Jump to content

Talk:Bhagat Singh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBhagat Singh was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 4, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
December 11, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 29, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
October 30, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
December 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
May 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
July 18, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 8, 2007, April 8, 2008, March 23, 2011, March 23, 2016, March 23, 2019, March 23, 2021, and March 23, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article

RfC on the use of "charismatic" in the lead

[edit]

Should the descriptor "charismatic" be used in the first lead paragraph, and if so, where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors in the discussion above: @Fowler&fowler, Asilvering, Czar, and Grayfell:.

Survey

[edit]
  • As long as appropriate detail is added to the body, Option 2 per my comments above; otherwise option 4. I feel that there is enough sourcing (see above section) to justify its inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:BALASP, but I do not think the first sentence (per MOS:FIRST) is the appropriate place, and that placing a descriptor like "charisma" next to the information about ideologies and "electrifying" a movement helps the flow of the prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 until this is explained in the body with context, then likely option 2 or 3, depending on that context. The raw number of sources isn't the problem here, the lack of context is the problem. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 per Grayfell and what I said above. Until the article can contextualize why it matters to epithetically call him charismatic, then it has no business being in the lede. The lede should summarize the article and the article should make it clear what instrumental role charisma played in his life. czar 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 Definitely not in wiki-voice. If a large number of reliable sources note his charisma, then it could be mentioned in the body of the article as long as it's attributed. Some1 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per AirshipJungleman29. I should add that I am the editor who has written the lead. It is based on the best available scholarly sources. I will now be bowing out of this discussion, eventually returning, perhaps, to write the article when traffic has moved away.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 This option was a long standing version and it clearly made more sense since it correctly summarized this person. CharlesWain (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4. An article's lead should be a summary of its body. And even if the body did describe Singh's personal charisma, it's not the kind of epithet that belongs in the lead IMO. ― novov (t c) 07:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, per Grayfell. While we're here, I don't think the rest of the first sentence is appropriate either. It should be something like "was an Indian anti-colonial revolutionary who became a folk hero after he was executed for the murder of two British policemen" - ie, it should clearly state what he is most notable for, without getting into too much specific detail. There's the rest of the lead, and the rest of the article, for that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4: per Grayfall and asilvering. Also strongly agree with asilvering's suggestion for the first sentence. TryKid[dubiousdiscuss] 03:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 — And I agree with asilvering's opinion on the first sentence. It needs to be cut down to a general descriptor of Bhagat Singh's notability. Yue🌙 01:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 It characterizes him better than all other options available. Note that the incident for which he is known for was a mistaken murder, not any revolutionary activity. Orientls (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • The current lead paragraph says "...the charismatic Singh[8] electrified a growing..." This is an improvement over mentioning this in the very first sentence, but only draws more attention to the term "electrified" which has some of the same issues as "charismatic". "Electrified" is nice and succinct, but it's also pretty ambiguous, which was also a big part of my original issue with 'charismatic'. I think this and other problems would be much easier to address if the lead were a proper summary of the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can also cite dozens of sources saying that JFK Jr. was charismatic ("Charisma" is a word so frequently associated with John F. Kennedy that it actually began to grate on his successor[1]) but it doesn't mean it's noteworthy enough to emphasize without sufficient context in the article on why it matters. And I certainly wouldn't stick it in the lede of that article with a bunch of citations as if that bypasses the need to give it context in the article first. czar 22:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence.[9]

[edit]

India's struggle for independence was a multi-faceted one and thus there were many more factors, including a factor of mutual understanding, that prompted to a 'successful' freedom. Only this concept and statement of 'the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence' is over-simplification and unlooked-for. 2409:4060:2E12:7CEB:0:0:7548:5914 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date 2024

[edit]

Date of Birth is 28 Sep, Please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.249.106 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagat Singh born

[edit]

Bhagat Singh Wikipedia 27 September 1907 But authentic 28 September 1907 please check and correct detail add 2409:40C1:203C:D2D2:7B5A:CB8:F907:EFEE (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 28th is not supported by the reliable sources such as Britannica or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Celebrating Bhagat Singh's birthday on the 28th is a largely post-Google phenomenon, becoming popular after Google's founding on 27 September 1998 and the Indian press's diminished coverage of Singh on that day. See Talk:Bhagat_Singh/Archive_3#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_27_September_2023 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

[edit]
2405:201:6011:E103:9162:720F:8097:DCF3 (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagat Singh date of birth is written wrong , his birth date is 28th September not 27th.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

[edit]

Dear sir/ma'am, I just wanted to inform you that Bhagat Singh was born on 28th of September. Please correct this, if you can.Thank you 59.178.223.191 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Done ✅. Thanks. CharlesWain (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been previously discussed and contested, with reliable sources. See Talk:Bhagat Singh/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023. If nothing else, there are four sources for 27, so changing it to the 28 without also changing these sources would misrepresent what those sources are saying. Since this seems like a recurring issue, it might be a good idea to include a footnote explaining the issue, as the article already is already set up for template:efn/template:notelist. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell, the source I cited is a reliable source too. Rest aside the media coverages and official celebrations, a quick search on Google will give at least half a dozen books mentioning his birthday as 28 September. Shouldn't we mention both in article body (and of course with efn footnote)? CharlesWain (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court of India established a museum to display landmarks in the history of India's judicial system, displaying records of some historic trials. The first exhibition that was organised was the Trial of Bhagat Singh, which opened on 28 September 2007, on the centenary celebrations of Singh's birth. Apparently 28 September isn't just another opinion or some sort of confusion.CharlesWain (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @CharlesWain:, but on WP, the salience of WP:TERTIARY sources in matters of due weight is policy. The sources are cited in the lead sentence. Please note:
  • The Britannica article on Bhagat Singh begins with, "Bhagat Singh (born September 27, 1907, Lyallpur, western Punjab, India [now in Pakistan]—died March 23, 1931, Lahore [now in Pakistan]) ..."
  • So also does the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (subscription required).
Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS please first garner a consensus here on the talk page. This takes time. It required a critical mass of discussion, taking days and sometimes weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a large part of Wikipedia's goal is to counter these kinds of common misconceptions, I would suggest either the note that I suggested, or for the article to briefly explaining this in the body as a discrepancy of sources (or both). As an aside, I would also like to see this elsewhere, such as maybe Information technology in India or Mass media in India. It is a fascinating detail.
Consensus can be built from discussion, but it usually starts with edits, which is the point of BRD. I reverted CharlesWain's change, but that doesn't mean that I think it was a policy violation or anything of that sort. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, @Grayfell:. I've added an efn and also more references. Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote looks great. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]