celebrate his birthday on 28th of Sep.

If there are some sources say's different date of birth as 27th of Sep then still some sources claim and India celebrate his birthday on 28th of Sep then why Wikipedia can't change his Date of Birth in Infobox. Garry sahota (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Religion

Shaheed Bhagat Singh was born in to a Sikh family and was Sikh in his Early life then later he converted in to Atheism.

it must be added in inbox box as Sikhism (early life), Atheism (Mid life). Sikhism (later life) Please read and take this as ref. http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hindu.com%2Ffline%2Ffl2421%2Fstories%2F20071102500100400.htm&date=2012-03-30

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070311/spectrum/book1.htm Garry sahota (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Bhagat Singh re-embraced Sikhism in later life and prior to his hanging - see articles below, there is also pictorial evidence to support this (the famous and well circulated photo of him in prison clearly showing him with long hair tied in a knot as the way in the Sikh religion.: (Source: Autobiography of Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji – Meeting with Bhagat Singh, The Great Patriot – Chapter 25) http://www.sikhchic.com/history/bhagat_singhs_final_hours

Well, for starters, the Tribune book review doesn't support your claim that he returned to Sikhism. Are you confusing the word "spirited" with "spiritual"? [13] also doesn't support your claim, nor does his own leaflet, Why I Am An Atheist. Pictures means nothing in this context: interpreting them is WP:OR and there are any number of reasons why people change their hairstyle.

We've been through all of this before on several occasions, as per the archives that are linked at the top right of this page. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What makes the Tribune report more important or reliable than a personal account?!?. The Tribune has its own agenda and hence cannot be regarded as the definitive source in this case or impartial. I have provided a reliable 1st hand account by someone who actually met Bhagat Singh.

You also dismiss the photographic evidence provided but again that is your interpretation. This is not a matter of hairstyle as you mistakenly make - but clear evidence that he re-embraced the Sikh faith but keeping his hair long tied in a top knot as worn by Sikhs and also supporting a beard again as worn by Sikhs. Based on this I request that the necessary changes are made as detailed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.51.175 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the hair thing is not my interpretation but rather Wikipedia's policies relating to original research. It is not negotiable. I don't understand your point about the Tribune article, which I said didn't support your interpretation, but in any case Singh said he became an atheist, he wrote a pamphlet called Why I Am An Atheist. It doesn't matter what some Sikh zealot might have said. Period. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your points and you have not answered my points. Please refrain from being abusive - just because someone challenges your flawed research doesn't make them a zealot. You seem to base your position on a newspaper which has its own agenda and dismiss photographic evidence support a personal account of an actual meeting with the core subject. My asscersion is that he was born a Sikh - which you acknowledge and he re-embraced Sikhism prior to his death - and have provided supporting evidence. Either you make the necessary change to accurately reflect history or I will - this is not vandalism - this is accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.51.175 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seem to be no reliable sources that state that he became a Sikh before his death. A conclusion drawn from observing something in a photograph is both insufficient evidence as well as original research. Sorry, but atheism will stay in the article until you can find a reliable source for your claim. --regentspark (comment) 13:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please advise : 1. What makes an article by the Tribune a reliable source? when they have there own Hindu nationalist agenda Also what makes Randhir Singh a unreliable source and also a zealot in the view of User Sitush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Randhir Singh was a zealot or not (I have no idea). With the weight of evidence and self declarations that he was an atheist, a single statement by an individual - whether with a bias or not - doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

--regentspark (comment) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry why doesn't a personal account and pictorial evidence stand up to scrutiny. Yet you accept a article from a newspaper and a paper that is allegedly written by Bhagat Singh - how does that stand-up to scrutiny!?1. Yet its is widely accepted he was born a Sikh and also accepted the reason he cut his hair was to escape capture and detection and not to denounce his religion.

All that would be more reasonable if he hadn't gone around calling himself an Atheist. Once someone declares their religion or calls themselves an atheist, the bar for associating them with something different is much higher. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Who says he did? ? Please provide independent evidence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.28.66 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Loads of evidence available in the article Why I am an Atheist. You need to stop adding Sikhism without providing reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that doesn't make sense to refer to one uncorroborated article allegedly written by Bhagat Singh as evidence. Please provide supporting evidence. I will continue to correct glaring mistake until you do as the evidences I have provide is more numerous and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't calling the IP a zealot but rather those such as Randhir Singh. My apologies for the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please advise on what grounds do you call Mr Randhir Singh a zealot.

Whilst we debate this can I propose the following under Religion : Sikhism (early life), Atheism (Mid life). Sikhism (later life). This would be more accurate than the current information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Just because your parents follow a religion doesn't mean you follow the religion. Provide sources that show Singh declared himself as a follower of the Sikh religion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have provided pictorial evidence of him where is has kept his hair long and in a top know the way Sikh's all around wear their hair... what more compelling evidence can there be! Yet you are happy to accept a article reportedly written by Bhagat Singh. Where is your proof he ever wrote that article?!?!?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.28.66 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

also who ever declares themselves to be their own religion?!?!. Using that logic everyone would be a Athesit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use only self-identification for things like religion. And, unfortunately, a picture is insufficient evidence, we would need a reliable secondary source. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In line with the said policy can you provide a secondary reliable resource that Bhagat Singh was an atheist.

I've added a citation in the article.--regentspark (comment) 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I know at least one person who is not a Sikh and wears their hair in that style. I'm not sure that self-id applies to dead people but the fact remains that he did self-identify as atheist and that's the last word we have about it other than a comment from someone who had an agenda/was not independent. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments don't make sense and you seem to have an agenda here by being selective with what constitutes evidence. The only evidence you base your assertion on his a alleged article he wrote which is being promoted by a hindu nationalist newspaper. I have based my assertion on pictorial evidence, acknowledged undisputed fact - he was born a Sikh and 1st hand meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs)

Personal observations are original research and not accepted on Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gandhiji said in defence of shaheed bhagat singh and rajguru ji that the goal is right but the path is wrong and now it is for the garam dal and ruling forces to force the government to read the first few words or the last words hence blaming gandhi for not applying for clemancy and spoiling his own path i.e. against materialism consumerism and reduction of one's need spoiling the present day atmosphere of greed and financial scandals is for next generations to decide. time is the only best judge to take the right or wrong decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.49.92 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015: Bhagat Singh was a sikh NOT an athiest as suggested in wikipedia

90.215.236.94 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No sources provided and see discussions above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect -sources have been provided - see above including supporting evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As Abecedare pointed out, the sources support atheism so thanks for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent restore

I've just reverted what looks like a concerted attempt yet again to force the Sikh denomination on this article. In the process, this edit was removed. The image comes from a Blogspot source and the Commons description does not indicate who photographed it nor the ultimate source etc. I'm not even sure how relevant it is but, for now, I'm leaving it out. Anyone it welcome to reinstate the thing if they can (a) validate it, (b) prove that the photo somehow avoids any "panorama" etc legislation (I'm not good on Indian copyright law) and (c) explains why it is significant. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your justification makes no sense whatsoever. You are rejecting a 1st hand personal account which is supported by pictorial evidence which clearly shows Bhagat Singh in Sikh garb. Yet you accept a alleged article allegedly written by Bhagat Singh promoted by a nationalist tabloid newspaper with historic anti-Sikh leanings!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jsg10lion: it has been explained to you why the source you are presenting is not adequate for wikipedia, especially compare to Singh's own writings n the topic. You are welcome to try one of the dispute resolution processes, although IMO you will have no better luck with those. But if you repeat your disruptive editing against consensus, you are likely to be simply blocked altogether. Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted on numerous occasions to have a rationale debate on this subject without success working within the processes of wikipedia. I am not being disruptive and merely trying to correct a factual error with factual evidence. Please explain why one piece of uncorroborated evidence is being taken as gospel when a personal 1st hand account with a meeting with Bhagat Singh backed up with pictorial evidence is dismissed. Please explain and I will cease to edit but if you do not or cannot provide a reasonable argument then I will continue to correct this error. I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsg10lion (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read through the above Religion section where the issue has already been explained by 3 editors, and the article's Atheism section. Essentially Bhagat Singh's own writings carry greater weight than Randhir Singh's unsubstantiated claim of a late-life change. The latter is mentioned in the article but per wikipedia policy does not replace the stronger sourcing. You can follow the sources and editorial consensus, or take up one of the WP:DR processes. But "continu[ing] to correct this error" in article-space against consensus will get you blocked from editing wikipedia; so please don't go down that path. Abecedare (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the sources, the case for Bhagat Singh's atheism is even stronger:

• According to Bhagat Singh's close associate (and compiler/editor of his writings), Shiv Verma, Bhagat Singh wrote his Why I am an Atheist essay in response to Randhir Singh's attempt to "convince him about the existence of God" and taunts of being an egoist. See Bhagat Singh, on the Path of Liberation; also quoted in Bhagat Singh: The Jail Notebook and Other Writings.
• The Historical Dictionary of Sikhism says that "Although he came from a Sikh family,he held atheist beleifs", and specifically mentions revisionist efforts to reclaim Bhagat Singh as a Sikh based on Randhir Singhs's writings.

I'll update the article with these sources sometime this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the Atheism section of the article a bit, to make it more concise, add Shiv Verma's account of motivation behind Bhagat Singh's essay (which is consistent with the opening lines of the essay itself), and move Randhir Singh's alternate account to the footnotes since it is not deemed credible by independent scholars (see here). Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

Hi Here Bhagat Singhs religion is mentioned as None. He was born in a sikh Family, he was a sikh. He cut his hairs for the country. He Born and Died as a Sikh. A true sikh who can die for his country. He was Sikh of Ik Onkar -One true Lord. Please update the Religion of Bhaghat Singh as this hurt the sentiments of Sikh Population. We know that Nationality is bigger than every religion but mentioning None is hurting. So please update so that our younger generations would be proud and ready to die for country. 59.162.111.138 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done As usual, no sources provided. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, Sitush, and RegentsPark: The historical dictionary of Sikhism specifically notes that "Although he came from a Sikh family, [Bhagat Singh] held atheist beliefs. Attempts to reclaim him are sometimes made by members of the contemporary Khalsa. Often, especially during the anniversary of his execution, certain Sikh groups reiterate the claims within the autobiography of Bhai Randhir Singh... that Bhagat Singh discarded his atheism and embraced the identity of the Khalsa".

Today being that anniversary, we can perhaps expect more such edits/edit-requests. Abecedare (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If we get two more of these today, I would suggest seeing if an admin might apply semi-protection of this talk page for 24 hours. The campaign has gone on for years both on- and off-wiki but, yes, it probably will heat up for a few hours. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Kooner

Although we do not use Kooner for the wildest of his claims (that Singh was shot), he is cited. Bearing in mind this review, should we really bother? He seems to be a nobody, he seems to have constructed his book in part from notes allegedly taken from talks with his gardener godfather and in part from memory of those talks. His co-author is a "homeopathic doctor". I don't think we should consider this to be remotely reliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not a RS.

More broadly, when I was researching the issue of Singh religious beliefs above, I had come across several sources pointing out that most of the biographical literature on Bhagat Singh is of poor quality and/or hagiographical (and even a brief perusal of google books makes that quite obvious). Among the exceptions mentioned were the books by Noorani and Irfan Habib currently listed only in the Further reading section. This book may also have some useful material or pointers to better sources. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. There is a lot of rubbish out there and a fair amount of it has been cited. We'll get there in the end. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sanyal's biography

We rely a lot on Jatinder Nath Sanyal's 1931 biography. He was a fellow-traveller, was himself imprisoned for two years, and his book was censored at the time. I wouldn't read too much into the last point but, really, can it be considered reliable? I know for sure it is hagiographic but if we remove it then a lot of statements will have to go also. Some stuff will be ok because it has been cited by more recent reliable sources, but there probably is not much of that. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Delhi Conspiracy Commission

Where does Delhi Conspiracy Commission fit into all this? There aren't many refs for it (in the article or via Google, Questia, JSTOR, Project Muse etc) but it looks to be the trial relating to the Lahore Conspiracy. Snag is, we have one source in this article that says 24 people were tried and another that says 28. I can't see the second of those sources & so do not know if perhaps we have made a typo. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that the DCC was indeed the second trial. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is getting worse. The Neeti Nair source lists the following outcomes for the 1931 case:

1. Bhagat Singh - death
2. Rajguru
3. Sukhdev
4. Kishilal - transportation for life
5. Mahavir Singh
6. Bijoy Kumar Sinha
7. Shiv Varma
8. Gaya Prasad
9. Jaidev
10. Kamal Nath Tewari
11. Kundanlal - 7 years' rigorous imprisonment
12. Prem Dutt - 5 years' rigorous imprisonment
13. Ajoy Kumar Ghosh - acquitted
14. Jatinder Nath Sanyal
15. Desraj
16. Ramsarandas (approver who changed statement) - to be prosecuted under a different section
17. Brahmadutt (approver who changed statement) - to be prosecuted under a different section
18. Five other approvers - discharged

So, 22 names. I guess that B. K. Dutt adds another, although I'm surprised to read what our article says about him (ie: that nothing was done because he had already been sentence to transportation for life in the earlier case - that doesn't mean judgement would not be passed, merely that if the sentence imposed was the same and impossible to run consecutively then it is effectively redundant even though "placed on the record"). - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I wonder if the 24th person would have been Jatindra Nath Das, who died during his hunger strike? That would make sense. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And India Law Journal says charges were framed against "15 of the 18 accused", mentioning B. K. Dutt as another. That makes 24 also (Dutt + five discharged approvers + 3 acquitted + 15 sentenced). I think we have a typo or Sanyal has got it wrong. I am going to fix this article accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

His age of 23 is wrong.

His date of birthday and death, 1907.09.27 and 1931.03.23 respectively, make his age at the time of death just four days shy of 24 years and 6 months. Not 23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.115.138 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please change British India to India in born and dead place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.48.180 (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Working for GA

I am working on the article to take it to GA status. I have no plans of taking a Wiki-break and will finish the job as early as possible. I will nominate the article for GA review once it's ready. Currently, I am much worried due to the copyright violations being reported by this tool. I would request others to participate and contribute too. Can someone translate the text in the image portraying the painting of Singh in the "Popularity" section of the article? Faizan (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations comparison chart which you gave looks okay to me. The only link which needs to be removed is this ref shahidbhagatsingh.org, which I'm not sure of it reliability; should be removed IMO. The rest show partial matches which could be resolved with a good copyedit. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

A worthwhile task, Faizan! While you are working on the article, it would be a good time to take a look at the sourcing and reduce the article's reliance on "popular" accounts such as the ones written by Bhawan Singh Rana, Kuldip Nayar etc. Much of the literature related to Bhagat Singh is uncritical and hagiographic (see comments here and here), but there are some good sources too (many of which are already cited in the article). The article should largely be based on the latter.

As for the text in this image: a literal translation would be, "Pistols, bombs, and swords don't bring about a revolution. Rather a revolution is born out of the grandeur of ideas. S(ardar) Bhagat Singh". Google books finds many hits for "Bombs and pistols do not make revolution. The sword of revolution is sharpened on the whetting-stone of ideas," which is probably a more poetic translation of the same underlying statement. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

My regrets. I started working on the article and also got it copy edited. But I have had to go for a real-life task. Faizan (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

The main photo at the page is not original photo of Bhagat Singh which can cause a false impression on the readers. The origin of Bhagat Singh is from Punjab. An original photo is attached with this request. The photo is for the alternative for the main photo on the page.

Request By

Chamkor Singh

Research Fellow Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur India. Chamkor11 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a big problem with that photo: the uploader is claiming he took it today, but the subject of the photo has been dead for about 80 years. The attribution would need corrected, and we'd need to make sure the image is free, before it could be used. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the current photo is an iconic image and would rather use that. No problem with using the other photo in the article body assuming that it is properly referenced and usable. --regentspark (comment) 15:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The current photo is indeed an iconic image. More, I think the subtext for the proposed alternate image may be the ongoing pressure from Sikhs to have Bhagat Singh recorded as such a fellow believer rather than as someone who renounced religion. I may be wrong, of course. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see any controversies or false information about the current photo. I agree with RegentsPark that the current photo is an iconic image of Bhagat Singh. If you look at this image it clearly shows the picture being used as his official picture by The Tribune in 1931 and the picture attached here by Chamkor11 is the cropped version of this which was taken secretly at Lahore RailwayPolice Station, during his first arrest in 1927. I think it's better if we use the original version of the image provided by Chamkor11 within the article body rather than using cropped image. GSS (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

Change JAT to Jat 64.134.244.186 (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done – GSS (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical correction needed

In the Legacy and Memorials section is the phrase "However, his memory however, defies categorisation" Please remove the second "however"109.150.174.93 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. --regentspark (comment) 18:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bhagat Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.screenindia.com/news/pictures-of-patriotism/592527/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Undertones in the article about Bhagat Singh

I find the undertones in the article offensive. I am not sure if it is just a typo or deliberate maligning. Please see the text:

1929 Assembly incident For some time, Singh had been exploiting the power of drama as a means to inspire the revolt against the British, purchasing a magic lantern to show slides that enlivened his talks about revolutionaries such as Ram Prasad Bismil who had died as a result of the Kakori conspiracy.

"exploiting", really?! Maybe you meant "exploring"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav.chandran (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to see the source to figure this out. Exploiting and exploring have different meanings, neither of which is negative, and we need to be faithful to the source. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Popularity

Subhas Chandra Bose said that: "Bhagat Singh had become the symbol of the new awakening among the youths." Nehru acknowledged that Bhagat Singh's popularity was leading to a new national awakening, saying: "He was a clean fighter who faced his enemy in the open field ... he was like a spark that became a flame in a short time and spread from one end of the country to the other dispelling the prevailing darkness everywhere". Four years after Singh's hanging, the Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Sir Horace Williamson, wrote: "His photograph was on sale in every city and township and for a time rivaled in popularity even that of Mr. Gandhi himself". Surwasevb (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2016

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. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bhagat Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2421/stories/20071102500100400.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070513/spectrum/main1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/cinema/New-film-tells-real-Bhagat-Singh-story/Article1-323749.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/08/stories/2008070853690400.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindu.com/arts/theatre/article2834265.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livemint.com/2012/01/20195956/The-lost-son-of-Lahore.html?h=B
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2012/01/sanawar-students-dramatise-bhagat-singhs-life/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr2000/faug2000/f070820002.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2002/06/03/stories/2002060300500100.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianpost.com/viewstamp.php/Alpha/B/BHAGAT%20SINGH%20AND%20FOLLOWERS
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110608/main7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Singh's religious views have been discussed here in the past and are also discussed in the article. Those discussions resulted from a lot of opinionated editing by people keen to assert his Sikh beliefs, presumably for reasons of puffing up the religion. This edit is misleading because, even if he may have been a Sikh at some point in his life, he was not thus throughout it and the cited source does not say it anyway. Worse, the contributor seems not to have read the source because they claim it does not mention him being a Jat when in fact it does. I am reverting again, pending a definite change in consensus. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the sources added just now here say what is claimed. In any event, as I am becoming fed up of pointing out, it is misleading to say that he was a Sikh quite so blatantly because he renounced it, as our article and past discussions make clear. We have to present a more nuanced explanation, which we did until the recent edit war. Stop it, please - we do not need yet more Sikh pov-pushers trying to claim Bhagat Singh as one of their own. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--I did not hover my eyes comprehensively over list of RS in the subject but AFAIR, from my own pastime readings, he wrote some autobio-essay which clearly elaborated on his atheistic beliefs, reasons behind it etc.Whilst Randhir Singh etc. later hazily claimed that he came back into the fold, while in prison, there are strong academic doubts and/or esp. in the face of the essay.But, obviously, he was raised as a Sikh.I will shortly hover over the t.p archives to check whether I missed any point or additional rationales.Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 14:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Your summary above is exactly what you will find in the archives and indeed in the article. Randhir Singh is a fringe source, and the sources just added in the diff I mentioned don't look good to me either. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from earlier mentions of his Sikhism, please note that the article says:

While in prison in 1930–31, Bhagat Singh was approached by Randhir Singh, a fellow inmate, and a Sikh leader who would later found the Akhand Kirtani Jatha. According to Bhagat Singh's close associate Shiva Verma, who later compiled and edited his writings, Randhir Singh tried to convince Bhagat Singh of the existence of God, and upon failing berated him: "You are giddy with fame and have developed an ego that is standing like a black curtain between you and God". In response, Bhagat Singh wrote an essay entitled "Why I am an Atheist" to address the question of whether his atheism was born out of vanity. In the essay, he defended his own beliefs and said that he used to be a firm believer in the Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others held close to their hearts. He acknowledged the fact that religion made death easier, but also said that unproven philosophy is a sign of human weakness.

It is for this reason that we have to be careful in attributing his earlier beliefs and thus why opening with a flat-out statement that he was a Sandhu Sikh is poor writing. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point that he was an Atheist but become later on, the jat is divided into three categories Sikh jat, Muslim jat and Hindu jat and Bhagat singh was born in a "Sikh jat' family. Here are the sources, please see--Jagat jit singh (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to use newspapers and news websites, and particularly not the ones you list. Just leave it alone: it works, his Sikhism and atheism are mentioned in suitable places, and we don't paste the "Sikh" label on an entire family where it might in fact not be correct. Why does this matter so much to you? It just looks like more of the same religious posturing that has plagued this article for years. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

why should i leave? it creates a misleading among readers and saying newspapers and news websites are not good idea specially that i have listed is an excuse by you because you don't have any arguement to say and placing the talk to another side. look my dear, if you are talking that newspapers and news websites are not good idea so why you don't remove the sources(news website) which are also used in bhagat singh. look here is it a valid source? it has too mentioned as a source in Bhagat singh. so, what do you want to say now (please now reply only then when you have a strong arguement)--Jagat jit singh (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the entire point of what I am saying is that the article is not misleading in its current form but might become so if changed. Furthermore, although I would much rather not use news sites at all, there is no doubt that some newspapers are generally considered to be of a superior quality to most others. Indiatvnews seems often to plagiarise stuff, for example, which is not an accusation I've ever seen levelled against the New York Times.

In any event, I think the problem may be more to do with understanding English (although you do far better with it than I would with any non-English language). I still do not understand why you think it is necessary to shoe-horn a mention of Sikhism at that point in the article. It serves no purpose. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t have any particular acquaintance with the subject, but it’s well known that people surnamed Singh come from Sikh families, so it scarcely needs mentioning. And we don’t identify people as adherents of a religion they don’t actually practise or identify with.—Odysseus1479 00:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sitush instead of coming with an excuse come with a strong arguement, another excuse that new your times which is across 7 seas know far better than Indian news papers and there is not only source of Indiatvnews, there are NDTV news channel who too mentioned the same ( look at the above that i have given the sources ), look i agree that he never claimed that he was a Sikh and nor do he claimed that he was a jat ( "only jat" ). and saying "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" (what does it means ? It makes no sense) as mentioned in a article is more misleading. instead of this we have to change that "he was born in a sandhu sikh jat family" even Bishonen agreed to this point to mention this. I respect your efforts and respect you too as you are more experienced. here are the another sources which clears it (as you are finding upper sources unreliable). please see --Jagat jit singh (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that I have said in the past that I would be quite happy if the reference to his caste was removed. It is very often the case that caste is irrelevant from an encyclopaedic point of view, and it certainly seems to be so in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, me? That's a bit much. If Jagat jit singh can conclude I've agreed with or to something in this discussion, it looks like a competence issue. BTW the sentence fragment they complain about (here and everywhere), "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat", indeed makes little sense in that form, stripped of capitals, punctuation, links, and context, but it's fine in the original: "Bhagat Singh, a Sandhu Jat, was born in 1907", etc. There's obviously a language issue. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC).

References

Terrorist

Re this diff, Singh is referred to as a terrorist (in quotes) several times in the article. We shouldn't be removing text that is supported by a valid ref and by other referenced text in the article to support a POV. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought so that some people would oppose it because he's seen as a freedom fighter. terrorisr however doesn't necessarily mean a villain. Violence can both be fo good or bad reasons. The dictionary definition of terrorist is neutral, someone who uses violence for their ideology or political motives. 125.62.119.97 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty: I have reverted your edit again and request not to change it again by keeping MOS:WTW in mind until you come to a consensus. Pinging Oshwah to look into this too. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

GSS-1987 And I will revert your reversion. The article was vandalised with this diff. All I did was restore the accurate Nehru quote which has been there for ages. If you look further down the article you will see the accurate quote as well. He had been misquoted. It's not a matter of opinion. Its what Nehru wrote. The changes in place of birth etc were not mine. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I see most of the people are playing with the page, i have seen many times there are unreferenced edits and the day he died was changed to 14th Feb before 14th Feb. We need to have protection on this page Napstr 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napstr (talk • contribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bhagat Singh 1929 140x190.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth is not correct

Bhagat singh born on 27 September not 28 September Nvnshukla7 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, his date of birth is disputed and this is already explained in the article. Please see the note attached to his date of birth in the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh was not a nationalist

Hi Wikipedians, I was reading this page and discovered quite a big mistake in the first part. Bhagat Singh is described as a nationalist revolutionary while he was the complete opposite. Bhagat was a communist revolutionary and a staunch opponent of nationalism. Experts like Kuldip Nayyar have studied Bhagat's writings extensively and have come to the same conclusion. I know that in India, the government and ruling classes are doing everything they can to deny Bhagat's communist views and turn him into nothing more than a simple "freedom fighter" but he was not. Bhagat was a communist, a supporter of Lenin and the Russian revolution. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaas Rebel (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

He never joined the Communist Party of India and did not refer to himself as a communist. So we should not do so. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

KlaasRebel, you need to provide reliable sources that state that Bhagat Singh was anti-nationalism, was a supporter of communism, etc. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/01/21.htm This is his telegram to the USSR after the death of Lenin. He literally says: "We join our voice to that of the international working class movement. The proletariat will win. Capitalism will be defeated. Death to Imperialism." Does this sound like a capitalist? If you guys read the book of Kuldip Nayyar called the life and trial of Bhagat Singh, you will see that this guy was a communist. And communists are by definition, internationalists and not nationalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaas Rebel (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Handle probleam

How to set setting in voice mode Tambuskargaurav (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

223.182.183.141 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Bhagat Singh actually died on 23 March, 1931

 Not done Please provide a WP:RS. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Banga

Bhagat Singh was born in Banga, Punjab. This side of Punjab does not belong to Pakistan. Pakistan only acquired the left side of Punjab which includes cities such as Lahore. Please remove "Pakistan" from his city of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knirvair (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Restored scholarly version

I have restored in this edit the scholarly version that had been in place for over a year, and had cited the latest research on Singh. As you will see, this version was altered by the removal of Moffat's scholarly contribution and substitution of hagiographical Indian newspaper accounts about Singh's birthday celebrations. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

SIDHI DUBEY (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

thumb

                                                                                           Born: 28th Sept. 1907, Punjab

                                                                                   Died: Hanged in the early hours of 23rd March 1931.

A freedom fighter, he was considered to be one of the most famous revolutionaries of the Bharatiya Independence movement. For this reason, he is often referred to as 'Shaheed' (martyr) Bhagat Singh. At such a young age, if anyone was smiling just before being hanged to death, it was Martyr Bhagat Singh. His uncle, Sardar Ajit Singh, as well as his father, were great freedom fighters, so Bhagat Singh grew up in a patriotic atmosphere. At an early age, Bhagat Singh started dreaming of uprooting the British empire. Never afraid of fighting during his childhood, he thought of 'growing guns in the fields', so that he could fight the British. The Ghadar Movement left a deep imprint on his mind. Kartar Singh Sarabha, hanged at the age of 19, became his hero. The massacre at Jallianwala Bagh on 13th April, 1919 drove him to Amritsar, where he kissed the earth sanctified by the martyrs' blood and brought back home a little of the soaked soil. At the age of 16, he used to wonder why so many Bharatiyas could not drive away a fistful of invaders.

In search of revolutionary groups and ideas, he met Sukhdev and Rajguru. Bhagat Singh, along with the help of Chandrashekhar Azad, formed the Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (HSRA). The aim of this Bharatiya revolutionary movement was now defined as not only to make Bharat independent, but also to create a socialist Bharat.

A brutal attack by the police on veteran freedom fighter Lala Lajpat Rai at an anti-British procession caused his death on 17th November 1928, in Lahore. Bhagat Singh determined to avenge Lajpat Rai's death by shooting the British official responsible for the killing, Deputy Inspector General Scott. He shot down Assistant Superintendent Saunders instead, mistaking him for Scott.

Then he made a dramatic escape from Lahore to Calcutta and from there to Agra, where he established a bomb factory. The British Government responded to the act by imposing severe measures like the Trades Disputes Bill. It was to protest against the passing of the Bill that he threw bombs in the Central Assembly Hall (now our Loksabha) while the Assembly was in session. The bombs did not hurt anyone, but the noise they made was loud enough to wake up an enslaved Nation from a long sleep. After throwing the bombs, Bhagat Singh and his friend deliberately courted arrest by refusing to run away from the scene. During his trial, Bhagat Singh refused to employ any Defense counsel.

                                                                                                         ART BY 
                                                                                                         DEV RAJ

 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. Danski454 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

picture used in biography of Bhagat Singh

I personally think that Bhagat Singh originally was a Sikh and remained Sikh for a considerable time of his life. Also, during his freedom fight movement, just for not being caught by police he cut his hair and disguised as non Sikh. I think first priority should be given to his picture as a Sikh. Jagjeet singh sikh (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

BIRTH PLACE IS KHATKAR KALAN NEAR BY BANGA PUNJAB INDIA 103.60.103.131 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

Birth - 28th September 1907 2401:4900:36BF:FCAE:CD4F:899E:1BB4:7815 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. aboideau^talk 12:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hans Raj Vohra

There appears to be two approvers with the name of Hans Raj....one in in 1919 and Hans Raj Vohra in 1930. I could not find any evidence that they are the same person. FYI. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Add the following quote to the beginning of the "Ideals and opinions" section please.

"His family was politically active as his grandfather followed Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Hindu reformist movement - Arya Samaj, which had a considerable influence on Bhagat Singh."

Why at the beginning and not elsewhere? Because the family is the first and most profound impact, specially in case of Bhagat Singh who died at such young age of 23. Hence, must be included at the beginming of the section as the first sentence. Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Among other problems, because of how you've written this, I can't tell what the exact quote is or who said it. If the information is relevant enough, why give it as a quote? Etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

the name of the police officer who was killed was written wrong....his name was scott instead of saunders Palashuu6 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. They killed a 21-year-old intern, John Saunders, a few months younger than Bhagat Singh. Scott, the man who ordered the lathi/baton/bamboo-stick charge against the protesting crowd, was fine. Like the sources say, Rajguru, a marksman, felled Saunders with a single bullet, and Bhagat Singh then walked up to him and pumped six or seven bullets into his prostrate body. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Change the citizenship.

Change the citizenship of Bhagat Singh from British Raj to Indian or atleast add Indian in parenthesis after British Raj. MasterChief164 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Suicide or Excuted

Hello Wikipedia please check thae facts about S.Bhagat Singh Thind.He is not do suicide.He is excuted by Government. Harwinder7 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

yes bro i also came here for same talk Gurpreet2345 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harwinder7 and Gurpreet2345: Bhagat Singh Thind is a different person. This article is about Freedom fighter Bhagat Singh who was executed by British Raj In India. This information is correctly mentioned. So the change you are asking is already done. --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

reason of death

Bhagat singh did not suicide he was executed by govt of india Gurpreet2345 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

He was hanged by British govt. Writersaab84369 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he was hanged. where does it say about suicide? --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021- a new full image of Saheed Bhagat Singh has been found can I change the image to new oneEshaanbera (talk)

Eshaanbera (talk) 03:50, 19 January 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

A. EDIT-1:

A1. Insert this: Insert the following 3rd level heading just before the 4th level heading "==== Arrest of associates ====="</nowiki>, click on edit and copy paste from inside my original post.

=== 1929-31 Lahore Conspiracy Case ===

See also: Lahore Conspiracy Case

A2. Rationale: Bhagat Singh faced two trials,

• 1929 Central Legislative Aassembly bombing case for which Bhagat Singh was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment faced, and
• 1929-31 Lahore conspiracy case for which Bhagat Singh was sentence to death for the murder of John Saunders. Since the following existing subsections in the Bhagat Singh's article are part of the Lahore conspiracy case, and not the Assembly bombing case,, they must be placed under a new section heading as per "edit-1" above:
  • Arrest of associates
  • Hunger strike and Lahore conspiracy case
  • Special Tribunal
  • Appeal to the Privy Council
  • Reactions to the judgement

A3. Note: Bhagat Singh's "1929-31 Lahore conspiracy case" (also called "Second Lahore Conspiracy Case") must not be confused with the 1914-18 Lahore Conspiracy Case trial (also called "First Lahore Conspiracy Case") of Ghadar conspiracy, see Lahore Conspiracy Case.

B. EDIT-2: Group the 1929 Assembly incident and arrest and Assembly case trial 3rd level headings as the 4th level headings under a new third level heading "=== 1929 CLA Bombing Case===".

List of changes:

1. Copy-paste "=== 1929 CLA Bombing Case===" before the 1929 Assembly incident and arrest heading
2. Replace "===1929 Assembly incident and arrest===" with the "====1929 Assembly bombing and arrest====", i.e. rename and convert 3rd level heading to 4th level heading.
3. Replace "===Assembly case trial===" with the "====Assembly case trial====", i.e. convert 3rd level heading to 4th level heading.

C. EDIT-3: Add the following to article's the "see also"

* Purna Swaraj
* Simon Commission
* Hindustan Republican Association

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.176.169 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Mostly  Done. Only Purna Swaraj was added as other two links are in body already. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh had no connection with Purna Swaraj, a resolution and concept whose handiwork belonged to Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose. I will be reverting this edit. It wasn't CLA (which abbreviation is not that well-known) bombing. The bomb, an improvised device, mostly did not explode. It is an incident, not a bombing. I will be reverting that too. Let me also suggest that it is best not to make random nonstop edits in this article, as they will be reverted. Per WP:BRD you will then need to garner consensus for your edits. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)