Talk:Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna

Translation

Could anyone provide an English translation of this poem?Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC) hello dwaipayanc, ur idea of english translation seems good and i think theres one too.but the real tempo and patriotism of this is revealed when its in its original form. – –Wow! I tell you I was looking for this, and was not sure if I would get it. Thanks to the one who has posted this Poem here! Jai Hind!!!Phoenix tushar 05:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Tushar -
I have added the poem in देवनागरी लिपि - अरविन्द अग्रवाल -

Contradicting references

The First reference in the article says the poem is written by Bismil Azimabadi and the second reference states that it is written by Ram Prasad Bismil. Which is correct ?? Somebody please fix it up. Removing references wont fix the stuff. We need to know who had written the stuff

Thanks --Tux the penguin 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) I think the second reference is correct, written by the great freedom fighter Shri Ram Prasad Bismil, the person who sacrificed his life at the age of 16 for freedom struggle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.218.45 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In the second reference it is said that "Pandiit Ramprasad of Azimabad besides being a freedom fighter was a poet par excellence whose takhallus was "Bismil Azimabadi". The poem Sarfaroshi is Ramprasad's own composition" Now I would like to draw your attention on the word 1)Azimabad Azimabad is the old name of Patna (Bihar). In modern days also the poets of Patna (Bihar) use the Takhallus as so and so Azimabadi. No other urdu poet other than from Patna can use Azimabadi with his name. 2)Pandit Ram Prasad Bismil :-

Its too far to think that he was from Patna, Pandit Ram Prasad was never attached from Bihar.

If you go to the wikipedia and read his biography you come to know that he was from U.P (Uttar Pradesh). 3) Bismil Azimabadi :-

As you know the poets of Patna can only have the Takhallus of Azimabadi then how can Pandit Ramprasad Bismil have the Takhallus of Azimabadi. This is impossible and such great urdu poets neve do these type of Silly mistakes.

---

Now coming to the Point that This Poem "Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna Ab Hamaare dil mein hai".

The first reference is correct that this poem is written by Bismil Azimabadi. His house is in Patna city and his children and grand children live there. His books on the collection of his poetry (Diwaan e Bismil) is saved in the Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public library in Patna (Bihar). This library is controlled by the government of India and it is the 2nd largest Library in Asia. If anyone has any doubt he can search in Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public library, Patna.

thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.82.11 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I checked the page containing the information about Pundit Ramprasad "Bismil" and found that he was born in Shahjahanpur , U.P. and hence felt that the "Takhallus" is insignificant as specified by the above unsigned author and hence must be removed until and unless some citation is provided. Have your say. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikartik90 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

---

where is the devanagiri script (hindi) ? who deleted it ? BharatNN (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

---

ok added the devanagiri script from a good blog. BharatNN (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

---

File:Ram Prasad Bismil 2615.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ram Prasad Bismil 2615.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ram Prasad Bismil 2615.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of major copyedit/clean start

This article is full of original research, below standard content etc. I propose to do a clean start. Lyrics portion is a problematic portion, I suggest to write it like this article (i.e. just link the Wikisoiurce page and write there)! There seems to be copyvio issues too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And I am being bold & stripping out those lyrics now. If they are not already at Wikisource then they can be rescued. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up big time but cannot check the non-English sources. That needs to be done and then, hopefully, the article can be expanded. There seems to be a fair amount of info out there, although a lot of it is repetitive. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted the recent reinstatement of the poem. Wikipedia is not a repository for poetry. As a part of the revert, I've also removed

Hindustani by Ram Prasad Bismil,

because this was an unexplained change. There was a source for the Urdu claim and while I do not know which is more correct etc, the change to Hindustani clearly needs discussion or a least an explanation. Was the original sourced statement, for example, a fringe theory?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the source before performing a mass revert? It states "One wonders what would have happened to revolution on the one hand and literature on the other had some other revolutionaries with a marked literary inclination and talent lived on, such as Bhagat Singh or Ramprasad 'Bismil', author of'Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil men hai' (We have now decided to put a price on our heads), perhaps the most defiant and moving of all the revolutionary poems in Hindi-Urdu." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. So why was "Urdu" and the source for that removed? There has been a phenomenal amount of pov-pushing relating to Ram Prasad Bismil and it has gone on for a long time. Although the primary "culprit" - User:Krantmlverma - was indefinitely blocked from here some months ago, we really do need to be careful about what we say. Are you saying that "Hindi-Urdu" is the same as the Hindustani language?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear 2.219.218.79, it seems that User:Kwamikagami made a good faith edit here in redirecting the link. I've changed the wording back to Hindi-Urdu. And yes, if you looked at the article for the Hindustani language, you would see that the two are synonyms. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you beat me to it ;) So was the prior source (that said Urdu only) wrong?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The prior source was not wrong. Both Hindi and Urdu are standardized registers of the same language, Hindustani. When an Urdu speaker sees a Bollywood film, he will call the language he is hearing Urdu. When a Hindi speaker sees a Bollywood film, he will call the language he is hearing Hindi. This article by Professor Afroz Taj may help you understand the situation. In addition, per your request, I added a source for the translation and transliteration in the article. Would you mind reverting your changes? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A source for the translation etc is irrelevant: we do not show poems in Wikipedia - that is where Wikisource and Commons come in. Similarly, we do not show full song lyrics etc. I'll read the article - thanks for that - but we will still have confusion because, for example, we call it an Urdu Ghazal and it seems from your analysis that this is a poor phrase.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a great phrase for this article because this poem has popularity among both Hindi and Urdu speakers. The lyrics and transliterations are helpful and I would request that you please self revert. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a popularity contest. It is about verifying the language in which the thing was written, and I am seeing a fair few sources that call Bismil an Urdu poet. Regardless, I am not sure which phrase it is that you consider to be "great" - "Urdu ghazal", "Hindi-Urdu ghazal" or "Hindustani ghazal". I wonder if Sahitya Akademi have any resources that might resolve this?

As far as the lyric goes: no, and I have explained why. You may want to read WP:NOTLYRICS.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the term Hindi-Urdu would be the most neutral term for the article. Also, you pointed me to Wikipedia:NOTLYRICS, which states "Most song lyrics published after 1922 are protected by copyright, and any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum, and used for the purpose of direct commentary or to illustrate some aspect of the style." Since this poem was published before then, it would be safe to include the lyrics which are relevant here. In addition, you also removed the external links section of the article, which was helpful as well. If you are unable to revert yourself, I can make the revert for you. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The lyric issue is not about copyright - please read that again, although you might also want to note that a translation might be copyrighted even where the original is not. Nor is the phrasing issue about linguistic/semantic neutrality: it is about what the sources say and we seem to have conflicting sources. It really would be good if the Akademi had some stuff about this because, as far as I am aware, they are an internationally-recognised authority on the literature of India.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article ha(s/d) multiple issues. If I forget the lyrics issues for some time then still 1) the image (license does not show it is PD in US, it needs to be shown, unless it'll be deleted sooner or later), 2) Original research and lack of citation which have been and are being solved 3) now lyrics, note, when I started this section, the layout of the article was like this, but, in this version of the article lyrics looks good, side by side. But, I am still confused here about if we need the lyrics here or not! One thing for sure, we are concentrating too much on lyrics than the other aspects of the article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments User:Titodutta. I noticed that User:Lovysinghal did replace the image with a new one. However, IP 2.219.218.79 reverted this change, along with removing the lyrics, along with three references and two external links. I personally think that we need to keep the lyrics in the article, which User:Lovysinghal so wonderfully laid out side by side. I hope this helps and look forward to hearing your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If lyrics is included, we need to add an IndicText template which was missing in the article. I have no problem with lyrics. For example we have lyrics in these two similar articles Vande Mataram, Jana Gana Mana! But unlike these two articles in this article we aer mainly concentrating on lyrics! Information background, history etc need to be added or expanded!

PS: I'll definitely remove the lyrics section if I see it has again become like this eventually! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) --07:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:Titodutta, thanks for your comment! I did not realize that both Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana both contain lyrics. I think Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna should follow this precedent. In addition, I would be willing to work with you to expand the background and history if you wish to do so. I will wait for your comment and then restore the lyrics as consensus seems to support that now. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, let me emphasise again the first couple of sentences of WP:NOTLYRICS. I'm not even looking at the other articles because Titodutta makes it clear that they share the same concerns as me, ie: this article was overweighted with lyrics.

The situation changes only if you significantly expand the non-lyric content and you can verify that the various translations and transliterations are in the public domain.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Anupam, I've had to revert you again. Please stop and read properly the various comments and guidelines - Titodutta was not saying the prior version was ok. For example, your reinstatement of the lyrics still has copyright issues, as does the alternate image. Then there is the thorny matter of Urdu/Hindi-Urdu/Hindustani that is still subject to discussion.

I have looked into this poem quite extensively and there are not many sources that really discuss the thing but the two listed in Further Reading, which I added some weeks ago, certainly have a little extra context that would be valid. One core issue that needs expansion is that of attribution: as I understand things, it is only a claim that Bismil wrote the thing and there are alternate claims. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Important Please read WP:3RR. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but copyright concerns are an exception.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignore that! I was giving suggestion to the IP (thinking they don't know about it) --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IP 2.219.218.79, I would encourage you to read WP:OWN. Your preferred version of the article does not get to stay. In addition, you just stated that the "lyrics still has copyright issues". Interestingly enough, you stated above "The lyric issue is not about copyright". Which is it? I actually provided references for the translation and transliteration, which you removed, along with other references, content, and external links. I would encourage you to revert yourself. If not, I will kindly perform the revert for you. Any further reverts beyond this point will have resulted in you crossing WP:3RR. Both User:Titodutta and I have made it clear that the two other Indian patriotic songs Vande Mataram and Jana Gana Mana both include the lyrics and transliterations. Is there a reason you wish to withhold this content from the article? Thanks for your cooperation, Anupam^Talk 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD. It might well be worth your while also re-reading all of the various guidelines etc that have previously been referred to. Copyright was not my primary concern, as per the first two sentences of WP:NOTLYRICS mentioned above, but it is a concern, it is one that I raised and it is one that Titodutta has spotted wrt images. For the avoidance of doubt, I am User:Sitush - not that it should matter.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Translation missing one line

The line दूर रह पाए जो हमसे दम कहाँ मंज़िल में है, دور رہ پائے جو ہم سے دم کہاں منزل میں ہے is not translated into English. Can someone please translate it or maybe add it from the source? 3omarz (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801082521/http://mptbc.nic.in/books/class9/enggt9/ch12.pdf to http://mptbc.nic.in/books/class9/enggt9/ch12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)