Talk:Bhagat Singh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bhagat Singh and Atheism

I am aware of his last statement on athiesm...but he did convert to Sikhism and no it is not I am pro Sikh as I am not a Sikh myself. I just respect Bhagat Singh people also say Odham Singh died a Sikh but that is false he never did. However, Bhagat Singh did change his mind as I had even put the picture up. I think it's a shame someone would take it down. So I have proof on him being Sikh why do people keep changing my addition? That picture was taken three days before his death I have the date on a book on Bhagat Singh.

I'm not involved in this dispute about Bhagat Singh's atheism, but I'd like to interject a point, if I may. I've seen the picture that you refer to, but I don't see how that is "proof" that he became a Sikh again shortly before dying. All that picture shows is Bhagat Singh with long hair and a beard. As far as I know, that's simply because there was no way for him to shave or get a haircut in prison. That in no way "proves" that he was a Sikh. It's circumstantial evidence at best. Having long hair and a beard doesn't automatically make one a Sikh.

You said in one of your earlier edits that he re-embraced Sikhism within the "final days of his life" and say in another that he re-embraced it "in his dying moments." He wouldn't have had time to re-grow his hair or beard in that time; it would have taken several months at least.

From what is known about Bhagat Singh's character, especially his Marxism, it makes sense for him to be an atheist. (Karl Marx himself was an atheist.) If he did become a Sikh again, more power to you. However, we're going to need better proof than that.

I understand your respect for Bhagat Singh. You seem pretty desperate to, so to speak, "clear Bhagat Singh's name," but his name isn't necessarily tarnished by his being an atheist. His atheism doesn't diminish anything that he did nor is it disrespectful to call him that. Certainly, being a believer in God myself, I would have liked to see him making peace with God before death. But, then again, I would have liked it if his methods had been non-violent. If he was an atheist, then he was an atheist. Let's not worry about things like that and try and figure out what the facts are.

-- Hnsampat 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is far better that Singh died an atheist. People have a right to their religious beliefs -- but these are based on faith, not Science; and are usually just simply, demonstrably wrong, in whole or in part. I doubt very much that Singh had a "deathbed conversion". Many lies thruout history say this about famous atheists: Voltaire, Charles Darwin or Thomas Paine, for instance. Singh would be another case of this fraud, IMO, since the religious almost invariably have this pernicious belief that all atheists secretly harbor some desire to 'come clean' with whichever deity happens to be dominant in their culture.

Pazouzou 08:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that no body is trying to varify the facts and time line of thier occurance. Again and again a picture of Bhagat Singh with hairs is being refered. It is very daring statement to say that this picture was taken in jail 3 days before hanging. The claimant must state the source of such information. Shahid Bhagat Singh Research Committee, Ludhiana has reported that this picture was taken in 1927 during his first police arrest. Here is link to the picture. http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?linkid=2 . Also, in this committee's opinioan 'Why I am an Atheist' was written in response to his discussions with Bhai Randhir Singh in 1930. I would like to advise that the key person behind this committee is Prof. Jagmohan Singh who is son of Bhagat Singh's sister. Before publishing materials on website www.shahidbhagatsingh.org they have published their collections in book form in Punabi named 'Shahid Bhagat Singh Ate Uhna De Sathian Dian Likhtan' published in 1985. No body has challanged athentication of this collection of writings of Bhagat Sing and his comrades. In addition to this I would like to suggest that this article shall put some focus on his political and philosphical ideas which will help in understanding Bhagat Singh better.

Raj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpannu (talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh and Death Penalty

The article mentions Bhagat Singh being sentenced to death on two separate occasions, once for the murder of the British officer and once for the bombing. The way it's written, it feels like the article is saying Bhagat Singh was tried twice and sentenced twice. Was he really sentenced twice? Or did he have one trial for both crimes and was sentenced to death at the end of that trial?

it was one trial for 2 of those cases

Regarding the controversy and heated debate about Bhagat Singh's conversion to Sikhism before he was killed by hanging, I would like to point out the fact that merely the fact that he kept his hair and beard cannot give credence to whether he reconverted to Sikhism. The hair and the beard was his identity, and as far as I think it was that identity that he went back to. That does not in anyway show whether he changed his beliefs or not.

It is, however, very unlikely that he did considering his resolve in other matters. But the fact that he went back to the Sikh identity cannot be denied.

Also, the argument that the facilties of a barber were not available to him is at the most a whimsical allusion. Sukhdev and Rajguru did not have long hair like Bhagat Singh.

Bhagat Singh and Socialism

Bhagat Singh was one of the first socialists in India not mentioning a symbol to the masses and youth of India. What is your opinion on his contribution to his time and the India society today?

Contradiction

When was Bhagat Singh born, 1907 or 1908? The top says 1907 but the next paragraph says 1908.

I BELIEVE he was born in 1908.

please check this link. it is an article from 1976. here the date is quoted 1907. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MRnCBEdLKIY/S6j1OtybP4I/AAAAAAAACnE/MYyjVuZgro4/s1600-h/scan0001.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

RESOLVED

This article was obviously written by a great admirer of Bhagat Singh. While that is admirable, Wikipedia is not the place for panegyrics. This article must conform to NPOV guidelines. Among other changes, the following must be made: - The term "freedom fighter" is very subjective. As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. It would be more appropriate to refer to Bhagat Singh as a "revolutionary." - That reference to Bhagat Singh growing guns must be edited. Right now, it's offered as proof of his patriotism. Instead, to conform to NPOV, it should be offered as an example of the sentiments in his upbringing. - All references to Bhagat Singh being "falsely" accused and such must be removed, as they are highly subjective interpretations of history. (The British will say that he was rightly accused, Indian nationalists will say that he was falsely accused. Wikipedia is not the place to have these debates.) - All anti-Gandhi and anti-Congress references near the end must be removed, as they serve no other purpose other than to smear Gandhi and paint Bhagat Singh as a martyr. Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda or smear campaigns. - Please cite some unbiased sources for the account of Lala's death. The bottom line here is that this article is biased way too much in favor of Bhagat Singh and written from a very pro-Bhagat Singh, nationalist point of view. While I think that is patriotic, it is still biased. Wikipedia articles have to be as unbiased as possible and this article requires a complete overhaul.

obviously it seems you r totally unaware of indian history..lala's death in a police lathi (stick) charge is a well documented fact..revise your indian history if you are questioning such facts........and yes if the british use violence it is for the better of the human race and if an indian uses it it is terrorism..no way , bhagat singh was apatriot and its true that the bomb he dropped was harmless to the extent it did not even contain any sharpnels..is that terrorism?[user:suki]

I am well-aware of Indian history. Although I disapprove of Bhagat Singh's violent methods, he was a patriot at heart, no doubt. All I was saying was that, a long time ago, this article was very very biased in favor of Bhagat Singh. Wikipedia has to show a NEUTRAL point of view, meaning that, as much as you might hate the British, you have to be fair to them. I was, so to speak, playing Devil's advocate. In any case, it's pointless to argue this anymore. The NPOV dispute ended ages ago.

On Bhagat Singh & Atheism

The claim that Bhagat Singh renounced atheism is similar to the usual campaign against well known atheists to malign them. There is no proof/evidence coming from Bhagat Singh himself that he renounced atheism. Claims to the contrary from Bhai Randhir Singh or anybody else is not reliable in the absence of proof.MANOJTV 12:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the following a quote? :

"He supported his own beliefs and claimed that he used to be a firm believer in The Almighty, but could not bring himself to believe the myths and beliefs that others carried within their hearts and minds at all times."

If not, it should be reworded or quoation marks added. Otherwise; it doesn't necessarily sound POV to me, just unnatural perhaps. As to if he renounced Atheism, I must admit I skimmed through it (until I have time to read it carefully), but at the end of Why I am an Atheist? he did say:

'"Let us see how I carry on: one friend asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, "During your last days you will begin to believe." I said, No, dear Sir, it shall not be. I will think that to be an act of degradation and demoralization on my part."'

Okay, so that certainly doesn't prove whether or not he recanted on his death bed, but it gleans something of his resolve and conviction. Khirad^talk 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

New NPOV dispute: Could Gandhi have saved Bhagat Singh?

User:209.161.221.159 edited this page to add a stingingly POV section about Gandhi intentionally allowing Bhagat Singh to die (or even ADVOCATING Singh's execution) so that he would have absolute control over the independence movement. User:Sageonline then deleted that and, while calling it a minor edit, reversed this position altogether and argued that Gandhi was in no position to have saved Bhagat Singh.

Regardless of who is right, this argument is very POV. I don't want to get into an edit war over whether Gandhi could have or couldn't have saved Bhagat Singh. Gandhi supporters tend to say that he couldn't and anti-Gandhi people tend to say he could have. For the purposes of Wikipedia, can you folks just agree to disagree and write a NEUTRAL discussion of the controversy? It's perfectly fair (in fact, I say it is necessary) for the article to discuss this controversy, BUT IT MUST NOT TAKE SIDES.

I would make the changes myself but I'm missing some of the necessary facts. I'm not sure, for example, at which point exactly Bhagat Singh was sentenced to death (see above). Could some NEUTRAL party please make the necessary corrections and make sure to keep them FACTUALLY ACCURATE? (I know that Bhagat Singh was a revolutionary and this a controversial figure but let's please avoid propaganda here!) --Hnsampat 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the contentious statements from the article:

while in secret British judges and army commanders were planning to hang Bhagat Singh, with the help of Mahathma Gandhi. Away from media and the people, Gandhi signed a form that when signed Bhagat Singh would be hung. During that moment of time the people of India were turning to Bhagat Singh and away from Gandhi. If Bhagat was to be hung Gandhi thought that the people would turn to him and he would be able to take credit for "freeing" India.

If these accusations can be written up in an NPOV way to the satisfaction of all parties then it can go back into the article. Arvindn 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to write a new section entitled "Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi" describing the difference of opinion between Singh and Gandhi and the continuing conflict today among their respective supporters. The contrast between Singh and Gandhi was, in many ways, like the contrast between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King in the US civil rights movement.

Singh's supporters and Gandhi's opponents often accuse Gandhi of "killing" Bhagat Singh. Sometimes, the accusation is that Gandhi just stood by and did nothing while Singh was sentenced to death. Others say that Gandhi secretly advocated Singh's execution. I'll go ahead and write in that section that people accuse Gandhi of this, but I have yet to see any credible evidence that supports this. (And please don't tell me "Oh you are ignorant of Indian history!" or "You're just saying that because you're a Gandhi supporter!" or "Come on, EVERYBODY knows that!" I want to see CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. If you believe that Gandhi really did do all that, by all means educate me. But give me good sources. Bal Thackeray is not a good source.)

Gurmukhi?

Hopefully a somewhat less controversial topic is why his name isn't in Gurmukhi: ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ (I'm only sure 100% sure on Singh even after looking up bhagat on punjabidictionary.com)? Khirad^talk 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. It should be. Could you go ahead and do that? (I'm not familiar with Gurmukhi, I'm afraid.)--Hnsampat 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi

User:203.214.40.181 added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the Bhagat Singh and Mohandas Gandhi section:

There is also debate on whether independence could have come faster through Singh's policies or Congress adaptation to include these ideologies and methods.

I reworded it to make it a little less awkward. My version is this:

Some also wonder if independence could have come faster if the Indian National Congress had adopted Singh's methods in addition to Gandhi's.

Is this what was meant by the original sentence? If you'd like to reword my version, please discuss here.

Bhagat Singh was Never a Sikh

There is no source presented that has proved Bhagat Singh being a Sikh, however there are many sources which have claimed Bhagat Singh's atheism to the end of his life. Although notably religious a conversion may have been, it undermines Bhagat Singh's contribution to Indian Marxism if he changed to a Sikh again. Bhagat Singh became Atheist even before he cut of his beard and stopped wearing a turban. Karl Marx himself advocated atheism and Bhagat Singh was a follower of Marx.

It is incorrect to say that Bhagat Singh was never a Sikh. He was born and raised a Sikh. In his later years, though, he abandoned Sikhism and became an atheist. --Hnsampat 21:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

jaban nu lagaam de oye .....HE WAS A SIKH...bina kisi shak de ..more over JATT SIKH PUNJABI.. bhagat singh sandhu ... laggi samaj ..je nai laggi .. tan bhagat singh de pind aja ..BANGA in nawashar ( now name changed to BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR ) in punjab . ..aji kade te dekh li othe bhagat singh di kul aj v chaldi hai ..te nishanian v bahut ne bugge.. (u beeter understand this if not ..then come to his village BNAGA in nawashar ( now name changed to BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR ) in punjab and you will see his relatives and many things related to him .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.133.223 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

jaban nu lagaam de oye .....HE WAS A SIKH...bina kisi shak de ..more over JATT SIKH PUNJABI.. bhagat singh sandhu ... laggi samaj ..je nai laggi .. tan bhagat singh de pind aja ..BANGA in nawashar ( now name changed to BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR ) in punjab . ..aji kade te dekh li othe bhagat singh di kul aj v chaldi hai ..te nishanian v bahut ne bugge.. (u beeter understand this if not ..then come to his village BNAGA in nawashar ( now name changed to BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR ) in punjab and you will see his relatives and many things related to him .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.133.223 (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Given the controversial nature of the topic, I think this is a pretty well-balanced article. Just a couple of points:

By killing the wrong man, whatever his motives, Bhagat Singh became a common murderer, as far as the British were concerned, and would probably have faced the death penalty under most of the legal regimes of the period, colonial or otherwise. He forfeited his status as a political prisoner as a result

I really think that the suggestions that Gandhi connived at his death are pure fantasy. When they discovered the earlier murder the British had actually been handed a perfect excuse for hanging Singh after he had seriously embarrassed them by letting off a bomb in the Lok Sabha which failed to kill anybody. They were unlikely to let that slip. Even if you believe that Gandhi, one of the most selfless political figures of the twentieth century, could have sunk that low, Bhagat Singh was not sufficiently influential to pose any kind of a threat to him. Gandhi wielded moral authority - by the 1930s he had no official role in Congress and frequently disagreed with Nehru, let alone Jinnah. Yet he never attempted to use the British against them - quite the reverse in fact. He launched the Quit India movement in 1942 instead, when most of the Congress leadership thought it would be overly provocative. Sikandarji 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this reaction is the result of the movies. Particularly The Legend of Bhagat Singh. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this

The Gandhi-Irwin talks were on and political observers were confident that a word from Gandhi will certainly commute hanging to life imprisonment.Mahatma Gandhi spoke for everyone and every issue but did not utter a single word to bargain for Bhagat Singh's life. Hence his statement after the hanging of martyr Bhagat Singh, "the Congress made many attempts to save the lives of Bhagat Singh and his two associates", is not a substantiated fact.[..]Historian Dr Rajiv Lochan whose major research work revolves around Mahatma Gandhi puts this whole historical perspective in the following observations:"From all events and records available it is quite obvious that Gandhiji perceived both Subhas Chander Bose and Bhagat Singh as potential threats to his own highly acclaimed position".--Sahodaran 07:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That link merely goes to a web page with someone's opinion on it. I don't see how it's any kind of reputable source. In fact, it gets some of its basic facts wrong. (For example, it says that Saunders beat Lala Lajpat Rai to death. It wasn't Saunders; it was Scott. Bhagat Singh and his associates killed Saunders because they thought he was Scott.) --Hnsampat 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the 'information' on the web page that links to is worthless - just somebody else's unsubstantiated point of view. Somebody with no understanding of the use of the definite article or of spelling, by the looks of it, not to mention the basic facts of the case. Sikandarji 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Its an article that appeared in the Tribune;I have no idea about the author's credentials.I am familiar with this arguement;that Gandhi could have got Bhagat Singh out,the Gandhi-Irvin pact etc,but this was the sole online resource a quick googling could provide. --Sahodaran 17:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Irwin was enormously impressed by Gandhi when they met, but there is no way the Mahatma could have had enough influence on him to prevent Singh's execution: he never at any stage made appeals to the colonial authorities in this way, but instead preached non-cooperation from without. And whatever Irwin might have thought about the case (for which I haven't seen any evidence) the officers of the police force would have strongly resisted any political attempt to commute Singh's sentence, as he had killed one of their own. Maintaining the morale of the police would have been more important to the British than any appeal Gandhi could notionally have made. Sikandarji 08:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.133.223 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) 

Reverting anonymous users

User:24.16.121.213 made two very POV edits, one in which he raised that long-dead notion that Gandhi could have stopped Bhagat Singh's execution but was unwilling to do so. After that, User:202.61.56.97 and User:202.61.56.98 (who may be the same person) made several edits, inserting "Pakistan" in wherever there was "Punjab" and adding Bhagat Singh to the "History of Pakistan" category. Pakistan did not come into existence until more than 15 years after Singh's death and so none of these edits are appropriate. None of the other Indian freedom fighters are listed under History of Pakistan, so no reason that Bhagat Singh should be. I have reverted all of these changes. (There is one that I'm going to go back and add now, and that is that Singh was executed in Lahore. That's important.) --Hnsampat 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

THERE WAS NO INDIA EITHER!24.90.163.84

Sure there was. That's what the country where Bhagat Singh was born was called. The term "India" applies not only to today's Republic of India but also to British India, Mughal India, and ancient India. It's an all-encompassing term for South Asia, just as "Russia" refers collectively to the Russian Republic, the Soviet Union, and Czarist Russia (even though they were of different sizes and eras). But, to clarify, I've changed it to "British India". I think we can all agree that at least that much is true. --Hnsampat 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cutting of his Beard and not wearing the Turban

Bhagat Singh only shaved his beared and cut his hair becasue he did not want to be caught by the police. i think this should be added to the article becasue he only disguised himself so he would not be caught. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.56.5 (talk)

The article does say that: "He shaved his beard and cut his hair to avoid recognition, a violation of one of the sacred tenets of Sikhism." --Hnsampat 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully disagree to this claim. I do not feel that it is necessary to add this as just because he wanted to escape the police via disguise still doesn't permit him to cut his hair according to Sikhism. Cutting of hair is still in violation of Sikh philosophy and I believe that when the article says: "He shave his beard and cut his hair to avoid recognition, a violation of one of the sacred tenets of Sikhism," it does justice to the fact that a) Bhagat Singh did cut his hair, b) he cut his hair in order to escape prosecution, and c) this is still without a doubt in violation of Sikh philosophy. Adding the proposed bit by user Hnsampat would make it seem as if under the conditions of prosecution Sikhism validates the cutting of hair, which is completely incorrect. Therefore, in the best interest of Sikhism and the historical literature that is available I believe that this bit should not be included in the article.

Sonu sandhu23 (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. An anonymous IP suggested that we should include the bit about cutting the hair to avoid recognition and I only responded to tell him that such a statement already exists in the article. I'm not talking about "adding" anything but rather it was the IP user who suggested it. (The confusion stemmed from the fact that the {{subst:unsignedIP}} template was missing above. I've added it.) --Hnsampat (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Jalandhar vs. Lyallpur

Over the past few months, people have been changing Bhagat Singh's birthplace from Jalandhar to Lyallpur back to Jalandhar and back to Lyallpur. Could somebody please find an authoritative source and decide once and for all where he was born? If you do find an authoritative source (and when I say "authoritative," I mean something genuine and unbiased), please make the appropriate changes and please CITE YOUR SOURCE. Until then, I'm going to have to revert any further Jalandhar<-->Lyallpur changes.

By the way, I suspect that this disagreement may have something to do with the fact that Jalandhar is in "Indian" Punjab whereas Lyallpur (known today as Faisalabad) is in what is now "Pakistani" Punjab (and was originally named after a British man, Charles Lyall).

--Hnsampat 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any authoritative source but the movie: The Legend of Bhagat Singh definitely says Lyallpur, which I believe to be the correct birthplace. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Banga is (was) in Lyallpur district. The confusion is probably caused by the fact that his Grandfather had migrated to the canal colonies in Lyallpur District from Jullundur like so many other Sikhs, so that may have been where his family was from. I'll look for a citation. Sikandarji 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Nobeleeagle for finding three distinct sources that state that Bhagat Singh was born in Lyallpur, thus bringing an end to this matter. --Hnsampat 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to direct the attention of the people who are interested in this article to a report which appears today that Septemeber 13, 2007, in The Tribune. The link is http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070913/punjab1.htm#12.

The contents of the report will help to settle the issue of the place of birth of Bhagat Singh. I believe that all this controversy is because in this article, there are numerous reference to Harkrishen Singh Surjeet the Communist leader which appears at http://pd.cpim.org/2006/0319/03192006_surjeet.htm.

I will also like to suggest that some of the information provided in the above mentioned report of the Tribune, can in incorporated in the article.

However, I have observed that a large number of opinions (yes opinions) have been borrowed from Marxist Historians. I will only suggest this thing, that while referring to any source, even if it is an original or contemporary source, one must try to analyse the motive of the author, time of writing the source and motive of the writer who had recorded some event or data. It is not my opinion. It is the hard rules of historians and historic work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 130.64.80.137

User:130.64.80.137 recently made two edits to the Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi section that I reverted. I thought I'd explain here why.

First, he/she deleted the word "militant" from the first paragraph of that section (i.e. "Bhagat Singh's militant methods contrasted with the pacifist methods of Mahatma Gandhi.") I can only guess as to that user's motivations in deleting those words, but they belong there to maintain the parallel structure. The article contrasts Singh's methods with Gandhi's methods and so we need adjectives describing what makes those methods different. The difference is that Singh advocated violence whereas Gandhi did not. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "militant" as "fighting or warring" and "pacifist" as "opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes." Hence, Singh's methods were "militant" and Gandhi's were "pacifist." These words need to stay there to show the contrast.

Also, this user has twice deleted the entire last paragraph of that section. That paragraph needs to stay there because it presents Gandhi's point of view on the matter. If a small minority of Singh's supporters can accuse Gandhi of something as drastic as orchestrating Singh's execution, then it's only fair that Gandhi's response to those charges be presented. It's a matter of maintaining the neutral point of view.

In an earlier edit, which I reverted, this user changed the number of people who believe Gandhi orchestrated Singh's execution from "a small but vocal minority of Singh's supporters" to "some of Singh's supporters." I reverted it to maintain perspective. There aren't a whole lot of people who believe that Gandhi had any hand in Singh's execution, but those people make themselves known very loudly. Hence, they are "a small but vocal minority." To say that "some of Singh's supporters" believe that is to say something that is technically true, but misleading. The word "some" implies a much larger number than there actually are. Hence, "small but vocal minority." --Hnsampat 20:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with fighting oppression with like means. It's usually middle-class types, far removed from the "tender mercies" of state practice, who object so much to revolutionary self-defence. Call that "violence" if you want -- just note that it's the state which does most all of it. It's hypocritical to try and censor these concepts because it's 'not nice' in someone's insular eyes.

Pazouzou 08:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's "censoring" anything, even though as violent revolutionaries go Bhagat Singh was a pretty incompetent one, given that he managed to shoot the wrong man. Hnsampat was simply pointing out that very few people believe that Gandhi had anything to do with Singh's execution, which was pretty much inevitable under the penal regime of the period. Singh's violent (and in my view futile) exploits are all dealt with in detail. Conspiracy theories espoused by a "small but vocal minority" who appear to think that Gandhi and his legacy are an affront to Indian masculinity need to be flagged up as such. Sikandarji 08:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh in the Cinema

There's a marxist review of Rang De Basanti at the World Socialist Web Site.

Edit by Ranam re Gandhi

User:Ranam recently added the following to the "Bhagat Singh and Mahatma Gandhi" section: "Certainly, Gandhi's opinion at the time of Singh's execution bordered between justification of the Raj's actions to what may be desrcibed [sic] as mild chiding at the best and Quislingist compliance at the worst." This edit violates NPOV, both directly and through the use of weasel words. Essentially, it says that Gandhi either sort of supported Singh's execution or totally supported it, without allowing any room for the possibility that Gandhi actually opposed the execution. (Gandhi himself always said that he opposed Singh's execution, even though he disapproved of Singh's violent methods.) The edit cleverly uses the term "Quislingist compliance" to describe Gandhi's actions. "Quislingist" is not an often-used term, but it's a reference to a Norweigan fascist named Quisling and is a synonym for "traitor." In clear violation of NPOV, this edit says definitively that Gandhi supported Singh's execution and/or was an out-and-out traitor.

What I find particularly odd about this edit is that it backs up its claim with a quote from Gandhi that directly contradicts it. As a footnote, the edit uses the following from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: "The government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only." In other words, Gandhi says that the British government had the right to hang Bhagat Singh, but that they shouldn't exercise that right just because they have it. In other words, this quote supports the notion that Gandhi opposed the idea of executing Bhagat Singh.

Hence, I reverted the edits by User:Ranam as a violation of NPOV. --Hnsampat 20:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to edit by Ranam re Gandhi

I certainly did add the reference, but as you would see from the reference, he does not oppose Singh's execution. And I have said it may be described it as "mild chiding" of the govt's actions "at the best". For he does say that Singh's execution was undeserved, and his words are an "urge of restraint" on the govt rather than criticism of it's actions. Re: NPOV you say Gandhi always opposed Singh's execution, but you do not provide any references. my edit does not say Ganshi was a traitor, it does say he supported Singh's execution and also indicates that he held scant regard for any other philosophy but his own.

While I disagree with you, I thank you for acting in good faith. I have edited your edit to make it further NPOV. The key to NPOV is that the article not assert one point of view over the other. So, if there's controversy over the meaning of a quotation (as there was between you and me), the article must simply say that a controversy exists and give both sides' evidence, without asserting which one is correct.

If the evidence strongly favors one side over the other, then the article should present that evidence, but still without asserting which is correct. For example, the evidence for Earth being round overwhelms the evidence for a flat Earth. So, in the article about Earth, it is okay for the evidence in the article to disproportionately favor a round Earth (i.e. "The evidence for a round Earth is A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H whereas supporters of a flat-earth theory back that up with J."). NPOV doesn't require every issue to become a "he said, she said" issue (i.e. we don't have to say "Some people say the Earth is round, while others say it is flat..."). However, at no point can the article say, "This means the Earth is round." That would be a conclusion and NPOV dictates that the article is not allowed to draw conclusions.

Same thing here. I noted, when I wrote the paragraph about Gandhi, that Gandhi claims to have opposed Singh's execution. I didn't say for a fact that he actually opposed it. However, I think it is fair to say that, even if Gandhi did support Singh's execution, he never did so openly.

My issue with your edit was that it drew conclusions (i.e. it definitively said that Gandhi supported Singh's execution and said that the quote either indicated a "mild chiding" or "Quislingist compliance," without leaving room for any other possible conclusion). I apologize for not being clearer about that.

Anyway, I've edited it to make it as NPOV as possible, drawing no conclusions but offering the evidence. I think what we have now is neutral and balanced. Thank you, once again, for acting in good faith and for your efforts to make this section as neutral as possible. --Hnsampat 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence for Gandhi's apparent political ill-treatment of the HSRA. Shaheed Sukhdev wrote to Gandhi in a letter detailing how Gandhi was tolerant towards the British yet intolerant towards Indian revolutionaries who were dying for their nation. I think that with proper sourcing that view on Gandhi's views deserves a spot on this article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sikh Categories

Bhagat Singh was a Sikh by birth but changed himself to Atheism in his teenage years. Thus the only time he was religious was in his early childhood. Should we really keep the Sikh and Sikh Martyrs category there? I'm open to other views. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that we should keep both categories, as Sikhs tend to be thought of as something of an ethnic group in India, regardless of whether they are actively religious or not. Being born Sikh seems to be part of one's identity, even if one isn't religious. But, I'm open to other views, too.

On a side note, the category "Sikh Martyrs" should be renamed to "Sikh martyrs" in accordance with Wikipedia's naming policies (i.e. only the first word is capitalized). I don't know how to go about doing that, though. --Hnsampat 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

He is a freedom fighter, any one fighting a colonial rulers who conquer countries for get resources is a freedom fighter no doubt, Britishers were in India to fill there pockets, not to help Indians. Indians where considered as slaves. yah if the Britishers were ruling the India just like they were ruling them self's then we could say Bhagat Sing was a revolutionary. don't elevate colonial Britishers by saying Bhagat Sing is revolutionary. not just Indians where fighting colonial Britishers, Americans Africans almost every one who were ruled my colonial Britishers were fighting them for freedom. And i don't think any present Britisher would get offended if we say he is a freedom fighter, as he was fighting for freedom from then colonial rulers. and lastly what else will he be called when he is fighting in a freedom struggle

Good Article Nomination

Hi, I'm the user reviewing this article for its Good Article nomination, and I think that the version certainly qualifies and I have made the necessary changes. It is largely well-written, very well-referenced and maintains strict NPOV and so deserves to be passed. However, there is still room for improvement in this article and I'll lay out where so that the good work can be continued.

• The article needs a copyedit. It is comprehensible and well-written in most places and good enough to be a good article, but there are occasionally unusual grammar constructions and one or two weasel words, especially in the second paragraph of the lead and in the section on Lala Rajput Rai. I suggest the article be submitted to the League of Copyeditors or looked at by several editors with English as a first language to smooth out the bumps.
• Congratulations on a very well-referenced article. There are only a handful of comments which might need citations, such as when he cut his beard, the claim that he hoped his death would unite the youth of India and especially Gandhi's quote about capital punishment.
• Expansion is needed in the sections about the effects of his death on the Indian Independence Movement, why he shot the wrong man and how the police found out about his involvement in the shooting. The modern day legacy section should be moulded into a paragraph rather than the semi-list state it now is in.
• There are several short sections following the death of Lala Rajput Rai which need to be contracted together. I suggest the LLR's death is changed into a lesser title (with the three equals signs), and then Hunger Strike, Trial for the Saunders murder and execution likewise. the trial and execution sections are quite short, perhaps they could be moved into one section together with the title Murder trial and execution or similar.
• Coverage in this article is very broad and seems to cover all aspects of his life unless there are any totally omitted, and given the controversy surrounding it, if there was, it would have been brought up here at some stage, so no problems there.
• The edit wars have calmed down, and thus aren't a barrier to this article's elevation. However, if they start again, it will have to be reviewed.
• Huge thumbs up for avoiding the POV which most Indian independence articles are riven with. As a British person it gets very tiresome to see endless articles describing British rule in India as nothing more than an evil, malicious dictatorship without any hint of balance or attempt at NPOV coverage. This has been very well handled here and paints a scrupulously neutral point of view, handling controversial issues with fairness and well-referenced statements showing each side of the argument. Congratulations.
• Three pictures is just about enough for an article this size, and if more can be found then they would make the piece look much better. That said, the three present are nicely arranged and in the public domain.

Thanks and good job, it was an interesting and informative read, nicely written and very well referenced. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments and review. :) Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mention of CPI(M)

The mention of Singh being projected as a martyr by CPI(M) is a bit odd. All Indian left groups (as well as Pakistani communists) see Singh as a martyr. --Soman 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Singh is called a "martyr" by the CPI(M). It says that, according to the CPI(M), Singh was one of the earliest Marxists in India. The source that is referenced there is something written by the CPI(M). --Hnsampat 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I read the passage to quick. However, the problem sort of remains. To my knowledge, there is no difference in the analysis on Singh by the major communist currents in India. The viewpoint expressed in the CPI(M) article is shared by other groups as well. Wouldn't it be better with a more general formulation on the role of Singh in the discourse of the Indian communist movement? --Soman 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Devotee Lion" and the etymology of "shaheed"

The literal translation of Bhagat Singh's name as "Devotee Lion" is an irrelevant piece of information. While some people change their names to reflect their causes, Bhagat Singh's name is simply his birth name. I mean, would we translate Lance Armstrong's name to mean "Stick-With-Knife-On-The-End Well-Built-Biceps"? Of course not! Even in the case of Chandrashekhar Azad, who actually changed his last name from "Tiwari" to "Azad" (meaning "freedom"), we wouldn't translate his entire name to "One-With-the-Moon-On-His-Head Freedom". Rather, we'd simply point out that he changed his last name to a word that means "freedom." In the case of Bhagat Singh, he was called "Singh" because that's what all Sikhs call themselves, and he calls himself "Bhagat" because that was the name given to him. Nothing more than that. It's not like his name is supposed to mean that he is an actual "devotee lion" (i.e. religious and with lion-like qualities) just as Lance Armstrong's name isn't meant to suggest that he has lance-like qualities nor is it supposed to suggest that he is inherently strong. It's just his name, nothing more.

Furthermore, the little tidbit about "shaheed" coming from Arabic is an unnecessary sidenote. It detracts from the main point of that sentence, which is that Bhagat Singh is considered a martyr. I mean, think about it it, this is what the sentence is basically saying: "Bhagat Singh is considered a martyr or 'shaheed' -- and BY THE WAY, the word 'shaheed' came into Indian languages from Arabic." It's a factoid that, while interesting, interrupts the flow of that sentence and ought not be there. --Hnsampat 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ok yo ima reply. Your first example of Lance Armstrong is wrong and unfair. It isn't a translation - we already have 'Lance Armstrong'. Rather it's an exaggeration and absurdificaton (lol) using other words of the same language, to prove a point. Second, if Chandrashekhar Azad means "One-With-the-Moon-On-His-Head Freedom", then what's wrong with noting that? If foreign names have meanings, have translations, then they should be told.

But I was probably wrong to place "Devotee Lion" where I did. You in a way right when you said "he was called "Singh" because that's what all Sikhs call themselves, and he calls himself "Bhagat" because that was the name given to him. Nothing more than that. It's not like his name is supposed to mean that he is an actual "devotee lion" (i.e. religious and with lion-like qualities) just as Lance Armstrong's name isn't meant to suggest that he has lance-like qualities nor is it supposed to suggest that he is inherently strong." While his name does mean "Devotee Lion", my putting of "Devotee Lion" where I did made the point that literally "Devotee Lion" is salient on every utterance of "Bhagat Singh", which along the lines of what you said, is definitely not the case.

So, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be against giving a translation altogether, rather, perhaps against the way I did. I will make an edit, which I hope will reconcile. I will not bother with saying "shaheed is from arabic". Tuncrypt 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. I still somewhat disagree as to the need for a translation, but there's no harm in having that information in the article, especially where you've put it now. It did not belong where it was before (i.e. right next to his name in the lead of the article), but the current placement is appropriate. Kudos. --Hnsampat 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajiv Lochan

I deleted the statement by Rajiv Lochan in the "Mohandas Gandhi" section and I thought I'd explain here why I did that.

This statement from Lochan is not from any primary source by Lochan himself but rather is from an op-ed (by definition, an opinion piece) from the Tribune India (minor correction, Nobleeagle; it was the Tribune India not the Times of India that had this op-ed). If this statement were being cited directly by either of these newspapers, it would be much more reliable, considering that pre-eminent newspapers tend to have more rigorous standards for verifiability. An op-ed, however, does not have to meet those same rigorous standards and this is less reliable than an article from the newspaper.

This particular op-ed is rather strongly opinionated and argues aggressively in opposition of Gandhi. It directly accuses Gandhi and the Congress of lying by asserting that their statements are "not substantiated by fact." Already, the author's use of Lochan's statement is suspect, as strongly opinionated bits of writing often (intentionally or unintentionally) misquote scholars.

Furthermore, I can't find any evidence that Rajiv Lochan is any kind of reputable scholar. I did a Google search of Lochan and all I could find was this op-ed and a letter to the editor in response to this op-ed, a letter whose author asserts that Lochan is not a reliable scholar.

The bottom line is that there is no reliable source indicating that Rajiv Lochan is any kind of scholar and thus any statement by him (presuming that he was accurately quoted) is questionable. Hence, I deleted the statement by him from the section. --Hnsampat 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to share with the discussion board that there is one Professor by the name Rajiv Lochan in Punjab University, Chandigarh.

Secondly, I differ with the comment that he had been just writing letters to Editor. If Rajiv Lochan is the same teacher from the university, then I believe that his comment should be taken seriously.

I believe that he is dealing with Modern Indian history. Secondly, two of his colleagues, espcially Prof. J. S. Dhanki, has done substantial work on Lala Lajpat Rai and Arya Samaj. I do not have to emphasize that how Lala Lajpat Rai and Arya Samaj were related to Bhagat Singh. I can tell you from personal knowledge that there take place interaction between these two teachers on different levels. Hence, if the person is same Rajiv Lochan, the person who has been writing in the Tribune, then before passing any judgement, one must verify the his comment. Mere Google search is not enough for it. If you go for Google search, then you may find his email address also which is not operational. Google search is no authenticity proof. Only thing which I am suggesting here is that his comments and contribution should not be removed till the person deleting his contribution has convinced himself through original or authoritative sources that the material given by him does not test the scientific verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I'm afraid that both I and Wikipedia policy disagree with you here. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the person adding the contribution. So, if somebody adds a comment from Rajiv Lochan, then it is the responsibility of the contributor to show that Rajiv Lochan is a reliable source. Otherwise, any editor is free to remove it. Furthermore, keep in mind that the source in question was not something written by Lochan himself. Rather, it was an op-ed that quoted Lochan. Even if Lochan is a reliable source, we can't rely on the op-ed to quote him correctly, since the op-ed is a very biased source. So, if we want to include the comment, then the contributor must first show that Rajiv Lochan is any kind of reliable source and then must show a primary source by Lochan. --Hnsampat 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Jatin Das

Jatin das was a fellow prisoner of Bhagat singh in Lahore jail, J Das died in the hunger strike which created a furore in the country. I personally believe that a passing mention of Das in the article will make it more rounded. LegalEagle 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to confirm this and as long as it is directly relevant to Singh's life, by all means go ahead (although keep in mind that this article is supposed to be a biography of Singh and not a summary of the independence movement). --Hnsampat 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In Kuldip Nayar's "The Martyr" it mentions J. Das' time in jail in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.72.200 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kakori train robbery considered an act of terrorism

The criticism section says that Kakori train robbery is considered an act of terrorism in the independence movement. I think this is not correct and even the article about the robbery itself says nothing like this. 128.2.179.241 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)abhaga

This has been cited as a fact. Could any evidence be provided for this. As far as I know it not considered by anyone but the British as an act of terrorism. I am going to remove the fact tag until firm conclusive evidence is provided for this. Shehzadashiq 11:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The "fact" tag doesn't indicate that that bit of information is considered a fact. Rather, it's another way of tagging that information with the {{Fact}} template, indicating that a citation is needed. (The powers that be in Wikipedia prefer the "fact" template instead of the "citation-needed", but they mean the same thing i.e. that a citation is needed.) If you take a look at the article itself, it still says "citation needed" regardless of whether you use the "fact" template, the "citation-needed" template, or the "cn" template. --Hnsampat 13:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit confused with the "fact" tag. I have tried to find some evidence that would back this assertion but for one reference they all track back to either this entry or mirrored copies. In light of this, might I suggest that it be removed until it can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehzadashiq (talk • contribs)

I agree. Go for it. --Hnsampat 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please check that it still makes sense. I don't know why but the sentence seems incomplete.Shehzadashiq 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now tried to complete the sentence by linking the allegation the British made when they arrested Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh has written about this in his pamphlet about atheism. I hope this will be more satisfactory.Shehzadashiq 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Bhagat Singh, sporting Kesha and sitting on a cot.

It is believed that the photograph of Bhagat Singh, which appears before the seciont Marxism, wherein Bhagat Singh is seen sitting on a cot (Ban wali Manjee) and having his tradition hairs intact, is of 1926 when he was arrested in Lahore after the Dushera Blast case.

If any member can verify this fact, then kindly bring it here on the page.

One can fully understand that arrest during Dushera Bomb case had left deep influence on the mind of Bhagat Singh. He had mentioned this event in his most famous writeup of being an Atheist which is aggressively discusses in previous entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh Sandhu

User:PatialaPeg edited the article such that every reference to Bhagat Singh was changed to "Bhagat Singh Sandhu." I have never seen any source anywhere that states that Bhagat Singh's real name is Bhagat Singh Sandhu. PatialaPeg offered no sources for this addition and so I reverted those edits. Since then, PatialaPeg has reverted my reversion, mistakenly referring to my reversion as "vandalism" and asking that I "educate myself" prior to reverting edits. In the interest of consensus-building and in the spirit of good faith, I have brought the matter here. I feel that Wikipedia policy dictates that the burden of proof is on the user who adds questionable information. Therefore, I feel the burden is on PatialaPeg to provide several reliable sources that say that Singh's full name was "Bhagat Singh Sandhu." Unless such sources can be provided, I feel that these edits should be reverted (which is why I reverted them in the first place). --Hnsampat 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Hnsampat, Please check this reference ... [1] there are over 1000 references; take your pick; and learn some wikipedia etiquette. PatialaPeg 03:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that PatialaPeg has been blocked for 31 hours for violating the 3RR so you will need to leave it a while before continuing the conversation. I should also suggest that PatialaPeg provides specific sources and references rather then just sticking the name into google and providing that - I notice that many of the persons referred to in the link are different. The reverts by PatialaPeg also remove hidden notes designed to avoid disruption to the article concerning Bhagat Singh's place of birth. I invariably take no action about article content after a 3RR report but I'm concerned that losing these hidden notes might provoke further disruption to the article. I'm therefore reverting myself to restore them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is PatialaPeg making an issue out of this? The first sentence of Early Life already says "On September 28, 1907, Bhagat Singh was born into a Sandhu family to Sardar Kishan Singh Sandhu and Vidyavati in the Khatkar Kalan village near Banga in the Lyallpur district[5][6][7] of Punjab". Tuncrypt 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-embracing Sikhism

Two single-purpose IP accounts, 131.252.230.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.38.132.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), have been adding this long passage about Bhagat Singh re-embracing his Sikhism in his final days to the article. Both accounts have added the same questionably sourced passage repeatedly (and made no other edits) and I have removed it three times, each time asking that the information be sourced before it is added back (both in edit summaries and once on 71.38.132.216's talk page). Each time, the text has been added back in its original form, with no sourcing. I feel that this text has to go, as it is not properly sourced. It cites the autobiography of Randhir Singh, but never gives any indication of how reliable a source he is nor provides any outside links. It also cites "an article" from 1995, without giving any further information about the title and publication of this article. In the end, it cites the photograph of Singh with long hair and a beard that was discussed above as "proof" of Singh's re-embracing of Sikhism, even though anybody could easily have long hair and a beard and not be Sikh, especially in prison, where the British may or may not have provided proper barber services. Finally, the tone and diction of the passage is not only unencyclopedic but also makes me suspect that it may have been copied from somewhere (although I have no proof of this). The anonymous accounts who keep adding the information have thus far not communicated in any way (neither in edit summaries nor on talk pages.) Therefore, I feel this text ought to stay off. What are the thoughts of the community? --Hnsampat 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. Tuncrypt 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Although the article is very well written, commendably neutral (given such a potentially controversial topic) and generally well referenced, I have found some points (mostly minor, one major) that should be addressed:

• From Early life: It may help the reader to briefly mention who "Sukhdev" is when his name is first introduced at the end of the section, and maybe give his full name.
• From Bomb in the assembly: Just one bomb, or more than one? This is not clear as the article implies both.
• From Trial and execution: "Undertrials"? I'm not sure what this means (is it even a real word?)
• The entire Re-Embracing Sikhism section is unreferenced, and contains rather a lot of quotations (see WP:QUOTE for guidance on when/when not to use quotations). Its tone is also rather unencyclopedic and the heading does not comply with the WP:MOS. Edit - just seen the comment above. Maybe this section should be removed altogether? EyeSerene^TALK 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• The references should really be formatted according to the templates on WP:CITET. Especially, web cites should have access dates on them as this permits editors to track down dead links from web archives.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and the issues above are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). In this case, it may be improved and renominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep (pass)

Thank you for your work in addressing the above reassessment (I even learned a new word!). I am happy that Bhagat Singh meets current GA criteria and should retain its GA status. For future improvement, it may be worth trawling through the references and converting those that do not use the templates mentioned in the review above. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 11:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was passed. Many of the sources used in the article are unreliable, which is in violation of the GA criteria. However, I'm working on resourcing the material, so hopefully, the RS issues will be resolved shortly. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Delisted from GA

I have taken the liberty of delisting this article from GA and A-class status. The biography has a number of holes. I've just gone through the early life section, and found that the article is missing some very crucial details. Also, most of the references are unreliable, as they come from self-published sources. I have removed some of these sources and replaced them with {{fact}} tags. I am in the process of adding the proper sources in place of these tags. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Shahmukhi

I undid this edit for two reasons, one that it removes a reference from the Ministry of Information of the Indian government about Bhagat Singh writing in Urdu. Also the Punjabi language is written in the Shahmukhi and Gurmukhī scripts. It is not another language (Urdu) - but the same language written in a different script. Pahari Sahib 12:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! (By the way, I didn't mean to remove the Ministry of Information reference; that was an accident.)--Hnsampat (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay :-) Pahari Sahib 15:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sikhims=

bhagat singh was 101%sikh because you everybody should knows singh mean sikh. (singh is king)some political leader wants be #1.they should know no body can be number one because singh was king, sikh is king, and singh will king. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.157.58 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "Singh is King" fellow will be interested to know that Rajputs from Rajasthan have been using the surname Singh (ex: Maharana Pratap Singh) long before the advent of Sikhism. So if someone is a singh, he need not be a sikh. Even my surname is singh, but I am a rajput, not a sikh... regarding the king thing, that doesnot deserve comment. The article is about a revolutionary reverred by whole of India, maintain its dignity and stay away from such narrow minded comments. 203.158.94.82 (talk)

Bhagat Singh was born and raised a Sikh, but he later renounced his Sikhism and became an atheist. Hence he is listed as an atheist in the article. Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My edit was removed because the theory had no solid proof. or is it somthing else........... Bhagat Singh became a sikh before he died.

i did do a very well researched article on bhagat singh re embracing Sikhism. this however was deleted due to no solid proof. however, the proof is in a photo of bhagat singh in his last days, Jooda, Kara and all. this photo is not hard to find. in fact it is in the article itself! more over, there are witness's that claim that he had long hair during the time of his execution. several quotes and letters that had been written by him that point out his reconversion to sikhism. one of them was included in the artical i included. let me repeat.

"Bhai Sahib, your words have penetrated deep into me like arrows. The rock of my atheism has crumbled, leaving behind a magnetic influence on me. I have now acquired the conviction that I am not going to die. I am the reality which will never end or die. I quit this body only to come again. And until then my soul will stay absorbed in the eternal glory. Now I can experience a joy in dying at the scaffold. Earlier my bravery was only due to my obstinacy. Internally death was a bogey for me, and I was afflicted by the fear that death would be the end of me. This thought spread darkness before my eyes, and a negative state of annihilation would overtake me. Your words have completely transformed me. The future before me has become bright. The vaccuum of annihilation and the fear have disappeared. My courage has grown. Now I shall face death with courage. The life giving elixir of your life has intoxicated me. Your life story had already convinced me that your profession and deeds are one. Your life conviction has confirmed my impression that you talk only such things, as have been personally experienced by you. So I am not only convinced that I am not going to die, and that I am an immortal soul, but now I also believe that God exists, whom you have seen with your own eyes. So nothing will please you more than that from today your dear Bhagat Singh is a believer in God and spiritual life. In this belief he will lay down his life. And now I assure you that from today I will never cut my hair or beard, and shall ascend to the next world, as in Sikh belief. In the Sikh language, the expression 'ascend' is so beautiful and full of meaning. 'Ascend' and 'die', what a difference! After I leave the body my soul will ascend to the heavens above, and will not die or end. It will acquire a body again for fulfilment of the highest ideal in the service of the nation and the motherland. Wonderful has been the real outcome of this meeting with you."

this saying WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED! not enough proof eh? or is it something else?

please restore my edit. today people defame Bhagat ji by calling him a non god believer. not that theirs anything wrong with a atheist. but im sure Bhagat ji would mind if someone called him an atheist. if you cant restore it than

A) justify why B) try to add it into the controversy section.

i will restore it now. if you feel the need to remove it then kindly tell me beforehan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Let me explain to you why I removed this quote. Many people, like you, feel that Bhagat Singh is somehow "defamed" or that his memory is somehow tarnished by the fact that he was an atheist. So, lots of rumors fly around that he actually re-embraced his Sikhism in his dying days. Here's the problem. You haven't provided any proof of this. The picture that you're talking about is discussed above. Basically, all that picture shows is Bhagat Singh in jail with long hair and a beard. People say that this is "proof" he re-embraced Sikhism, since long hair and a beard are important markers of Sikh identity. But, just because somebody has long hair and a beard doesn't make him a Sikh. It's possible that, for example, Bhagat Singh didn't have a barber in jail and so his hair just naturally grew out long. It could mean any number of things. So, the picture is NOT proof of him becoming a Sikh again.

Also, you quoted this long paragraph here. Where did you find it? You say it was "actually recorded." Where? By who? Please provide the SOURCE of this information. Did you find it in a book? On a website? In a blog? Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia has a strict policy on reliable sources. You must not only provide a source, but it must also be reliable per Wikipedia's standards. If you can show this quote to be from a reliable source, we'll include it in the article. Otherwise, we'll have to leave it out. Thank you for understanding. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber-My dear freind, as for the photo, if he had no barber then why is his hair tied in a joora? if you look closly, you can see that there is a mettalic shine on his wrist, Kara. Rajguru had short hair, if there was no barber then i know that a great soul like bhagat singh would have demanded one. come on, he fasted for fourty days! he just wanted some rights! a barber is also a great priority! if he could fast for fourty days for rights like news paper and books then why not FOR A BABER! as for the conversation, it was confirmed by the Muslim guard that guarded him as he talked to Bhai ji. He was muslim. what has he got to gain by telling people Bhagat ji was a sikh. Also, Bhai Randhir Singh wrote a biography in which this conversaition was there. that is where i got it from. Denying this is like calling a great freedom fighter Bhai Randhir Singh ji a liar! shame on those who claim that they are free because of liars, for they themselves lie! Also, i dont think there is anything wrong with atheists. some of my best friends are atheists. it is other ignorant intolerant people who give no respect to Bhagat Ji. i am a tolerant fellow. i dont defame atheists. atheists are my friends. thanks for understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the photo isn't good enough for Wikipedia's evidence standards. If we have to interpret the photo, then that counts as original research, which is not allowed. Could you please provide the title and page numbers for the book that you are quoting? That way, we can all take a look at it and decide if it is a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hnsampat, as for the photo, i didnt provided it, so i dont really know if its good evidence. you should confirm with the provider. as for the book. it is a auto biography of Bhai Randhir Singh, its called "Amrit Ki Hain" . im not very sure of the page numbers but ill try to borrow the book again from my friend and find them. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you also please find out when was the date of this alleged meeting between Bhai Randhir Singh and Bhagat Singh? I have read somewhere that it allegedly occurred in early October 1930. This would make no sense, however, since Bhagat Singh wrote his famous essay "Why I Am An Atheist" on October 5, 1930. He wouldn't re-embrace his Sikhism and then turn around and write a pamphlet about being an atheist. That makes no sense. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber- hi Hnsampat! yes, accroding to my research, the date of the meeting between shaheed Bhagat Singh and Bhai Randhir Singh took place on the 6th October. in his pamphlet 'Why I am a Atheist' Bhagat Singh writes that is mind is troubled by he is unsure and confused about the existence of god. this might be the reason to why Bhagat Singh was so eager to meet with Bhai Randhir Singh ji. (because he wanted to debate and clarify about his atheism. he wanted his uneasy mind to be at peace.) also, he had been seeking a meeting with Bhai Randhir Singh for a long time and couldn't meet him as Bhai Randhir Singh refused to meet him, because he had cut his hair. this led Bhagat Singh to confess to Bhai ji his atheist belief and the reason he cut his hair(atheism) and to prove this he wrote a pamphlet that we know today as 'why i am a atheist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Gursikhzuber-Well? should i restore it or not now? if not then please give me some valid reason or at least let me put it in the controversy section if given a proper reason as to why this is not allowed. --Gursikhzuber —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Please note which book you found all of this information and cite page numbers, etc. If you can do that, then add it into the article and we'll see if it passes the test for reliability. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will do, i cant do it right now as im not in india but i will in a months time when i have access to the book.-Gursikhzuber

my friend Hnsampat, hello. I have not yet found the book as im not in India yet but i have found out all you need to know. The encounter Bhai Sahib had with Bhai Randhir Singh took is found in chapter 25 in the Auto Biography of Bhai Randhir Singh Ji. I cant tell you the extent of the pages as they may differ from copy to copy. If you want, in the forward of the book of another book by Bhai sahib, namely Amrit ki Hain, Bhai Trilochan Singh, a close companion of Bhai Sahibs states,

"Bhai Sahib suffered harrowing tortures in Multan prison from April 1916 to June 1917, and for four years 1917-1921 in Hazaribagh prison in Bihar. He enjoyed some peace in Rajahmundry prison where he was kept in isolation but not tortured for a year in 1922, but his prison life in Nagpur prison (1923-1930) reads like a horror story where he was made the merciless victim of inhuman tortures. Six months before his release he was brought to Lahore where he was released on 4th October 1930. On the eve of his release Bhagat Singh the great freedom fighter met him as an atheist but parted as a believer in God and a man of faith. Exactly six months and 20 days after this meeting Bhagat Singh suffered death sentence on the night of 23rd March 1931. According to an eyewitness account four hours before his death he continuously sat in prayer and recited all the prayers he found in a Sikh Prayer Book (Gutka)."

Anyways, happy reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.166.44 (talk)

Kudos for your good faith efforts! :) I am glad that you took the time to find the exact quote and to cite it here. However, I'm afraid I'm still not quite convinced that this source is "reliable" per Wikipedia's standards. The reason is because Wikipedia's official standards on reliable sources assert that sources that are cited in articles as proof of facts should be reasonably unbiased. As the above quote demonstrates, the author is clearly biased strongly in favor of Bhagat Singh, as seen in phrases such as calling Bhagat Singh a "great freedom fighter" and describing him as the "merciless victim of inhuman tortures." An author who is that strongly biased is not trustworthy when it comes to a matter such as Singh's atheism, as he has a pretty strong incentive to "prove" that Singh was not an atheist (since many of Singh's strong supporters see his atheism as being derogatory towards him).

So, while you have worked hard and found a source to back up your claims, and I truly commend you for that, I'm afraid I feel that the source is still not appropriate for citation in Wikipedia. However, I also don't want this to remain a conversation between just you and me. Lord knows that my judgment is not the be-all, end-all of what is worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, and so I would like to get some additional feedback from other members of the community and other editors who regularly edit this article and see what they have to say. I feel pretty strongly that the source is not reliable enough for Wikipedia, but others may disagree. So, let's keep this discussion going for a little while longer. Thanks for understanding! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber-:Hello friend, okay, ummm it says here that this phrase is biased towards Bhagat Singh, this however is not the case of the argument, its about him re-accepting Sikhism and the phrase is in his, not him re accepting Sikhism. it does not state any biased comments about that matter such as "He returned to bhis former glory when he re embraced Sikhism." or anything as such. if that was the case, then i would not even be writing anything here. further more, this is not the source i have given you, it is a completely different book by the same author and the phrase above is written by the translator. and not the author who had most probably passed away, therefore, the forward being biased does not mean the whole book will be biased even though it is a different book. i don't feel that the book i have given you is biased, you may find some beautiful and descriptive language. happy reading once again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.166.44 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm afraid I still disagree. Let's get some input from other users and we'll go from there. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I read it over and I agree. The source seems biased. +, even Bhagat Singh's family says he was an atheist. Anyway, however, we could put a note on the page that says something like "although many believe Singh was an atheist, there are some people who believe __________ before he died." Deavenger (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber- hi people, may i say again, that this is not the source that i have told you, its a completely different source and this phrase is not written by the same person. the issue of bhagat Singh's family regarding him atheist is as nobody knew he had become Sikh except for people who played a major part in his last days. furthermore the newspapers did not reveal anything. might i ask you to read the book instead of giving me straight answers. i will repeat the third time, THE PASSAGE GIVEN ABOVE IS NOT FROM THE SAME SOURCE AND IT IS NOT BY THE SAME AUTHORS ALL TOGETHER. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.7.123 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please find the correct source and cite it here. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. The only people who knew he was "sikh" were people who played a major part at the end of his life, and you're assuming the author knew it. And chances are, the same people also told the family, and yet the family still say he's atheist, while they themselves are Sikh.

Plus, it commonly accepted that he's atheist. So if you do bring a reliable source stating that he became a Sikh again, we should make a not that while many people say he's atheist, some people believe he became a Sikh before he died. Deavenger (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents
Hi Deavenger, I quickly went through this discussion and thought to leave a comment. Randhir Singh is said to have had a meeting with Bhagat Singh in the jail (there is even a well known photograph of both them in the jail). However, I agree with you that appropriate reliable sources need to be found out for "asserting" his becoming Sikh again. Notable historian Sangat Singh does seem to confirm Randhir Singh's claim. I am sure there are other references for the same, will have to look for them. For time being, the following may provide some insight into this issue:

• Bhagat Singh: "I'm really ashamed and am prepared to tell your frankly that I removed my hair and beard under pressing circumstances. It was for the service of the country that my companions compelled me to give up the Sikh appearance...." Randhir Singh: " I was glad to see Bhagat Singh repentant and humble in his present attitude towards religious symbols"

• "Although born into a Jat Sikh family and returning to the turban just prior to his execution, under the influence of Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh, his popular visual incarnation has nearly always been a mimic of the English sahab."

• "Bhagat Singh's last wish, that he be administered amrit, Sikh baptism, by a group of five including Bhai Randhir Singh was not fulfilled by the British."

References

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roadahead. Thanks for the information. But we must also consider that since Bhagat Singh was born a Sikh, it's possible that he also kept some Sikh practices. For instance, Nehru was born a Hindu, but became Atheist and Agnostic. But he also was cremated according to Hindu rites. I was born a Hindu but I'm atheist now (though technically you can be Atheist and a Hindu, weird huh?), but I still keep some Hindu traditions. One of my friends was born a Muslim, and is now agnostic. But still keeps some practices. However, a debate on whether Bhagat Singh was atheist or not seems to a popular debate. Perhaps we should change his religion to unknown, and put a section of how whether Bhagat Singh was Atheist or Sikh is a debate, and etc. Thanks for the info though. Deavenger (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Deavenger, you have made thought provoking comments and I appreciate your openess, but either I'm not sure what exactly you are saying or I'm in disagreement slightly. Allow me to take the liberty of guessing the application of your comments to the discussion. If Bhagat Singh was atheist at his age of reason he was atheist at some piont and there should be no problem with stating that. Now coming to the information provided by the references - no I don't feel that information merely suggest that he wanted to keep some Sikh traditions. Having already shun his full flowing hair for the sake of disguise his going back to turban (as noted by Pinney) does not simply reflect that he was seeking back tradition (there were Sehajdhari Sikhs already). Also, I feel that Pinney is not simply noting the turban but stating his going back to "Sikh" (will try to find the author's email and ask what was meant). Bhai Randhir Singh has directly claimed Bhagat Singh's becoming a Sikh. Most important is Sangat Singh (notable historian) whose statement about Bhagat Singh's last wish very clearly indicates that he (Bhagat Singh) was not simply looking for tradition but was wanting to get back to full "Khalsa" way of life (as after "amrit" he would have to maintain all panj kakkaar (5 k's). Perhaps, the article should note that he was known to have atheistic beliefs (stating how this fact about him was found) and then state his going back to Sikh way of life. By the way, I still have a lot of reading to do on Bhagat Singh; just finished reading an essay said to have been written by him ("Why I am an atheist") and found no reference to Sikhism in that (however he notes some other religions and asks questions about them). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber:Dear deavenger, please read the above discussion, Bhai Randhir Singh did indeed play a major part in the life of Bhagat Singh. Nobody told the family as the arya samajist, sadly wanted to maintain is image as a arya samajist and not a sikh. (i believe Ive mentioned that before.) also i agree on the "though many people believe that he was atheist however some people believe he died a sikh" followed by my passage that was deleted earlier. this would suit the controversy section well as requested earlier by me. As for Roadahead, Meherbani Veer ji, for your kind support, i do appreciate it very much. Thank you and Sat Sri Akal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.137.244 (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gursikhzuber-My suggestion is that we re name the conspiracy into conspiracy and contrevorsy, then we could add a new section regading his conversion into sikhism, what are your views for the project suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead and add that new section and then I'll format everything accordingly. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, will get to work soon.Gursikhzuber (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I suggest being careful with the usage of words "conspiracy theories" and "controversy". Are there enough notable references which are challenging Randhir Singh's claim? Are there enough notable references against historian Sangat Singh's claim? If they are and there seems reasonable data presented, lets start a new section and put "Re-embracing Sikhism" and then put the opposing views there. I would refrain from using the term controversy if there aren't many references that directly reflect "controversy" and challenging other references opposing claim about "his re-embracing Sikhism". Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roadahead, Yes you are right, i have been reaserching and there seems to be no official or authored opposition to Bhai Randhir Singh or Historian Bhai Sangat Singh's claim. However, there seems to be stron oppisition from parties or groups,there will naturally be strong opposition from parties who's reputation will be destroyed by such claims but there seems to be lack of knowledge regarding this issue. therefore, we should publisise it in the article first, with only the few peoples point of view and them wait for further oppisition from more proffesional parties so we may note it but i dont feel we need to make it to complicated and can simply wrire that there is some disagreement by some parties or groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.148.180 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One, we cannot just add a section if it's not notable enough or we don't have a source to back it up. Also, the chance of professional people coming here is very slim, as wikipedia does not have a good reputation among professionals and they have much better things to do. Deavenger (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BHAGAT SINGH WAS A SCHOLAR HE KNEW MANY LANGUAGES FLUENTLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.255.138 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Deavenger, please read the above discussion as we have been discussing that very issue and it seems to be resolved, may i now proceed to add a new section to the article?-Gursikhzuber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.166.44 (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roadahead, thank you for including the information regarding Bhagat Singhs Re-Conversion to Sikhism. Highly appreciated, sorry couldnt thank you earlier, i have been very busy and couldnt check the article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gursikhzuber (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

jaspreet---bhagat singh met bhai randhir singh on 4th october1930 written in book by randhir singh himself chapter 24 page number 447 book is JAIL CHITHIAN ....and bhagat sing wrote the article why i am an atheist on 5th october a day after his meeting with randhir singh which proves that he was an atheist ....also the picture about which you are talking about was not at the time of his death ...it was taken in year 1927 refernce http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?linkid=2 ...please dont create such misconceptions...i dont understand why you ppl are so eager to prove that he was not a atheist....pls clarify...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.177.6 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.95.25.233, 3 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

N Hi. Please state the nature of your edit request. I can't help you if you don't. :) BejinhanTalk 04:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it for the insertion of the external link below? BejinhanTalk 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget it -- this IP is one of 19 (and not stopping) users who are spamming this site. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 08:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This site is now blacklisted. MER-C 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.56.236.138, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Bhagat Singh was born in Khatkar Kalan village, Nawanshahr Now 'Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar' Punjab (India).

Please edit the wrong information written in wikipwdia. 202.56.236.138 (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give a reliable source to back up this information? Please put up the edit request template after you've done that. BejinhanTalk 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh and Randhir Singh Controversy

I think its worthwhile to add a section here about the subject. The fact that it is called a controversy can not be disputed for all the discussion carried out above. While I dont call Randhir Singh a liar, his claim should be taken with a grain of salt. There are many loopholes in the story. Bhagat Singh is highly revered among Sikhs and any claim suggesting belief change in Bhagat Singh would give an immediate boost to the status of a Sikhism preacher. Thus there is a vested interest in Randhir Singh's claim about transforming Bhagat Singh. Just look at the amount of discussion it has generated on this forum. Besides he has secured a place with Bhagat Singh in the history. Every time there is a mention of Bhagat Singh's belief, somebody is going to start this controversy. That is too big a temptation to let pass. Needless to add it also adds to book circulation. Very akin to Jack G. Wheelis claim in assisting Goering in his suicide. Surprisingly enough, there is no mention by Bhagat Singh himself about his conversion, when he lived for around 6 months after supposedly conversion and knowing the fact that he was an avid writer. About the picture showing him supporting jooda (hair knot) and beard, enough has already been said about its authenticity in proving the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian sikh guy (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read the passage and here are my two cents. Whether Bhagat Singh became a Sikh again or not, you guys can argue that all you want. The only problem I have is with whoever wrote the paragraph has no concept or logic in what patriotism or nationalism is. Bhagat Singh would never say he felt "ashmaed" for what he had to do because he was first a foremost a true son of India and he was fighting for his motherland. Even if he had to cut his hair to fool the British, there was no shame in it, nor did that make any less of anything, his cutting his hair was a greater show of devotion to the values instilled by Guru Gobind Singh in teching us to fight the invaders at any cost, even if it means that you must sacrifice something you may or may not hold dear. But to say he was "ashamed" just reflects on how small minds think when they try to understand or interpret the actions of greater minds, which are clearly beyond their grasp.

Chote log, choti baatein.

That is where I have a serious problem. If people do not understand Bhagat Singh's love for his country, his people and freedom, then please do not degrade him to the level of idiots who cannot comprehend his noble spirit.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read Randhir Singh's own Autobiographical account and it will become quite clear why his writings can be debunked. There are many loophole throughout his book. It is also very poorly written. The biggest factor that debunks Bhai Randhir Singh is Bhagat Singh's own account. That is not to say he was not inspired by his Sikh, never say die, background, but that he did not actually believe in God, or kept the appearance of a Sikh. These websites here and [2] are very useful. Bhai Randhir's Singh's account should be confined to Other Accounts or a subheading of other sorts. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh was a Sikh - Please look at his picture 1 and picture 2 this picture is not from the movie but it is a real picture which you can easily search from other sources as well. See another set of pictures. It is a proof that he did have Sikh identity. AfterSaunders' assassination, Bhagat Singh escaped to Delhi to explode a bomb in the Assembly and court arrest. For disguise he wore the clothes of the rulers and cut his hair. The picture with the hat dates to those times.--209.183.55.113 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First, picture #2 is obviously from a movie. Picture #1 might well be genuine, but as we've discussed repeatedly, having long hair doesn't prove a thing. More than that, however, is the fact that it is NOT under dispute that Singh was born and raised a Sikh. What is under dispute is whether he later renounced his Sikhism and became an atheist. You and other users keep adding myriad sources (some reliable, others not so much) in which he is referred to as a "Sikh". However, oftentimes, being referred to as a "Sikh" is similar to being referred to as "Jewish", i.e., it represents an ethnic group and not necessarily a religious belief. Just as there are people who refer to themselves as "Jewish atheists", in the same way Singh was a "Sikh atheist." So, we don't need to cite a million sources to show that he was a Sikh. What we need are some reliable sources that back up the fact that he later became an atheist, as evidenced by the essay he wrote, "Why I Am an Atheist." --Hnsampat (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir, first of Sikhs are not an ethnic group, it is a separate religion. In addition to Sikhs from south Asia, there are white Sikhs, Black Sikhs and they exist in several other races. World famous WP:RS newspapers wrote articles/news at/around the time of his death where they clearly mentioned him a Sikh. Sometimes I myself keep changing my ideals/ideas, sometimes I bow infront of Guru Granth Sahib and sometimes I don't, but at the end I am a Sikh. Bhagat Singh died as a Sikh otherwise world level newspapers would have mentioned him as an athiest. Government of India also installed his statue inside Parliament of India in his Sikh appearance. I believe that it will be a great dis-respect to this hero and his whole SIKH family if people keep distorting facts about this personality. Let his name shine the way it is. --135.214.150.104 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, among Jews, there are black Jews, white Jews, Indian Jews, etc., but there are also an ethnic group of people who are considered Jews. It's the same with Sikhs. Furthermore, you are clearly demonstrating a bias here. You seem to think that to report the facts as they are, namely that Singh became an atheist in his later life, is to somehow "defile" his name. On Wikipedia, we don't go based on opinions. We go based on FACTS. And, it doesn't matter how many newspapers you quote, there is no more reliable source for whether Singh was an atheist or not than Singh's own words, which are very clear in his essay, "Why I Am an Atheist." Do you really think the newspapers who reported his death really took the time to ask around, "Hey, was this guy actually a practicing Sikh at the time of his death?" --Hnsampat (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi I would just like to say that source originating from a extremely religious person randhir singh is definately less important then what bhagat singh wrote himself. following changes may hel put an end to the controversy. Randhir Singh being the only source of information about sudden change in Bhagat Singh's point of view towards religion casts doubts, as Bhagat Singh had been a strong critic of religion. He wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he questions existence of God.[40] [41]

  quote "one friend asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, "During your last days you will begin to believe". I said, No, dear Sir, it shall not be. I will think that to be an act of degradation and demoralization on my part. For selfish motives I am not going to pray." [42] [43]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarth01 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

one more thing. i would like all you people to read this pamphlet, without getting your religious bias into it and mates learn to appreciate people the way they are, all these revolutionaries make Indians proud and it will remain a fact that he was of Sikh ancestry. but trying to convert him after he sacrificed his life for the nation and for the secular principles towards which he was strongly devoted is not acceptable and non-ethical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarth01 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knowing Punjabi could translate the following audio and tell the Talk page about it, may be it could throw some light on this Randheer Singh theory. Apparently he met with Singh on 4th or 7th October, 1931. Here's the link - http://www.ikatha.com/Audio_Books/Bhai_Randheer_Singh_Jee_-_Jail_Chitthyan/025_Bhagat_Singh_naal_Mulaakaat.mp3 --Ashubhalaa —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Dear concerned, I have taken the liberty of removing the "Disputed" Tab from this section by making the following changes: 1. Mentioned the date of release of Randhir Singh from Lahore Central Jail 2. Mentioned that it is Randhir Singh himself who claims about the meeting in his book and noone else 3. Mentioned the date of meet to be 4th October, but Bhagat Singh was not condemned till the 7th of October 4. NPOV is mantained as no claims about the topic truthfulness is made, while hints of skepticism are made in the form of dates and claims. I therefore think this section is now acceptable to all, believers and non-believers alike. Please make required changes if any! - Ashubhalaa (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars

There are two simultaneous edit wars going on on this page. On the one hand, there's the issue of Singh's religion (i.e., was he Sikh or was he an atheist?). On the other hand is the issue of Singh's birthdate.

First, on the birthdate issue, the source cited says September 28 and so it should stay that way unless other more reliable sources are found and cited, and any users who attempt to change it should be notified and asked to stop with the reverting. If the edit-warring continues, appropriate measures should be taken including possible reporting to WP:AN/3RR.

Now, on the issue of religion. Everybody agrees that Singh was born and raised a Sikh. This matter is not in dispute. It is accurate to say that, at least for his early life, Singh was a Sikh. The issue comes up of whether he later abandoned his Sikh faith and became an atheist.

Now, the arguments put up by those who oppose mentioning Singh's atheism largely consist of emotional pleas to "let Singh's name shine" or otherwise "protect" his reputation. This presumes that Singh being an atheist is somehow derogatory to his reputation, and is essentially a call for censorship, which cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. The other major argument being put forth against Singh's atheism is that he had a last-minute conversion or re-embracement of his Sikhism in his final days in prison, and therefore his "atheism" was really just a crisis of faith, but that Singh really was a "true" Sikh all along. This is a long-standing issue but no real credible evidence has really been put forth.

Finally, several users try to justify having Singh's religion listed as "Sikh" (and only "Sikh") by citing lots and lots of newspapers that refer to him as a "young Sikh" or other such terms. I believe that this is not proper for several reasons. First, Sikhs are both a religious group and an ethnic group. Any student of Indian history will be able to tell you how, in the post-Mughal era, large portions of India were controlled by Marathas in the south, and Sikhs and Jats in the north and northwest. This is a reference to Sikhs as an ethnic group, and it's entirely possible (and likely) that the newspapers were referring to him in that context. Furthermore, even if they were referring to him as a "Sikh" as a reference to his religion, the newspaper articles cited are not about Singh's religion. They're about Singh and his death. On the other hand, something like Singh's essay "Why I Am an Atheist" is actually about Singh's views on religion. That makes it a much more relevant source for these purposes.

On the other hand, those who claim that Singh was an atheist largely cite his own essay, "Why I Am an Atheist." This is a clearly reliable source, and I have yet to hear any argument from the other side disproving its validity.

I say that the perfect compromise here is to say things as the were, i.e., to list Singh's religion as "Sikhism (early life), Atheism (later life)."

And, if this edit war continues, then it should be reported to WP:AN/I. We can't keep going like this forever. Compromise must be reached. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your research and proposals in this matter, it appears that both sides have their logics/references so they are not willing to abandon their view. The available references indicate the flow of his religion in the following way: Sikhism (Early life)--> Atheism (in the Jail) --> Sikhism (at the time of his death and per his conversation with his fellow freedom fighter and jail inmate). I know this sentence is too long but may be you could shorten it. We can add references alongwith all three texts. How about this ? It might help ending the edit war. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Two problems. One, I do think that is too long. Second, I'm not convinced that he had a re-conversion before death. I'm certainly open to the idea, bu the evidence put forth right now is weak at best. One bit of evidence cited for the "re-conversion" is the photograph of Singh sitting on a prison cot with long hair and a beard. This is not good evidence of him having re-embraced his Sikhism. Merely having long hair and a beard doesn't make one a Sikh. Furthermore, I have heard from at least one person that that photograph was taken when Singh first went to prison, before he became an atheist. The other evidence cited for the "re-conversion" is the alleged conversation with Randhir Singh, after which Singh supposedly "saw the error of his ways" and re-embraced Sikhism. I have not yet found a reliable, unbiased source to describe that conversation (or even to verify that it took place), but I am also being told that Singh actually wrote "Why I Am an Atheist" after that meeting occurred. Again, the major problem here is that there is too much emotion invested in trying to "prove" that Singh was a Sikh at his time of death. I have no opinion either way. I'm perfectly okay with Singh having died an atheist or Singh having died a Sikh. I just want to make sure that, no matter what we put, we have solid facts. We need to go hunt down some reliable and relevant sources. I think the best sources would be academic sources by scholars who specialize in issues like the Indian independence movement and Bhagat Singh. Sikh websites, atheist websites, Marxist websites, Indian patriotism websites, etc. all have their own opinions and agendas that make them unreliable. Newspapers and such are normally reliable, but aren't really reliable for questions about Singh's religion, unless it's an article specifically about the question of Singh's religion. We need to find some sources written by reputable historians in order to settle this matter. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that, (I was one of the editors. I am new and unsure of how wiki's rules work, I thought it was acceptable practice.) but I find it absurd that people will change this without evidence, citing only a source that refers presumably to his heritage and not actual religion. The picture is not enough evidence to support a claim, besides one in the Controversy section. We should Deal in facts and not speculation. Also I think that the early life reference is silly, since many people are brought up religious, but that is more of the parents thoughts then their own. --Amandev Singh (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Amandev, I understand that you want to kill Sikh word from his name at all. But! opposing editors also have strong references which we can not deny. I guess editors want to come up with some compromise otherwise the edit war will continue and someone might get blocked as well. So I advice you to follow WP:CONSENSUS.--170.35.208.22 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not fight here. We're all trying to work out an amicable solution. Now, from what I see, the references provided so far by the "Sikh re-conversion" editors have not been particularly strong, for the reasons I outlined above. However, I do urge those editors to find some stronger references. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure I want to kill Sikh from his name, except refering to his heritage. I do, however, want to do this only because it is a fact that he was an atheist. Your claims are absurd and without evidence. I will not conform to this ridiculous claim, when the only reason it exists is because you somehow think that Bhagat Singh is made evil do to his Marxist beliefs. If this is the case, then you have no understanding of the man. Amandev Singh (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Singh is said to have mentioned to Randhir Singh[discuss], prison inmate, Gadhar revolutionary and a known figure in Sikh circles, that he (Bhagat Singh) had shaven "hair and beard under pressing circumstances" and that "It was for the service of the country" that his companions "compelled him to give up the Sikh appearance" adding to it that he was "ashamed" [37][38]. He had supposedly expressed, as last wish before being hanged, the desire to get "amrit" from Panj Pyare including Randhir Singh and to adorn full 5 k's[38][39]. However, his last wish, of getting "amrit" from Panj Pyare was not granted by the British[39].

Hi I would just like to say that source originating from a extremely religious person randhir singh is definately less important then what bhagat singh wrote himself. following changes may hel put an end to the controversy. Randhir Singh being the only source of information about sudden change in Bhagat Singh's point of view towards religion casts doubts, as Bhagat Singh had been a strong critic of religion. He wrote a pamphlet entitled Why I am an Atheist in which he questions existence of God.[40] [41]

   quote "one friend asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, "During your last days you will begin to believe". I said, No, dear Sir, it shall not be. I will think that to be an act of degradation and demoralization on my part. For selfish motives I am not going to pray." [42] [43]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarth01 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 

one more thing. i would like all you people to read this pamphlet, without getting your religious bias into it and mates learn to appreciate people the way they are, all these revolutionaries make Indians proud and it will remain a fact that he was of Sikh ancestry. but trying to convert him after he sacrificed his life for the nation and for the secular principles towards which he was strongly devoted is not acceptable and non-ethical

hi i have reinstated the section regarding his supposed conversion to sikkhism before his death....again problem persists that there is no credible souce...the only source there is of randhir singh...while on the other hand there are plenty of cited sources stating him clinging to atheism till death...to further support my point i have added one additional citation to the statement "Some scholars are skeptic about this meeting as, Randhir Singh being the only source of information about sudden change in Bhagat Singh's point of view towards religion casts doubts, as Bhagat Singh had been a strong critic of religion."...before any further edit...it should be discussed here...unless relible neutral sources are presented giving solid proof of bhagat singh converting to any relligion before his death. (plz keep the article unbiased in accordance to wikipedia standards.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarth01 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh movies

How about a "Appearance in popular culture section" for Mr Bhagat Singh, where we can list the movies that are based on him? (no necessarily 100% honest potrails of Mr Bhagat, but still ok for some non-Indians to watch with subtitles) Tri400 (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What kinds of movies did you have in mind for this? We have to make sure that if we mention him, then they have to actually be based on him, not just casual resemblences. Plus, we already have listed some of the movies based on his life. --Hnsampat (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just watched "The Legend of Bhagat Singh" and Ghandi does oppose the hanging of Bhagat Singh in the film, which runs against what is said under the myths section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.201.109 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Legend of Bhagat Singh is notorious for helping to propagate this anti-Gandhi sentiment. Keep in mind that it's a movie, not a documentary. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The following are a few movies about Bhagat Singh that I know of: Shaheed Bhagat Singh (1963), Shaheed (1965), The Legend of Bhagat Singh (2002), Shaheed: 23rd March, 1931 (2002), Shaheed-e-azam (2002). Also, Gagan Damama Bajyo is an excellent play on the topic by Piyush Mishra. Also, I would like to add that upon seeing the complete movie The Legend of Bhagat Singh, one can see how Gandhi tries to save the three before signing the pact with Irwin. So I think the NPOV in the movie in that regards is perfect. But surely, the difference in the methods of revolution is a conflicting idea, which is Bhagat Singh-pro. Besides that the movie is pretty accurate compared to others in the same category. -- Ashubhalaa —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

Bhagat singh's Hunger strike

I found some letters written by Bhagat singh,(http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/hunger_strike.asp), which was written on 24th June 1929. And as it says "Bhagat singh was lying quite senseless on the 10th June, 1929, for about 15 mts, due to forcible feeding by officers in jail. It is obvious that forcible feeding would have started only after hunger strike started. So the start date of hunger strike must be before 10th of June, 1929. Now for the end of hunger strike, we all know that it ended after Jatindra Nath Das(Jatin Das) Died. As mentioned in Wikipedia only Jatin Das died on 13 September. So the total days of hunger strike goes more than 95 days. So that proves that the number (64 days) written for the span of hunger strike was not quite write. And after some studies it seems that it might be the number of days Jatin Das went on strike and not the by the Bhagatsingh. He and B.K.Dutt might have started it much before and also continued after the tragic death of Jatin Das. There are some other references that hunger strike lasted for about 116 days(http://books.google.com/books?id=bG9lA6CrgQgC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=bhagat+singh+hunger+strike+duration&source=bl&ots=-lw50BZFam&sig=ghojIdd5KNgF1vTydBpfc3YlFO4&hl=en&ei=HHtSS8zyMpTJ_gbN_JieCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false). We cant be sure about it until we get the exact dates of start and the end of the hunger strike. But till then we know that the current written number is wrong, and need to be edited.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidd04mech (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This should be added. But, I would like to add here that please make sure that you also do not forget to add that BK Dutt and Bhagat had started a hunger strike before the others joined in. The incident where he is lying unconcious is from the strike launched by them after the Assembly bombing, and before the accidental discovery of their bomb factory which led to the build up of lahore conspiracy case, whereby all the accused were sent in the same jail, and then the rest of HRA also joined in the hunger strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 11:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Trial Related Ordinance

SORTED

I have added this section for the following reasons; 1. the article did not reflect the fact that the case was being delayed due to propoganda being carried on, which i did not add due to lac of reference, but the end to the mentioned was decided by this ordinance. 2. the finality of the case could only be reached in a short span by; a. declaring an emergency, b. using the emergency situation to pass an ordinance, c. using the ordinance to order and give proper rights to the tribunal to finish the case d. passing the case sepcifics in the ordinance which lead to the final judgement. As none of the above were mentioned, I made the section for I think it is of great importance on how much longer he could have lived without being sentenced, and to the sentence's timing. Also, noone had mentioned the date of sentence. I have therefore added it. Please comment here on anything related to the topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this is even about. What is this ordinance about? What does it have to do with the life of Bhagat Singh? Please explain. In any case, it sounds like this is something that can be explained in a sentence or two in the "Trial and execution" sectoin. We don't need a whole section on it and we certainly don't need the text of the ordinance itself. Hence, I've gone ahead and removed the section. Please explain what exactly this ordinance is and then add back a sentence or two about the topic. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

no one had explained how the trial came to its finality. Had the revolutionaries of HSRA been successful in further delaying the trial, the execution of the 3 martyrs would have been delayed too. This would mean that Bhagat Singh would have lived even after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. And if the case had not ended before the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, i.e. if the judgement had to follow the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, it is obvious that under the spirit of the pact the 3 would have escaped capital punishment. Thus, i think it becomes important to explain how the government introduced the ordinance and how it speeded up the trial, without even the accused being present in the court, and that is why the 3 had to die, including Bhagat Singh. By quoting from the ordinance itself i was trying to maintain the NPOV, because otherwise people would have said I was presenting facts against the British, which I didn't want. Besides no one had mentioned the date of the judgement. I agree with you that it can be added in the "Trial and execution" section, and since I'm new to this page and not willing to disturb the flow of a nicely told story, I would request you to add a sub-section and mention the above in a brief as you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 06:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

besides, if you would consider the sections I had cited, they make the following very crystal;

Section 1: That the ordinance was passed specially to end the LCC case. Section 3: That the case was shifted from a lower court to Special Tribunal for its completion immediately Section 4: This I added assuming that it was mentioned somewhere mentioned in the article that the Indian jusdge in the Tribunal who supported the revolutionaries was removed, which was allowed under this section Section 9: That the Tribunal had the full power to proceed with the case in absence of the accused, and similar power while passing a judgement. Section 10: That the Tribunal may consider the death or diapproval of any person who previously gave evidence angainst the accused, to be in favour of the accused. Section 11: That the judgement of the Special Tribunal shall not be challenged in a Higher court. So if you consider the relevancy of the above sections as mentioned, then these were the only aspects that lead to the finality of the case. Also, in order to pass an ordinance, it was required that the government declares emergency, which Lord Irwin did in 1930, and then went on to pass the ordinance in 1st May of the same year. If you would look it up, you'll know that without any known reason the Viceroy had delcared emergency, which was higly criticised during the time, because apparently, it was clear that the case was bothering the Viceroy and so he had passed the Ordinance. I think without the judgement of this case, Bhagat Singh would obviously have lived. So i think it is required to tell people how the case was forced into a predecided judgement, which i think might be against NPOV, but which i think is very clear from the Ordinance itself. I did provide the citations to the all of the above in the write up, so if you need to, please revert the changes to see the citations because I have lost track of them. Also, if you see the movie The Legend of Bhagat Singh from 02:06:26 to 02:06:55, the member of the house, Herbert. W. Emerson tells the Viceroy the same thing, declaring an emergency and passing an ordinance. Here is the link to the ordinance again - http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=ordinance Thank you for taking interest in the topic! I request you to proceed with making the "Trial and execution" section more precise with the above information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I had not understood what you had written in the article earlier, but you explained it pretty well just now here on the talk page. So, since you were the one to introduce the idea, you should be the one to go ahead and add it to the end of the "Trial and execution" section. But, you don't need to go into all of the details. You can write it up in maybe a sentence or two kind of like this: "On such-and-such date, in response to delays due to protests by the HRSA, an ordinance was passed by so-and-so that shifted Singh's trial from a lower court to a special tribunal, which was given the power to proceed with the case in the absence of the accused and whose verdict could not be challenged in higher court. On such-and-such date, this tribunal convicted Singh and sentenced him to death by hanging." I think this is a nice NPOV to present the facts without going into speculation about the British government's motives, although I do agree with your analysis of the situation. Plus, stating it all succinctly will avoid confusing the reader. Thanks for finding this information! It's a valuable piece of knowledge and an important contribution to the article. --Hnsampat (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I should atleast mention the section numbers for those interested?? And about how delaying the judgement would have affected it through the Gandhi-Irwin pact? Or may be we can put the latter in the Conspiracy Theories section??? I think this should be discussed before anything can be posted again. --Ashubhalaa —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

You can cite the specific section numbers as footnotes, but don't need to include it in the text itself. As far as the delay in judgment having a potential impact on the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, do you have any expert sources that say that this would have happened? Or, is this your own hypothesis/analysis? If the latter, then we shouldn't include it, since that would count as original research. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the effect of the judgement on the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, I'm talking about the effect of Gandhi-Irwin pact on the judgement, if the judgement was delayed. Because the Gandhi-Irwin pact was mainly for doing away with capital punishment of and better treatment of the political prisoners in India. So if the judgement was delayed, i.e. in the absence of the ordinance, then the Gandhi-Irwin Pact would have affected the judgment, Bhagat Singh and comrades being political prisoners. Ashubhalaa —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

Right, right, that's what I meant. If you have a reliable expert third-party source that there could have been an impact, fine. If not, we shouldn't include it. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Dear concerned, we have only 7 more statements in the full article which need citation. Please discuss here if the citations can be found or not, so that we can get the citations sorted and look to expand the article. --(Ashubhalaa (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I have added as many citations as I could. The only one remaining is the one in Trial & execution. Here it is being said that Singh agreed to his charges for Saunder's murder. I couldn't find a citation for that. And none of the movies show him accepting the same. I think it should be removed. But I'm not doing it without any consent. - (Ashubhalaa (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree with you. If we can't find a citation to back it up, it goes. I would like to commend you for your absolutely outstanding effort in getting this article better referenced. By the way, for a few of these citations, you've cited other Wikipedia articles, but ironically Wikipedia is actually not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia articles, since technically anybody can edit any article and so the information presented in a given article may not be accurate. If you find something written in another Wikipedia article that backs up a statement in this article, then try to find the source that that article cites and then cite the original source here. Keep up the good work! --Hnsampat (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to the wikipedia articles citation. I had assumed that the articles that I have referenced there are properly cited. I'll make the required changes at the earliest. About the acceptance of murder by Singh that I mentioned in the previous post - I read all the articles available on shahibhagatsingh.org, and it turns out he agreed to throwing bombs, on the other hand, he did criticise his father for writing a letter to the Tribunal for mercy, thus indirectly accepting the murder. So I'm confused whether to keep the statement or not. For on one hand, it might be true, but on the other, if we keep it, it can not be referenced to any article and say that it would indirectly imply what is being stated. - (Ashubhalaa (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

I have removed the statement mentioning the acceptance of murder and making statements against the British in the Trial and Execution section for two reasons; 1. As there was no citation provided by the author who added it for a long time now. 2. If he did accept the charges, the case would have ended then and there, and there was no need for the special tribunal. We now lay in a situation where we have citations for all the required statements, the only thing hindering now is the Baba Randhir Singh section. Please try to find proper source to for it factuality or otherwise, so that we can move ahead with the rating of this article. Please comment! Thank you! - Ashubhalaa (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bomb Shell Image

Dear concerned, I had uploaded a picture of the bomb-shells used in the assembly bomb case, retrieved from a government site, free for use from there, and uploaded under the Historical Importance tag, as that image is in public domain because of its historical importance. SoxBot deleted it, stating the image is not free. All other images that I uploaded on the same day as the above, were from the same domain, and free for use. I don't understand why this step was taken by the bot. Please let me knw how I could put the image back, for I think it is very relevant to the section I put it in. Also, because the image was deleted, I removed the tab temporarily so that the flow of the rest of the page is not disturbed. Please provide proper guidance! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashubhalaa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide the link to where you found the image? We can try and figure it out from there. (Also, FYI, whenever you write on the talk page, please be sure to sign your posts with "--~~~~", which will automatically put your signature there.) Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for your response. The following is the link, it is not where I found it originally, but this will also prove that is in public domain. - http://www.desicolours.com/in-pics-the-trial-of-bhagat-singh-at-supreme-court-museum/17/08/2009 - (Ashubhalaa (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Nomination for GA

Dear concerned, I have taken nominated this article for GA as now all/most of the problems have been sorted. Please comment. - Ashubhalaa (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dusara Bomb Case and Bail

Dear concerned, A user, Profitoftruth85, had deleted the information added by me in regards to the said topic. The information is as follows; "On the day of Dasara in October 1926, a bomb was blasted in Lahore, and Bhagat Singh was arrested for his alleged involvement in this Dasara Bomb Case in 29 May 1927[20], and was released on a bail of Rs.60,000 after about five weeks of his arrest[21][22]."

As the reader can see, I have provided proper citation for the statement I've made. Profitoftruth85 had removed the comment saying "original research, it didn't need to be explained", I hereby want to make clear that it wasn't original research on my part. Not only will the proper look at the citation make it clear that it is a fact, but it is supported by the same incident being included in the movies "The Legend of Bhagat Singh" and "23rd march, 1931 Shaheed".

I request Profitoftruth85 to explain here why the statement seems to be original research.

The provision of citation makes the statement a fact, and therefore I demand that no statement on the page, which has a citation be removed in absence of proper explanation, as fact remains fact unless proved otherwise.

So I request Profitoftruth85 to throughly read the given citation and then express their views on the above. - Ashubhalaa (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited Bhagat sigh's Birth date

Hello,

The page gave an information on Bhagat Sigh's Birthday as 27th September while it is actually 28th September.
It is very much seen in the reference page you have given. Also the same information is available in "Without Fear"
by Kuldeep Nayar and also the "Jail Notes and other writings" by Bhagat Singh. Please consider the change.

regards, Shankar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.231 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct! Thanks for fixing it, Airplaneman ✈ 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not understand why the changes are undone? Please someone fix this.. It is a wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.146.111 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove this line: "Although had he not taken such actions the motivation required for Indians to vigorously fight..."

"Although had he not taken such actions the motivation required for Indians to vigorously fight for freedom may have been unfounded."

The above line, part of the 'criticism' section, is ambiguous and at best an unsupported assumption (POV) on part of the writer. The said actions, viz. shooting Saunders and throwing non-lethal bombs, could not possibly have been a considerable motivation. More than anything else, the urge to be free comes from oppression by the ruler. So the hanging of Bhagat Singh was very much a motivation, but the aforementioned actions were most probably not. Besides the sentence is written in a manner that suggests that if it weren't for Saunders getting shot and Singh throwing the bombs, Indians probably wouldn't have cared about their freedom at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no dearth of motivation for the Indians to fight 'vigorously' for freedom. So it would be best if the sentence is removed, IMO. Boygamer10 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That, plus the sentence makes no sense. (In the future, feel free to remove the sentence yourself.) --Hnsampat (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Death of Swaran Singh

In this article a false fact was given about the death of Swaran Singh that he was hanged in Kakori Train Robbery case on 19 Dec 1927. This is not truth at all. Mrs Virendra Sandhu, who is the real niece of Bhagat Singh (she is still alive and lives in London) has written a book on Bhagat Singh which was published in 2009 from Delhi (India) by Rajpal and Sons. On page no 121 she has confirmed that Swaran Singh died in 1910 at the age of 23 and after 21 years of his death his nephew Bhagat Singh also sacrificed his life in 1931 at the same age of 23 years. What a co incedence! As such I have edited this section confirming the year and cause of Swaran Singh's death. Please honour it. Thanks.Krantmlverma (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual date as entered by you is the correct one, i.e., 1910. - Ashubhalaa (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

Modern Day Section

The section presents the movies based on Bhagat Singh in a paragraph which are immediately enlisted after that paragraph. I think it should either be in the paragraph or a list, or better yet in a table format. Please comment. - Ashubhalaa (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion regarding the date of hanging and the date of death

There seems to be some sort of confusing and contradicting data regarding the death of Bhagat Singh. While his death date is mentioned as 23 March, 1931 it is also mentioned in the article as 'On 14 Feb 1931, Bhagat Singh was hanged in Lahore with his fellow comrades Rajguru and Sukhdev'. How come he was hung on 14 Feb 1931 and yet his death day was 23 March, 1931? Are there proper historical materials that clarify this ambiguity? - L. Guruprasad (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There was some vandalism going on in this article that has since been corrected. The 14 February date is incorrect and has been fixed. The correct date is 23 March 1931. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be part of false propaganda that is going on SMSs, Twitter and Facebook that Bhagat Singh was hanged on 14th Feb, may be work of those who oppose Valentine day in India. Raju Das 06:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajuonline (talk • contribs)

What about Bhagat Singh`s birth day. it is 27/9 or 28/9?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.248.97 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat

Please make pre 1947 India as UNDIVIDED INDIA. There is no sense about BRITISH INDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.81.20 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Seek permanent semi-protect?

The majority of edits to this article for a while now have been from IP users and new users who either attempt to remove references to Singh's atheism or try to insert unsubstantiated claims that he reconverted to Sikhism in his final days (as well as a few other edit wars going on about whether he was Jat, Sikh, or both, and some unsubstantiated defamation of Gandhi). Technically, I suppose that this qualifies as a "content dispute," but the fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly supports what the article currently says (i.e., Sikh in his early years, atheist later, no deathbed conversion to Sikhism) and that these edits are downright disruptive and frankly constitute censorship. I'm wondering if we should pursue permanent semi-protection of this article due to these persistent disruptive edits. (Permanent semi-protection would mean that, from now until the end of time, only established registered users could edit this article. No IPs and no new users.) I know that this step might seem drastic, but keep in mind that this article has had to be semi-protected several times for this same reason. Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree! This is the exact reason why I stopped improving this page. It is a page very dear to me and I hate to see people having fun out of spoiling the labor of a few hard workers. This vandalism is the reason why this page has been disallowed the Good Article status. What is the procedure to get semi-protection? I'll do anything needful for the same. - (Ashubhalaa (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

There has been a lot of vandalism on this page, and this has led to the work of dedicated Wikipedia volunteers being lost or destroyed. I am making an appeal to protect this page for 'semi-protection' for preventing editing by unregistered contributors and contributors with accounts which are not autoconfirmed.--Tinpisa (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth of Bhagat Singh

There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst the Wikipedia volunteers and the date of birth of Bhagat Singh is being changed incessantly from one to the other and back. There are no reliable sources for 27 Sept 1907 but only for 28 Sept 1907, , . The first source is the website of an organisation involved in extensive research about Bhagat Singh. The second is from the Government of Punjab website, which has declared a public holiday on both the date of birth and the date of martydom of Bhagat Singh. In keeping with the WP:NPOV guidelines, I would like to appeal to all to maintain September 28, 1907 as the birthdate of Bhagat Singh. In case, there is any credible source for the other date, it may please be posted as response to this section. This could be discussed and debated, but please refrain from changing the dates in the main article till this issue is discussed here. Thank you --Tinpisa (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi This year also even the Punjab university celebrated it on 27th of Sept then if u claim its 28th kindly attach some premise for your observation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtsidharth (talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The sites I had quoted are:

• http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/biography/c1.htm
• http://punjabgovt.nic.in/Punjabrti/Departments/Printing_and_Stationery/Department%20of%20Printing%20&%20Stationery/rules/glance.pdf Page 6
• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060319/society.htm#2

Could you please provide a link to the celebrations of the Panjab University (I presume it is the Panjab University, Chandigarh and not the University of Punjab, Lahore that you refer to. Both are abbreviated PU). Here is a list of holidays of the Panjab Univeristy: http://beta.puchd.ac.in/includes/documents/pu-holidays-2011.pdf and http://news.puchd.ac.in/show-news.php?id=64

I also found a news clip (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bhagat-singh-exhibition-empty-at-pu-mandiras-promo-a-full-house/852898/) mentioning an exhibition at the Panjab University to pay tributes to Bhagat Singh on his 104th birth anniversary falling on Wednesday (28th September is a Wednesday this year).

I do not claim anything. If there is sufficient evidence of the 27th, I would be the first to agree. Please do post the link to a Government of India (.gov.in domain name) link giving 27th Sept 1907 as the date of birth of Bhagat Singh as mentioned by you on your talk page. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)