This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021
Some Grammer mistakes on biography 202.142.121.148 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Bose's 125th ...
... is coming up in January 2022. I expect it will be widely celebrated in India. This page as a result will receive much more drive-by attention than it does now. Please keep an eye on this page. @DaxServer, Martin of Sheffield, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, Kautilya3, and Graham Beards: I will try to rewrite the long-promised sections 3 to the end in the next few months. I will then rewrite and shorten the lead. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: Seems like you are reverting other user's edits because you want to rewrite the lead?Akshaypatill (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Editing lead.
The lead of this article is too wordy and doesn't seem like a typical lead on Wikipedia. Rather than introducing the subject, the lead is giving conclusions on his lifework. Also, it is too wordy (almost 50 words in the first sentence) and hence the readability is compromised. I tried to rephrase it and add some details that actually introduce the subject but :@Fowler&fowler: is reverting the changes. Need your opinion.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm reverting your changes for a couple of reasons. First, and importantly, you're introducing the INA without contextualizing it (a lay reader might think that Bose was the c-in-c of the Indian Army). The para lower down does a much better job of dealing with this issue. Second, "one of the most prominent leaders" is awkward phrasing because it is overloaded with prominence ("one of", "most", "prominent"). Also, it is sourced to a book that is apparently a "tribute" rather than an academic examination of India's freedom struggle. Finally, though this is probably easily fixed, the link in your INA reference doesn't work. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark:Thanks I will make the necessary changes.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Please have a look at the page. I have added new sources. Please leave a message if you are bothered by anything than reverting it. I will try to improve it else remove it.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure if author is salient enough to put in the lead (he's not known for his writings afaik and the only book mentioned in the article is the Indian Struggle one). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Have a look at the lead now after :@Fowler&fowler: edits. I hope you will maintain the same UNBIASED attitude I had have been enjoying towards it.Akshaypatill (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- May I request that the article be locked in the last version before Akshaypatill's first edit? This is becoming very disruptive and a waste of time. We have an editor who from the start has relentlessly disrespected WP:BRD; he has copied my notices on his talk page back on mine in a seeming tit for tat; he is edit-warring, opening dispute resolution frivolously; he is attempting to wreak vengeance on my edits on pages he has no familiarity with such as this page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: No locking please. I ain't disrupting anything. I just want a proper lead with proper introduction to the subject. Don't punish other contributors. As evident from one of the discussions, apparently Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote the lead 10 years ago. And seems like he is trying to retain the same. Also he has got 3 edit warring notices in the month, 2 by me and 1 from another user.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Also @Fowler&fowler is adding false sources for his content as apparent on my last revert, which I have taken back. The source doesn't mention the facts he is claiming to be there and now he is telling me that he don't have the book at the moment and that's why he did it.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Lead
- @Fowler&fowler: I still hope you understand what lead is. Please have a look at the lead at Jawaharlal Nehru for example. Seems like you are taking it personally. I am assuming good faith. For my tiny edit, you have been insisting that I should bring a consensus over it. But you have changed the whole section without discussing anything.Akshaypatill (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know who has posted it, but let me say that I have written the lead paragraph of Jawaharlal Nehru. I do know what a lead is, at least one sourced to impeccable scholarly sources. Aksaypatill moved the INA into the lead sentence; he insisted on a repetitive mention of Indian nationalism (which is the same as India's freedom struggle), once in "Indian nationalist" and again in "was known for his contributions to India's freedom struggle." I did not add anything new. I merely moved the portion about the INA further up in the lead, so that it does not appear disjointed. He added the bit about Bose being an author, citing an announcement by the Government of India. I have moved up the portion of the lead that already had a mention of the The Indian Struggle and his meeting and falling in love with Emilie Schenkl during its writing. I can't help it that the sources don't think Bose had Nehru's notability. Nehru's books, for example, were read around the world. Bose's book went largely unread. Again, I have not added anything new, only shuffled the sentences for greater textual coherence and cohesion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- It seems Akshypatill has also now violated 3RR. This is very sad. Random and relentless disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- He has removed an edit explaining the origins of the INA on the grounds that the cited source did not say that. That Major Fujiwara founded the INA, however, is a well-known fact. Joyce Chapman Lebra for example, wrote in 2008:
There are many others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)The Japanese have always wished to return the ashes to Bengal, as they believe that a soul will not rest in peace until the ashes are brought home. The prospect of having Netaji's ashes in Bengal, however, has been known to incite rioting, as happened one year at the annual 23 January convention at the Netaji Research Bureau in Calcutta. Hot-headed young Bengali radicals broke into the convention hall where Fujiwara, the founder of the INA, was to address the assemblage and shouted abuse at him. Apparently some newspaper had published a rumour that Fujiwara had brought Netaji's ashes back.[1]
- He has removed an edit explaining the origins of the INA on the grounds that the cited source did not say that. That Major Fujiwara founded the INA, however, is a well-known fact. Joyce Chapman Lebra for example, wrote in 2008:
- It seems Akshypatill has also now violated 3RR. This is very sad. Random and relentless disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: Add a source that actually mentions that. I don't have any problem with content. But I checked the pages of the source and the source doesn't mention your facts.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have Anthony Low's book with me right now; if it doesn't there is no reason to remove it; you could add a citation needed tag. You have turned a stable page of ten years into a disaster. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here is Leonard Gordon's article on the INA in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)The Indian National Army (INA) was formed in 1942 by Indian prisoners of war captured by the Japanese in Singapore. It was created with the aid of Japanese forces. Captain Mohan Singh became the INA’s first leader, and Major Iwaichi Fujiwara was the Japanese intelligence officer who brokered the arrangement to create the army, which was to be trained to fight British and other Allied forces in Southeast Asia.(citation)
- Here is Leonard Gordon's article on the INA in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences:
- I don't have Anthony Low's book with me right now; if it doesn't there is no reason to remove it; you could add a citation needed tag. You have turned a stable page of ten years into a disaster. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: You could have done it with my edits too, rather than removing it entirely. Anyway, I am reverting my revert, let me satisfy your ego.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: And keep in mind that your quoting false sources for your claims. Don't do it.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: If you don't know what lead is, why are you attempting to edit it? please acquaint yourself about it. Check out other pages for example.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have to learn to WP:AGF Akshaypatil. Fowler has added 92000 bytes to the article and, assuming it is not really in the source, it is likely just an error rather than "quoting false sources for your claim". Point out the error, ask for a new source, and move on. Fowler has provided new sources for Fujiwara so no worries now. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lebra 2008b, p. 100.
Request for comment on the lead of the article.
The lead (The first paragraph) of the article is biased and shows the subject in a negative light. Seems like an attempt to disrespect the subject. What do you think? Akshaypatill (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The lead as a whole looks like it could use some work, but it's hard to tell from this RfC what the specific issue in question is. What opinion is it biased towards, and what is the alternative? Does the current balance and/or focus differ significantly from most reliable sources, and if so in what way? CMD (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Let me add more details.Akshaypatill (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have now restored the longstanding version of the lead on which we can have an RFC. We cannot have an RFC on the version of the lead that has appeared a few hours ago as a result of the disruptive edits of the RFC's proposer. An RFC is about longstanding and much-discussed issues, not fly-by-night ones. An RFC is a serious thing, not something frivolous that any drive-by (for that is what this editor is) can propose after making two edits on the page. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:RFCBEFORE, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The RfC proposer has not made any real effort to discuss anything. S/he does not know how to cite, does not know a reliable source from an unreliable, has appeared on this page some 12 hours ago, has attempted to make some edits (like many before him), but upon being reverted has sought to have his way by (i) edit warring, (ii) opening a frivolous dispute resolution, and now (iii) a frivolous RfC. This is a gross abuse of the RfC process. Just as the DRN was closed, this should too. If every editor who couldn't have his or her way in an article had taken to starting RfCs Wikipedia would shut down. Recommend close of premature RfC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, you cannot start an RFC about one edit among evolving edits on a page; an RFC is about longstanding, long-discussed things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Akshaypatill (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment on the lead of the article. 2
- The lead of the article is not following Wikipedia guidelines for the lead. The first sentence contains almost 50 words, which compromise the readability of the lead. Also the lead, instead of introducing the subject, is giving a conclusion on his lifework.
I am proposing a slight change and addition in the lead -
- Subhas Chandra Bose(/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (About this soundlisten) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS; 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist. He served as leader and commander of Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj ) during 1943-1945. Often called as Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the honorific title was given to Bose in early 1942—by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, Germany. His defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but his attempts during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.
Akshaypatill (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment :@Chipmunkdavis: An editor has reverted the lead to previous version. Please give your view. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:RFCBEFORE, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The RfC proposer @Akshaypatill: has not made any real effort to discuss anything. S/he barely knows how to cite. S/he has appeared on this page some 12 hours ago. S/he has attempted to make some edits, but upon being reverted has sought to have their way by (i) edit warring, (ii) opening a frivolous dispute resolution, and now (iii) a frivolous RfC. This is a gross abuse of the RfC process. Just as the DRN was closed, this should be too. If every editor who couldn't have his or her way in an article took to starting on-the-fly RfCs Wikipedia would shut down. Recommend close of premature RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- PS I am going to bed now, but I hope someone will stop this bizarre attempt at unraveling a longstanding article (with impeccable sources) in its tracks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment :@Fowler&fowler:, don't disrupt the discussion please. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss by all means, but please do not jump straight for WP:RFC. As RfCs go, the three that have been started so far on this page have all been badly formed, and I agree with the early termination of the first two - and am removing the
{{rfc}}
tag from this one as well. Please do not add it again without a thorough normal discussion in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. Then if you really feel that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is absolutely necessary, read WP:RFCST and WP:WRFC before using{{rfc}}
again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss by all means, but please do not jump straight for WP:RFC. As RfCs go, the three that have been started so far on this page have all been badly formed, and I agree with the early termination of the first two - and am removing the
Lead restructure
The lead of the article is not following Wikipedia guidelines for the lead. The first sentence contains almost 50 words, which compromise the readability of the lead. Also the lead, instead of introducing the subject, is giving a conclusion on his lifework.
I am proposing a slight change and addition in the lead -
Subhas Chandra Bose(/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (About this soundlisten) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS; 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist. He served as leader and commander of Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj ) during 1943-1945. Often called as Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the honorific title was given to Bose in early 1942—by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, Germany. His defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but his attempts during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.
Referances - https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-army-and-the-end-of-the-raj/oclc/879421945 https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-national-army-and-japan/oclc/646980059
I would like to know if anyone has any objection to the content.Akshaypatill (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler:, :@RegentsPark:Akshaypatill (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer the original lead which introduces the subject far better. For example, the "hero in India" phrase is important but missing in your version. The INA is still uncontextualized (no one outside of India has heard of the Azad Hind Fauj). If you want to bring in the INA, it would be better to describe it "raised an army formed by Indian POWs captured by Japan during WW2 to fight the British for India's freedom" or some such but that would lengthen the lead. I'd also suggest replacing "Often called as Netaji" with "Known throughout India as Netaji" (but, wait! That's already in the current lead!). Frankly, I'm not sure what your problem is with the current lead because you're not really adding value with your version. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you missed it but "hero in India" phrase is still there. I am not proposing removal of any existing content. As I said earlier I just want a proper introduction to the subject rather than a lengthy sentence. Thanks for the feedback. For value - I think Subhash Bose is known for his work he attempted through INA. I don't know why some people having problem with insertion of this information. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is very much there in the lead. Not everything needs to be in the very first paragraph. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:RegentsPark Not everything needs to be in the very first paragraph, I agree partially. I would like to see a reference to INA in the first paragraph, but I ain't doing it right now. I Will keep an eye on it though.Akshaypatill (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:PEACKOCK in lead - "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India"
Continuing from here - [1]. I agree with User:Peter Ormond that the sentence - whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India is WP:PEACOCK and it needs a rewrite. Though User:Fowler&fowler had put his argument there I found it irrelevant as he hadn't put any points to that shows it isn't WP:PEACOCK.Akshaypatill (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Akshaypatill: Oddly enough, Fowler&fowler discussed this just today at [2]. The phrase seems well sourced so, no, peacock does not apply. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark:I have been warned by an Administrator against posting on talk page of User:Fowler&fowler. I would rather invite User:Fowler&fowler and User:APPU to discuss it here.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What's there to discuss? It is well sourced. Also, pings don't work if you add them in later into a comment (FYI). --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Because I believe 'Hero' is against guidelines given at WP:PEACOCKAkshaypatill (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you think it is peacock, we can easily change "hero" to folk hero with more precise meaning. And that is not peacock. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a peacock term. Peacock terms are those that are not well sourced and this has "near mythic figure". We can probably find exact "hero" matches to satisfy Akshaypatill. Here's one found in a quick search "The popular perception .. is that of a warrior-hero and revolutionary leader" [3]. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another one "Posthumously, he became one of the most acclaimed heroes of the Indian independence struggle" [4].--RegentsPark (comment) 23:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I take back what I said, @RegentsPark:, yes, what you say is quite right. His heroism was multifaceted. He was a hero in Bengal, a hero to the rank-and-file of the INA, a hero to Indians (and not just in India) starved for news of anti-colonial nationalism during the second world war, and so forth. Unadorned hero is best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:RegentsPark In that case I can cite plenty of sources to call Bose 'Prominent leader in freedom struggle', as in [5] but it was termed as WP:PEACOCK. I think, in the same way, I can refer Shivaji being called as Maharaj (Great King) across Deccan or throught India because of his generosity,courage... etc and cite sources mentioning it(tons of). For User:Fowler&fowler's argument, I would say every freedom fighter is Hero in that sense. Anyway, I ain't proposing any edits, User:RegentsPark please add the sources to it. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't cite Akshaypatill. You don't know how to cite. You are unable to tell apart unreliable sources from unreliable ones. Atlantic Publishers are unreliable. They routinely lift material from Wikipedia. See this discussion or this. I think people have engaged you enough. You have nothing new or constructive to offer. All the best in your endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) PS They also routinely publish older books without seeking the permission of the authors, or the estates of authors who are deceased. That seems to be their game. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:RegentsPark In that case I can cite plenty of sources to call Bose 'Prominent leader in freedom struggle', as in [5] but it was termed as WP:PEACOCK. I think, in the same way, I can refer Shivaji being called as Maharaj (Great King) across Deccan or throught India because of his generosity,courage... etc and cite sources mentioning it(tons of). For User:Fowler&fowler's argument, I would say every freedom fighter is Hero in that sense. Anyway, I ain't proposing any edits, User:RegentsPark please add the sources to it. Akshaypatill (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I take back what I said, @RegentsPark:, yes, what you say is quite right. His heroism was multifaceted. He was a hero in Bengal, a hero to the rank-and-file of the INA, a hero to Indians (and not just in India) starved for news of anti-colonial nationalism during the second world war, and so forth. Unadorned hero is best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you think it is peacock, we can easily change "hero" to folk hero with more precise meaning. And that is not peacock. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Because I believe 'Hero' is against guidelines given at WP:PEACOCKAkshaypatill (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- What's there to discuss? It is well sourced. Also, pings don't work if you add them in later into a comment (FYI). --RegentsPark (comment) 21:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark:I have been warned by an Administrator against posting on talk page of User:Fowler&fowler. I would rather invite User:Fowler&fowler and User:APPU to discuss it here.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Death
He did not die in a plane crash. It is not officially accepted. Edit that part. Please have some concience. 103.249.7.17 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- No. It officially accepted, just not acceptable to some people. Nthep (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Duh Appu (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2021
It is not know exactly what was the cause of death so its better to specify/add "as claimed" in the statement of "Cause of Death" Rkrishnavedic (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. This looks to be a contentious issue and therefore is outside the scope of an edit request. Discuss further here on the talk page as necessary Cannolis (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Best suited adjective
Is Bose a folk hero? If yes, should that make it to this article ['s lead]? Appu (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- No. A folk hero is someone who is the stuff of folk tales. S/he needs to exist either far back enough in history or be a partly mysterious modern figure for tales to sprout. Robin Hood is a folk hero, and Joan of Arc is, or in the Indian context Rana Pratap is or Laxmi Bai is, both being the stuff of ordinary people's stories and poems. Among more recent figures, Che Guevara was a folk hero in Latin America, but Fidel Castro was not (really) because he was too much of a politician; Bhagat Singh was a folk hero, but Lajpat Rai—in mistaken retaliation of whose death Bhagat Singh went to the gallows—is not. Mystery and gaps are needed in the biography. Bose is not a folk hero because his life is too well documented, warts and all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Fowler&fowler. May be User:APPU has read our talk page discussion above. Contrary to this reply, you had purposed to change the 'Hero' to 'Folk hero' once. That said, I agree with you. I don't find 'folk hero' to be suitable in this case. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I was thinking hurriedly there. Later, I had time to reflect in light of RegentsPark's comments above. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Fowler&fowler. May be User:APPU has read our talk page discussion above. Contrary to this reply, you had purposed to change the 'Hero' to 'Folk hero' once. That said, I agree with you. I don't find 'folk hero' to be suitable in this case. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Lead size
Isn't the lead too lengthy? More so considering the relatively short size of the article? Appu (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)