Talk:Udham Singh

message: Industrial district of Uttarchal state in India is named after Udham Singh as 'Udham Singh Nagar' Nagar in Hindi/Sanskrit means city. Link - http://usnagar.nic.in/history.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.210.81 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mirror.jpeg overwrote a picture of a mirror that was used in Mirror. If someone can fix it, great; otherwise I'll do it tomorrow. Tintin Talk 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: To the anonymous contributor who keeps removing the NPOV tag: Read the text of that template. It says that "the neutrality of this article is disputed." I dispute the neutrality of this article. It fails our Neautral Point of View policy miserably. Take just these two sentences as example:
:Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the heinous criminal massacre, which General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer had perpetrated on innocent Indians under Michael O'Dwyer's rule, and which O'Dwyer had, unfortunately defended. Although condemned by few conservatives at the time, numerous patriotic Indians however, regarded this justified revenge as an important step in India's struggle to end British colonial rule.
To be neutral, this should probably read:
:Whilst living in England in 1940, Singh Shot dead Sir Michael O'Dwyer, former Governor of the Punjab. This was in revenge for the O'Dwyer's part in allowing British soldiers to fire into a crowd of unarmed Indians, an act O'Dwyer later defended. Although condemned by conservatives at the time, many Indians then and now regard the killing as justified revenge and an important step in India's struggle to end British colonial rule.[A source citation goes here.]
Please concern yourself with facts and don't use loaded words like "heinous" and "unfortunately" unless you are presenting someone else's opinion. Your opinion has no place in an encyclopedia article. And until the article is combed for other such terms, the NPOV template must remain. — BrianSmithson 04:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Still'' POV

message: I'm not sure why :Category:Assassins should be removed. Singh stalked a prominent man and shot him in retaliation for political actions that man had taken. That's pretty much the definition of assassin: "One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.". If supporters of Singh think that the word is too negative, then keep in mind that assassination is not necessarily a completely negative thing. Governments the world over have and do have assassins on the payroll. This is not an issue of good or bad, black or white; it's about what words mean. Singh was an assassin, and that doesn't negate any good he may have done for India. — BrianSmithson 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Assassins 

message: I forgot to mention this yesterday when I made my changes to the article. I've added a few comments to the text. These are only visible in edit mode, and are highlighted by the markup . Most of these are simply requests for footnotes in places where something potentially contentious is stated.
Also, the article includes this list of aliases: Sher Singh, Udham Singh, Udhan Singh, Ude Singh, Uday Singh, Frank Brazil, and Ram Mohammed Singh Azaad. Some of these are referenced later in the article, but others are not. I think it'd be nice to say in the biography section exactly when he went by what alias. For example, if he called himself "Frank Brazil" while he lived in the US, then make a small note of it: "He returned to India in 1924, reaching the U.S. that same year. There Singh went by the alias 'Frank Brazil' and became actively involved with freedom fighters of the Ghadar Party, an Indian group known for its revolutionary politics and its legendary member, Lala Hardyal." — BrianSmithson 14:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invisible comments and Singh's aliases 

message: Please watch the POV. Captions such as "Udham Singh: Restored pride and dignity to a butcherd and humilated Nation" have no place on a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Likewise, labelling Dyer as "one of the butchers" is POV. We are neutral observers; it's enough for us to simply post the picture with no comment pro or con. — BrianSmithson 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More POV creeping in

message: An anon has added lot of information on Udham Singh to the above. I have reduced it and am copy-pasting the actual material here so that interested editors can incorporate some of it in this article. TIA, --Gurubrahma 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically what this article looked like before we cleaned it up. Probably the same anon we had to semi-protect the article to combat. — BrianSmithson 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material inappropriate for [[Indian Independence Movement]] 

message: The page is unlocked for now. It's been a while since we locked it; I figure we can see if the same POV edits creep in again. — BrianSmithson 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlocked 

message: removed the word 'militant' to political activist . Bharatveer 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason? I'm restoring it — He killed a man and advocated violence. How is that not applicable? — BrianSmithson 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How is killing someone political activism and not militant? I'm restoring it until you provide a better argument. — BrianSmithson 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, how is killing someone "political activism"? Please refrain from making personal attacks. You seem insistent on "political activist", so I'll keep that wording. But "militant" should stay. This guy was no dove. My main objection, however, is that this article is in a precarious position with regards to the neutral point of view policy. It was blatantly biased at one point in favor of Singh, now it is mostly neutral. By removing words like "militant", we are tipping the scales once again toward being too pro-Singh. This man is not universally recognized as a martyr or a patriot, and the article needs to reflect that. — BrianSmithson 22:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I am not English. My stance is that the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. I agree with you that the colonial era of world history was a travesty for the colonies. I agree with you that the massacre perpetrated by the British in India was inexcusable. However, saying such things in a neutral encyclopedia article is precisely the kind of thing that the neutral point of view policy was created to prevent. — BrianSmithson 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Militant

message: Did he live in ADLER St or ALDER St near Commercial Road? I live right next to Commercial Road, and as a Google Maps search will show (enter the post code "E1 1EE" in the search box) there is an ADLER St very close to Comm Road. But there is no ALDER St in London. Does anyone have any reliable information on this? --Peripatetic 00:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ADLER or ALDER St?

message: It is neccessary to include what it is that Udham Singh did, and why it is that he did what he did, for it is very very very important part of the entire Indian Freedom Movement. I believe it is a compromise if we put in the caption what he did and why , without POV words (I ill not include the words martyr, or avenge but will say that he shot Dwyer who he saw as complicit in the Massacre). Laslty, Jallianwallah bagh is held the same in India (and I believe the world around) a Nazi extermination is in Europe, and I am not sure if you understand that. I will say even if it sounds like POV, but it is neccessary to emphasise this background.
:I understand your opinion perfectly. My argument, however, is a stylistic one, outlined above. Wikipedia's cream-of-the-crop articles include no information other than bare basics, such as name and time of photograph. Why should this one be different? — BrianSmithson 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this. I do understand your argument. But the thing is, although other articles (the best ones) have no information, I don't think that's to say that including such info or background would rule out the article from improvement. Especially for a historical and controversial characters and issues, I think it helps to have such info as the reader would be able, at a quick glance (to the portrait for example) understand what the context is. Moreover, in the basence of information of when the protrait (specific to this case) was taken, I think merely putting Singh's name under the protrait would be bland and unaesthetic and would also be pointless.194.159.185.5 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: The details contained in this section do fullly reflect the account of the shooting given in witness statements, police records and the statements of Singh. No book was used to conceal his revolver, he kept it in his pocket this is attested to in the files. At the end of the talk Singh did indeed shoot O'Dwyer as he walked towards Zetland but the articel gives the impression that he did this while standing at the wall. Forensic evidence offered in the trial and statements from witnesses indicates that he shot O'Dwyer in the back from a distance of about nine inches away. The final statement that Singh did not attempt to escape and that he did not intend to escape is also not borne out by the records. Numerous witnesses attest to hearing a man shout "Make Way" and attempting to push through the crowd towards the exit. A woman threw herself on top of SIngh to slow him down as he tried to leave and she was then assisted by two men from the audience. I propose altering this section over the next day or two to reflect these facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenji (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting in Caxton hall 

message: There are two quotes that I have issue with in this section. The first is the one dealing with the shooting of Zetland. The quote is accurate up to the point of "there were a lot of women about, you know" the words "whom I wanted no harm do not appear in any copies of Singhs statement either in the Metropolitan Police report or in the court transcript. I propose deleting the addition as it does not reflect Singh's words. He may not have wanted to harm women but we do not need to point this out in a section that is claiming to directly quote him.
Secondly the quote dealing with his reason for assassainating O'Dwyer is wildly inaccurate. The words "I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it." Can reasonably be attributed to Singh and appear in the statements Singh made to the police on the night of his arrest. The remainder of the quote appears to be the work of someones imagination. It certainly does not appear in the file referenced and does not appear in any other files I have seen dealing with Singh and the murder case. He did not say those words in court. Also the rhythm and fluency of the language is out of character with Singh's command of English. "For full 21 years, I have been trying to wreak vengeance. I am happy that I have done the job. I am not scared of death. I am dying for my country. I have seen my people starving in India under the British rule. I have protested against this, it was my duty. What a greater honor could be bestowed on me than death for the sake of my motherland." These are the words attributed to him and they seem far too polished and coherent for Singh. To provide an example here is an extract from a letter he wrote in prison. 
"IN the Old bailey where I am going to the 23rd this month it might be a Indian Council as well I am not sure as yet. There will be lots of funs My dear I am just waiting for the time to come I will take it very gladly never waiting about it is nothing to me. I have seen many in 5 years when I was in Prison more than hundreds hanged since that I thought I would be the happiest if I met this sort of death – it takes only 2 minutes then off she goes." This comes from a letter he wrote on the 5th of April 1940 and can be found in file PCOM 9/872 in the national archive london. I want to delete the sections of these quotes which do not reflect the files and I also propose to add more detail as to the defence he offered and his closing statement after he was found guilty. There is also some intersting information about his time in prison and his execution which I shall add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenji (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial and execution 

message: I removed this bit:
:He would, also, later shave off his Sikh beard and not wear his turban to prevent detection from the authorities while he was on the hunt for Michael O'Dwyer. A sacrifice he felt the Sikh Gurus would forgive him for.
I don't dispute that it's true, but no source was cited. Per our reliable sources policy, we need sources for articles so as to allow others to check our facts. Can someone cite this statement so we can return it to the article? — Brian (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: In this article, Udham Singh is being described as a Sikh Punjabi Marxist and nationalist. In fact, he was an Indian freedom fighter who followed extremism. It is totally absurd and irrelevant to mention whether he belonged to the Sikh community or not. For example, one wouldn't say Bill Clinton was a Christian US President. I am of the view that this description of Udham be changed to 'Indian freedom fighter". -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is your contention that Udham Singh was, in fact, not a Dalit? Hammersbach (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: He was not a kamboj. if he was a kamboj so why he was in  Sikh Pioneers during ww1?????. answer this why, he was a dalit becasue Sikh Pioneers was for mazhbi and ramdasia[chamar] sikhs not for kamboj. don't chance the facts he was a dalit not kamboj. 163.53.253.80 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have time please come at Sunam Punjab and clear your doubt after meeting with family Rajeevkmbj1 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing Udham Singh 

message: Plz add your comments here.
: Merge: Seeing the few lines of current content of that article "Weapons used by Udham Singh", it is appropriate to merge it into Udham Singh article. Those few lines do not warrant a new article unless the contributor has some extended content going beyond multiple subsections (which I currently doubt).  --RoadAhead =Discuss= 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: It's interesting that as the shooting happened in March 1940, the trial still went ahead even though the British were losing the Battle of France. Even more amazingly considering global events, that as the battle of Britain raged above Pentonville prison in London, the British government wasn't going to let Singh avoid the hangman's knot! With the Nazis poised to cross the channel at any time, it seems pretty vindictive that the British establishment had to kill him so quickly. For all they knew, the SS or the Gestapo would have been dispensing their own kind of brutal justice by August if the RAF had not done its job in defeating the Luftwaffe. The potential chance of invasion was not a reason for clemency in the eyes of the British justice system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.252.231 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: the formulation in the intro "...was an Indian Sikh independence activist.." is a bit ambiguos. it can be read that singh fought for the independence of the sikh from india (see khalistan movement) but obviously he was a sikh who fought for the independence of india from the UK.--Severino (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: Recently, sort of, there has been some back-and-forth on the issue of whether or not Udham was a dalit or kamboj.  One editor in particular is rather determined to state that he was kamboj and admonished me for trying to "change it again and again." (For the record, if one looks at the edit history you will find that I was reverting edits that were both grammatically incorrect and also in violation of Wikipedia policy, but I digress) The problem with the most recent change, made by this same editor, is that it references a book but does not give a page number.  As always, this is frustrating for conscientious editors who are unnecessarily expected to research an entire book to find the appropriate factoid referenced. This is additionally compounded by the fact that there are other equally valid sources which contradict the assertion that he was kamboj but was a dalit.  Anyway, my point is this, 1) whether or not this man was dalit or kamboj is a source of valid contention, be open-minded and impartial enough to accept that valid sources state both, 2) if you are going to reference something, reference it properly, and 3) if you are going to accuse someone of being incorrect and they respond to your accusation, be courteous enough to respond, not just continue to edit the article to your own particular POV.  Thank you in advance for your appropriate and impartial editing, Hammersbach (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: John 11:35. Caste does not exist, and a society that worships murderers has got problems so bad you don't even want to think about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

text: You prove nothing. he was a dalit not kamboj and also udham singh was his fake identity , his real name was sher singh. it may be added further that udham singh's father originally belonged to patiali village of Etah district of uttar pardesh who migrated to punjab in 1880. his father chuhar ram belonged to chamar sub caste but he got converted ti shikhism and adopted the name of Tehal singh. these facts are mentioned in a book titled "Etah Janpad ka itihas" " history of Etah Diatrict written by Sh. Chinatamani Shukla" and quoted by Dr. Rajpal Singh 'Raj' in his book referred to above. this facts is also mentioned in a book titled "Bharat me Samajik Parivartan Ke Prernashort" written by Sh.Mata Parsad Ex Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. Another book titled "Swantarta Sangram ma Achhuton ka Yogdan" written by D.C.Dinker also corroborates these facts and at the last Udham singh  had worked in "32nd Sikh Pioneers" during ww1 which was only for mazhbi and ramdasia[chamar] sikhs. so he was not a kamboj. 163.53.253.80 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You prove nothing. he was a dalit not kamboj and also udham singh was his fake identity , his real name was sher singh. it may be added further that udham singh's father originally belonged to patiali village of Etah district of uttar pardesh who migrated to punjab in 1880. his father chuhar ram belonged to chamar sub caste but he got converted ti shikhism and adopted the name of Tehal singh. these facts are mentioned in a book titled "Etah Janpad ka itihas" " history of Etah Diatrict written by Sh. Chinatamani Shukla" and quoted by Dr. Rajpal Singh 'Raj' in his book referred to above. this facts is also mentioned in a book titled "Bharat me Samajik Parivartan Ke Prernashort" written by Sh.Mata Parsad Ex Governor of Arunachal Pradesh. Another book titled "Swantarta Sangram ma Achhuton ka Yogdan" written by D.C.Dinker also corroborates these facts and at the last Udham singh had worked in "32nd Sikh Pioneers" during ww1 which was only for mazhbi and ramdasia[chamar] sikhs. so he was not a kamboj Yash1110 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are commenting all over the places except here. Bring scholarly sources with working links. Note that people like "Sh.Mata Parsad Ex Governor of Arunachal Pradesh" are not historians hence not reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: if he was a kamboj so why he was in 32nd Sikh Pioneers??????????why, because  Sikh Pioneers was noly for Mazhbi and Ramdasia sikhs not for kamboj sikhs. Yash1110 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Mr. Singh a dalit or kamboj?

message: Now being reviewed  Bashereyre (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anita Anand]] book

message: He was born in Sikh KAMBOJ caste. HarshitKamboj (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Page is unprotected, you can make WP:BOLD edits to it. P,TO 19104  (talk) (contribs)  19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protected 

message: https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/KambojSunnypama (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021 

message: O'Dwyer's rank at the time of the massacre was 'acting Brig Gen' which has been erraneously mentioned as Col. Kindly correct the same. 2402:3A80:1F81:957E:0:0:9E7:38D0 (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021 

message: Include the following item in the last section (Legacy)
A movie Sardhar Udham was released in 2021. 49.206.55.207 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021 (2) 

message: Citation required for "Marxist".
The article refers to Udham Singh as a Marxist in the opening. No source has been cited.
Singh was a revolutionary but not necessarily a Marxist.
At least a citation required tag must be added or the word Marxist could be replaced with Socialist (Singh was an integral part of HSRA) [] . While HSRA was socialist, it is difficult to prove their Marxist tendencies since no historical sources have been cited for the same, and the only link pertaining to Marxism on HSRA Wiki page leads to this page the reliability of which can not be verified
:I have added a citation  from the Open University- Graham Beards (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 

message: Baisakhi is not a Hindu holiday - it is Sikh only - these are two separate and distinct religions. It should be corrected because Baisakhi celebrates the birth of Sikhism. No Hindu affiliation at all. Remove ‘hindu’ 2603:7000:3800:DF:451A:29C:AD4D:40BF (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Thank you.Graham Beards (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021 

message: please change Singh concealed a revolver inside a book, which ad pages cut in the shape of a revolver to Singh concealed a revolver inside a book, which had pages cut in the shape of a revolver Trupthichougule (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021 (2) 

message: Please edit the following: In Singh's diaries for 1939 and 1940, he occasionally misspells O'Dwyer's surname as "O'Dyer", leaving a possibility he may have confused O'Dwyer with General Dyer.[12]
This sentence should be removed.
There is clear evidence (in recent books and movies) that Shaheed Udham Singh very much knew the difference between the two men and he learned when he came to London in 1933 that Dyer died in 1927. It is very common for individuals whose first language is not English to spell names phonetically. Additionally he knew extremely well that O’Dwyer order all the draconian laws in Punjab at the time and that he had direct responsibility of picking Dyer as the commander to squash the protestors. 2600:4040:4000:E600:24C2:A6F:6FEF:ECA7 (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021 

message: The fact that Udham Singh was a Sikh and actually an amrithari Sikh is very relevant and should be mentioned when describing him. His faith and the events of the massacre in Amritsar of predominately Sikhs who were there to celebrate Vaisaki and protest the draconian laws were pivotal in him becoming a revolutionary and meeting other revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh (another Sikh) whom he revered a great deal. Calling him simply Indian doesn’t do justice to him as a person and his experience. 2600:4040:4000:E600:24C2:A6F:6FEF:ECA7 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable published source for this. Graham Beards (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021 (2) 

message: 2001:56A:712A:B00:1862:CBD3:61CE:B62F (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Was tried by a court. Unjust or not it was clearly an execution Cannolis (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021 

message: 2607:FEA8:4EDF:BE10:6C8D:454C:4B9:167B (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021 

message: Kamboj are farmers in punjab region
2500 years ago there was a Kamboja kingdom Mahajpanda- Kamboj people were of Khastriya Varna
Hence he is not a low caste 
Sunam area is populated by many Kamboj Farmers 2607:FEA8:4EDF:BE10:6C8D:454C:4B9:167B (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken identity- Udham Singh is a Kamboj not low caste 

message: Is there a source that explicitly states Singh was Marxist/Marxist-Leninist or are we relying on WP:BLUESKY here (since he was part of Marxist organizations)? Should this article be added to the Indian Marxists category or WP:SOCIALISM? (Note that I am not very familiar with the subject... and also a bit confused on how WikiProjects work. Hey, I’m new.) postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 00:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Require scholarly WP:RS source(s) which explicitly say that he was a 'Marxist'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Venkat TL (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wire is a "news and opinion website". WP:HISTRS scholarly sources will be required in my opinion. Also the lead sentence should be succinct and demonstrate the most commonly known attribute of the subject, which is certainly not the case in this revision of it, which removed his nationality and added bias in the form of the phrase "a radical anti-colonial revolutionary". These can be reworded and added in subsequent sentences, though WP:HISTRS scholarly sources would be of preference. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fylindfotberserk, the authors are scholars from JNU. I see nothing unusual in the statement. I am sure more WP:HISTRS can be found. I did not know this was for lead. I think this can be included in the body. Venkat TL (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah in the body. I said WP:HISTRS because most of the article seems to be sourced from such references. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

text: WP:HISTRS sources for this. Plus per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases". The subject is most notable for being an Indian revolutionary known for assassinating Michael O'Dwyer. The influences on him, the 'radical' part and other things can be added in subsequent lines and/or in the article body. Please propose a paragraph with HISTRS sources supporting it, taking MOS:CONTEXTBIO into consideration. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

text: OK, the current lead says → , so you want to add Marxist between 'Indian' and 'revolutionary' is it? Pining  - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Fylindfotberserk, The article does not even mention Marxist once. We have a quote for Communist above. @Abcd amureet instead of focussing on the lead please suggest an edit in the body first. I think it will be awkward to use a word in the first line, without mention in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist 

message: Change 'General Dyer' to 'Colonel Dyer' as he was never a general (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer) Terraform68 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He is usually referred to by his temporary rank title of General  see .Graham Beards (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021 

message: His name on wikipedia is reffered as udham singh not Shaheed Udham Singh. He was a true freedom fighter who gave his entire life for the independence movement of india against the brutality of British government. He is indeed a martyr and his name must be reffered as "Shaheed Udham Singh" on this website or everywhere else. Mjbadesha (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Mjbadesha! I understand your thinking, but Wikipedia must stay neutral, without taking a stand on whether or not Singh was a hero, freedom fighter, martyr, etc. These are loaded terms and contentious labels that give an opinion on the subject, which is not neutral. There is guidance on this topic here. I hope this helps :-) Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing, postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 17:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not Martyr? 

message: Udham Singh Jatav Ji is a great person. 2409:4053:18E:2CC1:1F16:5D71:FF93:836E (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Udham Singh Jatav 

message: In Hindi 47.9.174.207 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Udham Singh life 

message: Udham Singh ji belongs to Jatav or Jatava caste which we know nowadays as Chamar 202.142.122.130 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the caste of udham Singh??  

message: Sunam is not to the south but south east of lahore 84.62.252.221 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: It's unclear what you want editors to do, and you must support any desired changes with reliable sources. They may already be in the article, or they may not, but they need to be provided alongside the request regardless. —Sirdog (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023