Talk:The Legend of Bhagat Singh

The plot of the movie or a piece of India's history?
I have just become aware of this article. I have read with dismay its "plot" section. The narrative there makes little distinction between the movie's plot, in which its protagonist's name is piped to Bhagat Singh, and the history in lead of Bhagat Singh, which thereby stands distorted. I'd like to request the lead author to remove this ambiguity. I'm guessing it would be easy enough, but as the article appears on the front page, I'm hesitant to do this myself. I'm sounding out some admins working in India-related topics, some TFA folk, and some of the article's FAC reviewers for their feedback:, , , , , and , , and   Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you stating that the plot section is similar to Bhagat Singh's lead summary? If so, I can make some copyedits as much as I can and help from other reviewers and editors are most welcome. However, you must take into consideration that many of the sequences in the film are historically accurate and not really dramatised for catering to theatre audiences (aka like Bajirao Mastani and Padmaavat) (The Mannewali angle has been a subject of debate as to whether there actually was a woman like that who existed). —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, F&f. - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agreed that the article should make better effort to distinguish statements about the historical Bhagat Singh and what events the movie actually depicts. Perhaps creating a Historical background section would help cover details about the former that would provide sufficient context to the reader. Also, an encyclopedic article on the subject should cover scholarly discussion of "thriller nationalism" that the movie represents. A few relevant sources:
 * Movie review by Philip Lutgendorf
 * Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some minor notes:
 * Any reason the article is not following MOS:SURNAME and referring to Bhagat Singh as Bhagat? Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is done for clairty's sake and to avoid confusion with the other people listed in this article with the surname "Singh". —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guessed there would be some reasoning behind the choice given the series of rveiews the article has undergone. There may be other ways to solve the conundrum but I am not too hung up on this stylistic choice. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guessed there would be some reasoning behind the choice given the series of rveiews the article has undergone. There may be other ways to solve the conundrum but I am not too hung up on this stylistic choice. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Needs some copyediting. For example, sentences such as He is especially impressed by his call to launch... are unintentionally humourous. :) : Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood and tweaked it. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling that particular bit. But the article overall needs more attention. For example here is a paragraph from the Release section that I picked at random:
 * A week before the film's release, Article 51 A Forum, a non-governmental organisation in Delhi, believed The Legend of Bhagat Singh to be historically inaccurate, criticising the inclusion of Mannewali as Bhagat's widow, and stating the films were made "without any research or devotion" and the filmmakers were just looking at the box-office prospects to "make spicy films based on imaginary episodes". Kumar Taurani defended his film saying that he did not add Rao "for ornamental value", noting he would have opted for an established actress instead if that were the case. A press statement issued by Tips Industries said: "This girl from Manawale village loved Bhagat Singh so totally that she remained unmarried till death and was known as Bhagat Singh's widow." The chief operating officer of Tips Industries, Raju Hingorani, pointed out that Kultar had authenticated the film, stating: "With his backing, why must we be afraid of other allegations?"
 * which has issues of:
 * Inconsistent/non-parallel tense use (believed vs criticising vs stating). The first sentence is a mess for those and other reasons.
 * The present continuous tense, in any case, is IMO more appropriate for news-reporting than for after the fact encyclopedic summary.
 * Inadequate explanation of who the persons being talked about are and how they are related. It is not made plain to the reader that Mannewali = character depicted by (Amrita) Rao = girl from Manawale village. Similarly Kultar and Taurani should to be glossed as "Bhagat Singh's brother" and "producer" respectively; don't expect the reader to memorize these associations.
 * Inadequate explanation of the 'widow controversy'. Inclusion of Mannewali as Bhagat's widow suggests that the critics thought that somebody other than Mannewali should have been included [sic] in the role, while the actual concern was that the historical Bhagat was not married!
 * Violation of WP:SAID ("noting", "pointed out").
 * Again, these are just examples of the issue. Perhaps somebody at WP:GOCE can help out, although that is best done after the more significant issues of article organization and coverage that F&f and I have mentioned are dealt with. 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I would rather not get into a dispute now about actual history, and I don't know these other movies, but there is certainly discrepancy between the lead of Bhagat Singh, which is reliably sourced (to among others, Kama Maclean's own book on revolutionaries in the inter-war years, and to another book she has edited), and this plot.  (Lajpat Rai was most certainly not beaten to death: he died of a heart attack two weeks later; John Saunders was not a police officer, but an intern few months younger than Singh; all four did not kill Saunders: one, Rajguru, felled him with one accurate bullet, and Singh pumped seven more bullets into his body; Azad had no hand in the killing of Saunders: he shot dead an Indian police constable who gave chase; Saunders in any case had no connection with Lajat Rai: it was the police chief Scott who ordered the baton charge; a case of mistaken killing is usually not called assassination; there is zero chance that Bhagat Singh witnessed the massacre as a 12-year-old: he was raised in a different town, nor could he have gone the next day, as the British had cordoned the area off....)  For now judicious qualification, identifying the events to be that of the plot, will be ample.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Really,, you have understood and tweaked it? That is your response to 's post?  I don't think you have understood his critique.  As for my post, it is now the next day, and you have done nothing to disambiguate the plot from Indian history.  You better fix it.  Otherwise, I will have to make a post at WT:FAC, if for no purpose than to intimate the people there about the writing anomalies of a large class of Indian movie articles. A few weeks after this article became an FA it remains so poorly written, that it strains any notion that it was reviewed.  I am wondering if this article, and many others on Indian movies, are being given easy passes at FAC in part because reviewers are hesitant to call poorly-written English for what it is, chalking the errors instead to syntactic and lexical divergences of Indian English, and over-compensating for systemic bias?  This article, in any case, is not written in standard Indian English, which for the most part, is no different from standard other Englishes, especially in the encyclopedic register.  Your response to Abecedare seems typical of other minimal responses at FAC ("Give me something actionable, in other words, spoon-feed me, or I will steadfastly, but politely, ignore your critique.") Again: Please fix this.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * F&f, I agree with you that the article's organization, coverage and writing can be improved and perhaps Ssven2 is best positioned to handle these issues due to their familiarity with the sources and subject. But I don't think it is worthwhile getting side-tracked over whether the article should/shouldn't be an FA, or even whether Ssven2 bears the sole responsibility to deal with the issues we have raised. At a minimum, the current article gives us a good and interesting platform to build upon.
 * Coming back to the issues: Having not seen the film, I am currently hesitant to deal with the plot section myself. However, reading the Lutgendorf review suggests that the current plot description misses out on conveying some of the cinematic choices made by the director in terms of the narrative structure (flashback seen through the father's eyes), tropes ("child-hero is betrayed or abandoned by a father figure", "establishing song", "demure bride", "close male friendship" etc) and ideological messaging ("anti-communal", critique of the Gandhian approach). The last bit may be a matter of judgment that needs to be mentioned later in the article with proper attribution, but the first two are IMO necessary elements to adequately discuss the film as a film. The current mixing of the historical Bhagat and cinematic Bhagat thus does a disservice to both. While obviously the available literature is not close to comparable, the content of the Citizen Kane article can provide some pointers to what aspects are missing/misplaced in this article. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I share some of F&F's concerns about this article, and I concur with Abecedare's suggestion that a "historical background" section would help; a section about historical accuracy might also work. A lot of this also comes down to word choice, though; for instance, the use of the word "chronicles" in the lead suggests, in my opinion, that the film is historically accurate, rather than simply being inspired by historical events. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now six weeks since, and I raised concerns here.  I don't see that any changes have been made in the article.  Please address our concerns.  I have added a POV tag to the plot section, as it does not disambiguate between actual history and the one depicted in it.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)