Talk:Bhagat Singh

Use of term "charismatic" in first sentence
Regarding this edit, the term "charismatic" can have multiple meanings making it a poor fit for the very first sentence of the article. This term requires context, and without context is ambiguous and subjective. While 'charismatic' can be supported by sources, this alone isn't enough for this to be the first trait used to describe this person. The body of the article does not directly explained or even mentioned this charisma, instead merely implying it. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

, regarding this edit summary, we are both experienced editors, and I can assure you it absolutely can "work like that". My explanation was clear enough, and I have expanded it now here. If you want to dispute this change, do so on its own merits, not merely because it is the status quo. Grayfell (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Many words with multiple meanings are used in the lead sentences of articles. Sorry, but I'll respond when I have time and you have to wait for a consensus to emerge.  If you edit-war, I'll get administrative help.  What do you think they'll do?  They'll lock this page in the consensus version.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also see WP:TERTIARY and the role of introductory textbooks in determining due weight. Craig Jeffrey's quote from his Modern India: A Very Short Introduction, OUP, 2017, was chosen after much thought from the dozens of sources that use "charismatic" or "charisma" (applied to his writing, his self-abnegation, his attire, his boldness).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note: Jeffrey's lead-like, "Bhagat Singh, a charismatic Indian revolutionary executed by the British with two other revolutionaries in 1931 for murdering a British police officer" There is no other mention of Singh anywhere else in the book.  Should we ask the same of Jeffrey?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem on this page is that I have written the lead (with sources) as a template for the NPOV, scholarly, expansion of the article. There is a reason that the cites have quotes.  The lead is not a summary of the article. I've done this for a large number of articles (see for example Gandhi, Sanskrit, Mughal Empire, Himalayas, Great Bengal Famine, Nehru, ...)  Some have been expanded and others have not.  I have some sympathy for your POV, but the solution is expanding the body, not deleting words from the lead.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you've edited your own comments to tone-down the aggression. I mean that sincerely. I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I understand that both of us are here to improve the project.
 * WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is the norm on Wikipedia, which I suspect you know. But whether this lead is a summary or not, there is still a problem. Currently, the body of the article does not mention his charisma, nor does it explain how he was charismatic. When the first sentence of the article mentions a term which is both ambiguous and which is not further explained, that creates confusion in readers.
 * Even from the quote provided, Jeffrey mentions Singh's 'charisma' after significant amount of context has already been provided. Jeffrey even helpfully tells us "It is particularly important to recognize the existence of a socialist, radical wing within the nationalist movement." This is what Jeffrey deems to be important about Singh, not his Charisma. If other sources explain how he was charismatic or what that means, that explanation hasn't made it into the article at all.
 * Even if the body did explain this term, it would still be ambiguous and confusing in its current context. This term 'charismatic' cannot help readers understand the topic without at least some additional context, and that context probably won't fit in the lead. Expanding the body to explain this would help, obviously, but it would still be a loaded and subjective term.
 * So until the body is expanded, this term should be removed. When the body is expanded to mention his charisma, then how this is summarized can be reevaluated. Grayfell (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The current version of the lead is no different from Jeffreys in the amount of context, only it comes at the end of the sentence. I can easily change it to: Bhagat Singh was the charismatic leader of a 1920s Indian radical socialist group, and the eloquent author of some of its tracts, who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer.  (Or somesuch)
 * The question remains: why is "charismatic" relevant in Jeffreys and what meaning does it have (of the several of charisma)? In other words, why does Jeffreys need "charismatic" and what does a novice reader (the kind that reads the Very Short Introductions) learn from the mention of this word in the book? There were dozens of Indian anti-colonial nationalists who were charismatic (Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas Bose, ...)
 * I disagree entirely with the rest of your argument.
 * Pinging if you have time later this week.  I'm flat out of time and I can't in all honesty AGF this out of the blue edit. Merry Christmas.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Correcting Drmies.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added eight more citations (in addition to Craig Jeffrey's) all using "charismatic." These are books published by Harvard, California, Yale, Cambridge university presses; Routledge, Wiley Blackwell, Palgrave Macmillan, and Penguin. I don't have much time, but I did go back to examine when I had added "charismatic."  It was two years ago and it was done after much mulling over.  When so many historians published by the best publishers use "charismatic" as a  descriptor for Singh in varied contexts, it becomes an essential, nearly indispensable quality of his biography.  I'm still open to suggestions, but simply removing "charismatic" doesn't cut it for me.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:OPENPARABIO is pretty clear that "charismatic" (and similar adjectives) should not appear in the lead sentence. This should be reserved for the bare facts of a person's life. I don't object to a reference to his charismatic personality being made elsewhere in the lede. ITBF (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Can I use the noun charismatic?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, rephrased, can I write: "BS was an Indian revolutionary who took part in the mistaken murder of a junior British police office in 1928, and upon going on a hunger-strike in jail before his execution was able to attract, inspire, and fascinate India's youth?"
 * Webster's Unabridged: charismatic (noun, 2), a person who possesses special traits that attract, inspire, or fascinate people Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ITBF has provided a better explanation of this problem, and with much fewer words. Whether or not you agree with my argument, the underlying problem remains.
 * Changing it to a noun doesn't fix this problem. As a noun or as an adjective, it's still reads as a WP:PEACOCK term here. One way to contextualize this, potentially, is to attribute it as an opinion (the Nehru quote in the lead is a good example of this, as it does a very good job of using attribution while also providing context). The very first paragraph is not the best place to introduce these kinds of subjective opinions.
 * "Attract" is vague and potentially ambiguous, and both "inspire" and "fascinate" both also read as peacock words here. Using synonyms for a peacock word which are also peacock words will not work. (The lead currently also uses the term "electrify" which is arguably even worse.) I do not want to overstate this, because these are not major problems, and of course many, many articles share these problems, but they are still problems. I think the article would be improved by the use of more neutral language.
 * The reason I removed the term "charismatic" was not because I disputed the sources, it was because it's a peacock term in this specific situation. I think this information is better indicated elsewhere in the lead with less ambiguous and less emotive language, such as the Nehru quote. Adding many, many sources for this ambiguous term doesn't really help readers, and doesn't really address my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Charisma" and "charismatic" are not being used as peacock or vanity terms.  Neither are they peacock in this specific situation. They have specific meaning and usage in history, sociology and political science.  Please read Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph's Gandhi: the Traditional Roots of Charisma.
 * Or the other scholarly books,
 * ''The Age of Charisma
 * Routledge International Handbook of Charisma
 * Political Leadership, Nations and Charisma
 * and dozens of others.
 * I have offered to change charisma or charismatic in the lead sentence to their specific meaning, but there is nothing peacock about it. Please read the rest of the lead.  Does it have even one bone of peacock in it?
 * This is as far as I go. If you want to get involved in a long argument about a subject about which you have given no indication of possessing any knowledge, only of having swung by the lead of its WP article thinking it would be an easy pass, please be my guest. But if you edit-war, I will get administrative help, as I've already indicated.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you canvass talk page- or MOS mavens in order to create a false consensus, I will again get administrative help. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you even assume I would canvas? What, exactly, is your personal problem with me based on this single edit? I don't know why you say you "cannot AGF", but WP:AGF is a policy. To put it another way, your response has been excessively hostile, and I would welcome any administrative help if this hostility persists.
 * Nowhere in the article's talk page has this specific word been discussed before. I trust that your intention was not to use this as a peacock word, but I'm not the only reader who sees a problem with this word, as ITBF seems to agree. I have been trying, and apparently failing, to explain why this particular word is a problem.
 * I'm not out to vandalize your hard work. Please read what I'm saying.
 * I understand the word has a meaning within sociology. As I said before, the word "charisma" has multiple meanings. Even with sources, the sociological meaning is also at least partly subjective. To say that his leadership was "extraordinary", for example, is still very much a peacock term if it is used without any further explanation or context. The first sentence is a jarring and potentially confusing place for this subjective descriptor.
 * His birth and death date are not subjective. His status as an Indian revolutionary is not subjective. Being charismatic is subjective, and it's non-falsifiable. His charisma needs to be explained and contextualized as the assessment of reliable sources. Citation in ref-tags alone do not provide context, and neither does placing this term in the very first sentence.
 * Further, this is a general audience encyclopedia. Without context or attribution, this would still be MOS:JARGON.
 * But most importantly, assume good faith. I am not your enemy. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no response in the past few weeks (AGF or otherwise) I have made an edit which partially addresses my concerns. MOS:OPENPARABIO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY are standard across Wikipedia, and I would strongly suggest summarizes sources in the body and building the lead off of that summary. Excessive Citation overkill is not helpful and misrepresents the issue, and the use of boldface for emphasis was also not appropriate and seems slightly WP:POINTed, since nobody is disputing that multiple sources have used this term. Again, our goal is to provide readers with an understanding of the topic, and this term requires more context to be helpful to this goal. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Charisma was an essential aspect of his revolutionary status in India. There are multiple sources that use the same word.  All words in the English language have multiple meanings.  I haven't subscribed to the Oxford English Dictionary for 30 years for nothing.  You don't have consensus here.  Pinging   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit, which I reverted, involved placing "charismatic" in a separate sentence. It says: Bhagat Singh (28 September 1907 – 23 March 1931) was an Indian revolutionary who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer in what was to be retaliation for the death of an Indian nationalist. ... campaign for India's independence. Modern historian and scholars have described Singh's leadership of the movement as charismatic.
 * "Charisma" is associated just as much with his name as "revolutionary." On the other hand, not just the ruling British, but also leading Indian anti-colonial nationalists such as Nehru considered him to be a terrorist rather than a revolutionary. (See Nehru's quote in the lead, "Bhagat Singh did not become popular because of his act of terrorism but because he seemed to vindicate, for the moment, the honour of Lala Lajpat Rai, and through him of the nation. ").
 * So we could change it to: Bhagat Singh was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist who participated in the mistaken murder ... India's independence. Modern scholars and other Indian anti-colonial nationalists have considered him variously to be a "terrorist" and "revolutionary," and his style of leadership "charismatic." But then we have to ask if placing these descriptions at the end of the first lead paragraph gives them too little weight.  Shouldn't right after the first lead sentence be a better place for these qualifications?  E.g. something like: Bhagat Singh was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist who participated in the mistaken murder of a junior British police officer in what was to be retaliation for the death of an Indian nationalist. Modern scholars and other Indian anti-colonial nationalists have described him also as a "terrorist," "revolutionary," and his style of leadership "charismatic." Bhagat Singh later ... nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence.
 * But someone else will say, "Why not after the second sentence?" and we can spend the rest of February 2024 achieving a consensus. The problem as I see it is that you are attempting to argue something on first principles, disconnected with the historiography of the subject matter.  To spend so much time on an issue whose due weight is best captured in the lead sentence itself ends up wasting too much community time.  As yet I don't see any consensus for your edit.  I would rather let sleeping dogs lie until the rest of the article is rewritten using the sources in the lead.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears that you don't have consensus either. The problems I have identified still remains, and your preferred wording doesn't address that problem, so this appears to be filibustering. I've tried to explain my concern multiple times from multiple perspectives, and you have responded with hostility and by misrepresenting what I have been saying. It appears we agree that the article should be rewritten to encorporate using sources in the lead into the body. My attempts to make even modest changes have been met with thinly-veiled insults and accusations of bad faith from you. You don't have to "spend so much time" on this. You want to move this up to the second sentence, go ahead.
 * It's also wild to me that you have warned me against canvassing both before and after having pinged multiple admins you (apparently) think would be sympathetic to your case. Even in your revert you mention pinging admins. Is that a threat? At this point, if you're going to take this to a noticeboard, take it to a noticeboard, otherwise your behavior is canvasing.
 * As I hope you know, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are not the only experienced editor in this discussion. I would strongly advise you to rethink your approach here. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Third party here. This was listed in WikiProject Anarchism/Hot articles. (1) Putting "charismatic" as an epithet in the first sentence of the article reads as a neutrality issue. There's likely a better way to put it, if it's even necessary, as the bigger issue is: (2) If it's so important to his life, why isn't it discussed in the article? The lede should be summarizing the content of the article, not introducing new info. I recommend removing it from the lede. czar  04:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with and, and have removed it from the sentence per MOS:FIRST, and re-added it later in the lead. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. You are all editors who have no history of editing this page.  You have no history of editing modern Indian history of the late British period. How do talk page mavens, which is what appear to be, then decide that the historiography on a specialist topic is all about? As the lead editor of British Raj and India, why was I not informed on my user talk page about these .../Hot articles?
 * I'm afraid this seems to an instance of someone who has appeared on a page out of the blue, attempting to play gotcha, but were challenged, and are then spending all their energy on having their way. I'm an old Indian history hand.  You are welcome to have an RfC on WP:INDIA among people familiar with the topic area, but we don't achieve a consensus by dickering with a line here or a line there and then eliciting the opinion of others similarly distanced from the subject topic.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean WT:INDIA. Once there, invite me and the others who appear in the edit history of India and British Raj.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will start an RfC below ; you are free to invite anyone you like (including your favourite selection of administrators). Make sure you know what WP:CANVASSING is, however. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should ask: would you be interested in resolving this at WP:DRN, by the way? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of those administrators are knowledgeable about modern South Asian history and others are not. But there are dozens of editors at WT:INDIA who are.
 * DRN is helpful for situations otherwise resolvable by some version of an interaction ban. This is a content issue.
 * I am traveling until Tuesday morning, US EST. Please give me until Wednesday AM for the RfC.  Thank you.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm now collecting some refs in a section below. I should be ready for the RfC tomorrow, i.e. March 7 morning GMT.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, . While we're on the topic, do you have any idea why the article does not refer to Singh as the HRSA's leader, and why the lead does not bring up that he was even part of it until the second paragraph, quite unlike the emphasis in your sources below? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He wasn't really their leader, at least not their indisputable leader. He had joined a few years earlier.  But the highly publicized acts, the charisma, his quickness, his driven personality, not to mention the larger than life persona, created in part by editorials in Indian-owned newspapers, snowballed him to a kind of giddy, confused, stardom that hadn't existed before.
 * In that brief historical space his flaws were forgotten: that he had shot the wrong man, the same age as him; that he had shot him in vain, as he lay dying and defenceless, pumping eight bullets into his body; that he and his compatriots had lied by changing the prepared posters to make the 21-year-old John Saunders the object of assassination; and so forth. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, by the time he became the HRSA's best-known member, the HRSA has stopped meeting and most likely even disbanded Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. So why do so many of the sources provided below refer to him as a leader? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some/many authors, especially textbook authors who have gathered a large amount of historical data to tell a story that is pedagogically appropriate, perhaps, might be simplifying for their readership and purpose. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, he was not a revolutionary leader like Fidel or Che or Mao or Ho or Lenin, who had the heft of years under their leadership, nor was he as original as Trotsky or Bakunin or other theorists. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I'm thinking more about your question ... one could say that his promise outshone his record. The charisma (which is also highly dependent on the eyes of the beholder) may have been the catalyst. But, of course, it is difficult to find sources that state this precisely in this fashion.  Some new ones do this in a sophisticated fashion by charting BS's misgivings about his actions, about his being haunted by the face of a dying mostly innocent man, and so forth ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @AirshipJungleman29. I think an RfC would be helpful to find what the consensus actually is. -- asilvering (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll give F&f some days to respond to whether they want to go to DRN, and if they decline or don't reply, I'll start the RfC. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see my post(s) above. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler, you can watch individual wikiprojects' Hot Articles listings if you so desire. There are lots, as you can see here: User:HotArticlesBot. I have no idea why you would expect to be notified of them.
 * I'm extremely sympathetic to the idea that people who have more expertise in a topic are in general better placed to assess what wording is more likely to be the correct wording. But you are the only editor arguing for this word to be retained, as far as I can see in this discussion. You argue that this is based on long-standing consensus, but you revert anyone who challenges it. You tell people to go to the Talk page, but once they are there you tell them they're wasting their time. -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm reminded of the last two examples at User:Thebiguglyalien/Letters from the editors. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you very much for that. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your patience. And thank you, AirshipJungleman29, for the queries above. I've just dusted off my copy of Kama Maclean's A Revolutionary History of Interwar India and also tried to reread as best I could Chris Moffat's "Politics and the Work of the Dead in Modern India," Comparative Studies in Society and History 2018;60(1):178–211. doi:10.1017/S0010417517000457.  It is clear to me that much needs to be added to the article for it to show contemporary interpretations. For now I am proposing this edit which I hope will forestall a time consuming RfC.  Let me know what you think.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Widely interpreted to have been charismatic" is more grammatical, but Chris Moffat makes the case that BS has a rich after life in contemporary India. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it belongs in the first paragraph, but am not so sure it belongs in the first sentence. Personally, from the perspective of flow, I would put the charismatic part later in the lead, just before the "he electrified": joining the discussion of his ideology, it combines nicely to explain why Singh was so alluring. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. Thanks. How does this sound?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this needs to be mentioned in the lede when it isn't discussed in the article's body. Personal characteristics are normally covered in the Personal life section and only covered insofar as the trait is instrumental, i.e., it has some kind of effect. Like we could add that he wore a moustache too but why does it matter to add? The article should show why. czar  02:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Political charisma, noted and written up in the sociological literature from the time of Max Weber, is not entirely a personal characteristic. Please see Routledge International Handbook of Charisma, 2021, especially page 227 for definitions.
 * The lead here is not a summary style precis of the main body as it usually is in more finished articles. Rather, in a large number of controversial or complex articles, especially on South Asian topics, which have been stuck, as it were, in the Slough of Despond, I have written the lead to be an NPOV and reliably sourced template for the expansion or rewriting of the article. Examples include: Sanskrit, Mahatma Gandhi, Mughal Empire, Subhas Chandra Bose, Great Bengal famine of 1770, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule and so forth. Some have been supervised by administrators.
 * One could change the contested sentence fragment to "widely interpreted by scholars to be politically charismatic ...," but I'd rather leave it in this state until his charisma is elaborated more in the article. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that this discussion wouldn't be so voluminous if the importance of "political charisma" in Singh's life was already made clear within the article. I recommend starting there before continuing to discuss the lede. The article doesn't need to be "more finished" to warrant removal from the lede as the lede should always represent a summary of the article in whatever the article's present state. czar  12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The same logic applied to all the unilateral leads I have written in South Asian topics over the years, some of which I have listed above. Their forms and often their contents have all&mdash;at least at the outset&mdash;run counter to WP dogma.  I usually don't have the time to rewrite the articles, although I can find the better sources in short order. Given a poorly sourced article, the choice as I see it is between a poorly sourced lead and a rigorously sourced one. Given also that most people don't read beyond the lead, a reliably sourced lead perhaps does do them some service. A scrupulous MOS maven will be within their rights to remove the entire lead I have written, but what or whom will that serve?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle that a good lead (and only a good lead) is better than a poor lead (and an equally poor article). I am also quite sure it is true that most people only read the lead. But the choice we have here isn't a choice between a good lead and a poor one. It's the choice between a lead that contains the word "charismatic" and one that does not. -- asilvering (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly text books



 * More coming

Scholarly monographs



 * More coming

Moffat
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the use of "charismatic" in the lead
Should the descriptor "charismatic" be used in the first lead paragraph, and if so, where? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Pinging editors in the discussion above:.
 * Option 1: in the first sentence, as in this old version.
 * Option 2: later in the first lead paragraph, as in the current version.
 * Option 3: somewhere else in the lead (please specify).
 * Option 4: not in the lead at all, as in this old version.

Survey

 * As long as appropriate detail is added to the body, Option 2 per my comments above; otherwise option 4. I feel that there is enough sourcing (see above section) to justify its inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:BALASP, but I do not think the first sentence (per MOS:FIRST) is the appropriate place, and that placing a descriptor like "charisma" next to the information about ideologies and "electrifying" a movement helps the flow of the prose. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 4 until this is explained in the body with context, then likely option 2 or 3, depending on that context. The raw number of sources isn't the problem here, the lack of context is the problem. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


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

Discussion

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

...the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence.[9]
India's struggle for independence was a multi-faceted one and thus there were many more factors, including a factor of mutual understanding, that prompted to a 'successful' freedom. Only this concept and statement of 'the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence' is over-simplification and unlooked-for. 2409:4060:2E12:7CEB:0:0:7548:5914 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)