Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 3

@Fowler&fowler: The additional extremely small lines with info about the Provisional Government of Free India really unsuitable for the infobox which are about Bose's tenure as Head of State etc. They are bloating an already unusually jam-packed entry and seem to have more information about the Government (such as were it was based etc) rather than about Bose's tenure. Its content is already detailed in the article body and could be removed from the infobox entry. --Havsjö (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I disagree, as I do about his two terms as Congress President. The infobox is no more packed than Bill Clinton's, whose two terms as governor of Arkansas are mentioned separately. Joseph Stalin's even has his military service. Bose's second term is a notable part of the history of modern India. His career need to be detailed very carefully in the infobox, or not mentioned at all. Simplified mention, such as yours, not only creates errors and puts them upfront for everyone to see, but also creates a POV. I will be reverting some of your edits. I suggest that you not edit war with me, but discuss it here first per WP:BRD (you made an edit, I reverted it, let us discuss it now). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: The terms on Bill Clintons page (and many others) are very different as they are not consecutive terms, as I said in my edit summary already. Consecutive terms in the same position are not listed separately on either Bill Clintons (his tenure as US President) or any other peoples articles either. Boses tenure as president of the INC ran uninterrupted from 18 January 1938 to 29 April 1939. To separate this into 2 positions has no precedent on any article and is very unnecessary and bloating. This is not only unlike all other wiki-articles, but was not even listed in this way until you changed in recently, so why a big consensus to not list it in this way is needed is strange. The "merge" of this duplicate position for consecutive terms into showing one position with his full, uninterrupted tenure is not removing any content and not different from any other figure on wikipedia who held a position for multiple consecutive terms.

What I meant in regards to a "jam-packed infobox entry" is only in regards to "Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Provisional Government of Free India. Based in Japanese-occupied Singapore.[a][b] Jurisdiction, without sovereignty: Japanese-occupied Andaman Islands.[c]". Which I feel can be trimmed down. Where this government had its HQ or what areas it nominally ruled is not relevant to cram into this section with very small, barely readable text. This area exist to display info about Bose, or rather, his tenure as Head of State etc, not about the location of the government HQ etc. The info I suggest be removed from here (i.e. "Based in Japanese-occupied Singapore.[a][b] Jurisdiction, without sovereignty: Japanese-occupied Andaman Islands.[c]") is already detailed in the article body, as well.

Finally, the term areas is to contain his time served. I.e. the dates for his tenure. How he ended his tenure (whether death, resigned, impeached, overthrown etc) is not for this date-area and also unlike any other infobox of this type. --Havsjö (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

His second term as Congress president is a very notable part of modern Indian history, as it signaled a rift in Congress well before it began. You are right, there is small print in the infobox, but I don't know what else to do if we to remain a reliable tertiary source. Bose was not head of any discernable State (polity). His was not even government in exile. For unlike governments of other exiles, this was held by someone who had never had any government in the land from which he had exiled himself. It was a virtual puppet state, with a virtual capital in Singapore and virtual sovereignty over the Andamans. I use "virtual," because he was not a nominal ruler as those of the princely states. He visited the islands just once for publicity and had no offices or functioning government there. The choices are either not mentioning this virtual office in the infobox or mentioning it with clarity and detail. Britannica, for example, says simply: "Indian revolutionary prominent in the independence movement against British rule of India. He also led an Indian national force from abroad against the Western powers during World War II. He was a contemporary of Mohandas K. Gandhi, at times an ally and at other times an adversary. Bose was known in particular for his militant approach to independence and for his push for socialist policies." For many years this page did not mention the Head of state bit in the infobox. As you will have seen, it is not mentioned upfront and central in the lead either. But POV promoters kept inserting it in the infobox. What you see there is a compromise. (Pinging experienced editors of this page @RegentsPark:, @Worldbruce: for their input.) As a general point, whatever is your point of view, this is an old page; it is best to post your concerns on the talk page first. Otherwise, you create needless upheaval, as you did by inserting flags or flaglets on the British Raj page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Details about what he did in second term and other important things he did as Congress-president can be detailed in the article, but that doesnt matter for the infobox. It still doesnt change that he sat as Congress-President uninterrupted from 1938 to 1939 and a single entry is enough list his position and uninterrupted tenure (and predecssor/successor). Who is his "predecessor" in his second term? Himself during his current tenure? The correct style is, again, the same for all other people with consecutive terms on wikipedia, even if they did noteworth things in their second term... Even your own examples with terms in infoboxes, such as with Bill Clinton, shows how what you are wrong, as consecutive terms are not separated into different (identical) positions. This change is only something you recently did here, and has no precedent on this article or anywhere else. (I was even about to place the two terms in the same style as seen in Bill Clintons non-consecutive terms as governor, when I noticed that both terms are of the same, uninterrupted tenure that had been split up...)

Same goes for the Azad Hind. Info about the nature of that government does not matter here, the entry is supposed to list his position and his tenure, even if it was a puppet state/government with limited recognition. Other "leaders" of puppet states or governments are listed in a plain way: Position and tenure: Milan Nedić (puppet government), Konstantinos Logothetopoulos (puppet government), Ba Maw (puppet state) are examples. Info about these governments is not to be squished into their respective entries... The entries already link to their governments and info about their time in those positions are given in their respective article. Stuff you name here about the nature of the government itself is not to be crammed in to this entry about Bose's tenure with unreadable small text. Why? Because that information is not about Boses tenure, but about the government and its HQ location etc. Again: already mentioned in the article, already linked to the article about the government, bloated and unreadable small text, and unlike all other similar cases on Wikipedia. --Havsjö (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

For others to read, this is what I propose the infobox be changed to, maybe with an "[a]-note" on "Provisional Government of Free India" to explain its nature as a puppet-government in a note without cramming in several lines of micro-text into the already text-heavy entry--Havsjö (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Havsjö makes a good point about the clutter. The convention is to collapse serial positions into one position so we should collapse the two congress president terms into one. About the provisonal government: the current state is cluttered but, I think, a note clarifying the nature of "free india" is necessary since it wasn't a real entity (afaik). Perhaps the simpler Havsjö text with a small footnote? --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I will go along with that but if it mentions " January 28 1938 - June whatever 1939 (resigned)" in contrast to what @Havsjö: is saying. The resignation was an important part of his career and of modern Indian history. It is the subject of a sentence or two in the lead stated with nuance. What would be the point of that nuance, if in the infobox it appears he was just an officeholder, changing one office for another, matter-of-factly and unruffled? The tendency on this page has been to fudge the details so that his Congress presidency and that of the Forward Bloc (which was then a wing of the Congress), separated in time by a few weeks, are indistinguishable? It is the same with the Head of State bit. It ended with his death. I believe it is important to mention that in the dates of his term in "office," why else are we using the date of his death, controverted by many, to be that of the end of his term? I mean where is the document that states his term had ended. For the INA had already surrendered in Singapore a week before his death and was to formally surrender, also in Singapore, only a few weeks after his death, and the British, in the person of Mountbatten, had never recognized his government anyway. I am happy to go along with the footnote idea and was toying with it myself. The problem here is that Bose is such a hero for so many people that we get the inevitable hagiographic tinkering in the infobox (per WP:Lead fixation) which is easy to do, the lead and the rest of the article then get forgotten. There is a reason why infoboxes attract such drive-by attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

And Havsjö, the examples you have given are of heads of puppet governments established in some lands by a conquering power. These head of "state," were walking, talking, and governing, to the extent they were, on those lands. Here we have a virtual puppet government in self-proclaimed exile. Our imperative, charge, or allegiance on Wikipedia is to encyclopedicity, i.e. WP:DUE as exhibited in tertiary sources, including well-worn encyclopedias and textbooks. Britannica, as I have already demonstrated, says nothing about any government, only about Bose's leading an Indian national (not "military") force from abroad. Precedence is useful on Wikipedia for suggesting possibilities, but arguments are settled or should be settled, by appeals to reliable sources and tertiary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: "He resigned" and "he died" should not be part of the tenure entries as that is not a date, which is what is supposed to be in this area. That (you think) it is an important note that he resigned is not relevant to this question. Write about this in the article, but its not supposed to be put in that place in the entry as that is the section where the dates for his tenure are listed. This is the same as on all other politicians articles on Wikipedia... You can read in different chapters on Bill Clintons article about things he did in his first and second term as President, but the infobox will, as its supposed to, just give a quick overview of the dates of his tenure and not have

The reason his tenure in Azad Hind ended with his death is because you are dead when you die... This is the same for (I dare say) all other leaders listed on wikipedia who have died in office... Finally, the Azad Hind may have been a failed puppet government, but it was declared and did receive recognition from a few countries so its not entirely "non-existent". In any case, the suggested footnote on the Azad-Hind entry would easily explain its "status" anyway, so its not really that big of a deal... --Havsjö (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: and @Havsjö:, (sorry to be pinging repeatedly; please reply if you want at your convenience.) And, as for precedence that demonstrates possibility, how about Charles de Gaulle as a useful one. During his years in exile in London, the infobox says simply, "Leader of Free France" with a footnote which says, "President of the French National Committee between 24 September 1941 and 3 June 1943 and President of the French Committee of National Liberation between 3 June 1943 and 3 June 1944." So, how about "Leader of the Indian National Army" for Bose, with footnote, "Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Provisional Government of Free India, based in Japanese-occupied Singapore, with jurisdiction, but without sovereignty of Japanese-occupied Andaman Islands.<with citation here to Gordon etc>"? It would make it even less cluttered. I'll come up with something in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think thats a bit wrong way around. His "position" as "leader of the INA" is due to his position as Head of State etc of the government? It was supposed to be the new nation/country, not just a military unit. Free France wasnt really a government before they formed and actual rival government: the Provisional Government (which I guess actually is pretty similar to Azad Hind lol, even though its seen quite differently due to who won I guess >:) ) Anyway, imo the best solution is to list "Head of state (and minster of XYZ) of Azad Hind^[1]. Straightforward, accurate, clear, and not giving Azad Hind "too much credit" --Havsjö (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer this version, which I have reverted. I believe is reliable and due. It is as far as I will go Havsjö If there is no consensus reached here, you are welcome to pursue it in ever wider Wikipedia forums, or seek expert opinions. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

How can you act so dominant with what is allowed or not here. You can preform all these changes, including the original ones to split the terms, without any consensus. But now tell me to have to go find wider consensus since you dont "want to go further". How about the "original" version from a few days ago is slightly modified with a footnote and you find consensus to add "he resigned" or split the terms etc.? Anyway, since my suggestion (with the footnote to explain the Azad Hind status) has been supported so far. It seems to have more consensus that your suggestions, so... (BTW, your last suggestion is still backwards, as he was only leader of the INA in a ceremonial role as the Head of State of the government) --Havsjö (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

When do you think Bose arrived in Asia from Germany in a submarine? When did he first arrive in Tokyo? When did he arrive in Singapore where Rash Behari Bose anointed him his successor and handed him the reins of the India Independence League which after December 1942 had become the effective managing organization of the INA? When did he form the second INA, create the Rani of Jhansi regiment, hire Laxmi Swaminathan? And when was the Provisional Government of Free India formed and recognized by the Japanese, the Germans, the Croatians, two days later? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey man thats cool and all, but his political office in this infobox officeholder and which is in relation to him heading this army and declaring war on UK was as Head of State (etc) of the Prov. Gov. of Free India. Everything in the months from his arrival to the proclamation of that government is just prelude with the INA being salvaged and rebuilt. This feels like some forum fight where the goal-posts keep shifting, now you have totally changed what even you want the infobox to say compared your own prior edits which you reverted back to and argued for. Dont change the whole discussion by regarding your "leader of INA" suggestion as the new-new-status quo --Havsjö (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't "Hey Man," me. I'm not your friend, nor your interlocutor in random chit chat, only an editor who is engaging you in an attempt to improve the article. You made a statement, a highly inaccurate one, "BTW, your last suggestion is still backwards, as he was only leader of the INA in a ceremonial role as the Head of State of the government." I pointed out the order of events in the form of some queries, whose order matched the events. Bose became the leader of the INA in late June or early July 1943, when he arrived in Singapore from Tokyo after meeting Tojo and his Japanese sponsors, and Rash Behari Bose handed him the reins of the INA in a large public rally. An active recruitment campaign began in July and continued through August 1943, with Bose as the INA's supreme leader, its civilian Commander-in-Chief, its speechmaker, cheerleader, parade inspector, and with the Japanese sanctioning one small-arms Division. Although Bose wanted three, eventually two were formed. The Provisional Government was formed only on 21 October 1943, much later. Instead of apologizing to me, a longstanding editor, who is the lead author, not just this page, but the India page, the British Raj page, and a handful of other pages that are relevant to Bose's history, you are now randomly talking about shifting goalposts. What goalposts? Find me another well known tertiary source, from Britannica, to Leonard Gordon, Sugata Bose, Joyce Lebra, Judith M. Brown Christopher Bayly, Thomas R. Metcalf, Barbara D. Metcalf, Burton Stein, Anthony Low, Stanley Wolpert which or who considers Bose's bogus Head of State etc etc status to be more important than his leadership of the INA, that even mentions it except in passing. You are still spouting nonsense, "Everything in the months from his arrival to the proclamation of that government is just prelude with the INA being salvaged and rebuilt." Really? A prelude to what? To becoming a bogus head of state? Please go to a library and do a search instead of wasting my time here. PS This page had a Person infobox for all its history until the summer of 2018, when a redlinked editor with no posts on his talk page, except ones of page blanking, changed the infobox to an officeholder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:@RegentsPark: "Goal post shift" to that the discussion is now about how I have to argue why it shouldnt be "Leader of INA", which is treated as the new status-quo suddenly. The discussion was about the trimming of the extra lines regarding the HQ location, which found support from other users by putting info about the nature of the Free India government as a footnote to reduce bloat. Now this position (which you previously reverted too several times and defended your version of) is a "bogus position" that shouldn't be included at all and it should instead be "leader of INA". You have shifted the entire discussion and treat this as the new definitive version which I have to refute, even though this is not what the originally proposed change, which found consensus from another user, was about.

It said Head of State before, you changed it by adding a bunch of stuff a few days ago, I remove bloat, you revert back to your version and say take it to talk, I argue (and I find support) to remove the bloat and add it to a footnote instead, then you suddenly say "actually head of state is bogus, it should be say "leader of INA" so it will be like that now, prove me wrong, you cant, I have done a lot of edits, apologize to me". Thats not how it works: The info about the prov. gov. should be put into a footnote (which would explains that it was a "bogus position", so nothing is lost here)(and terms combined, without "he resigned" etc) as this is what was proposed and has found support in the discussion (and in regards to terms etc also due how infoboxes are to look). You cant just decide that this shouldnt only not be done, but be totally changed to something completely different than even your previous version you defended/argued for because you suddenly order a new version now lol. --Havsjö (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the "Leader of INA" version because it captures the essence of Bose's role in India's freedom struggle. Head of State is, imo, overkill. Havsjö, re your comment about shifting goal posts. Note that editing is a process. As the discussion ensues, ideas coalesce, positions change. We're not just trying to find the middle ground between the opinions of editors but, rather, trying to find the best way to represent actual content. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö and RegentsPark: I had composed this post but had to go away for a little while and RP beat me to it, so there will be some repetition. Havsjo: You are right, I did change my mind about the infobox. And my last post was a little intemperate, the result of being tired, for which I apologize. But discussions here are not about who is right or wrong in one argument but also what the argument is about, and ultimately about what is good for Wikipedia. You are right I was attempting to fix the infobox last week or the week before, attempting to neutralize the POV that he was a real head of state, or that this office was his main form of notability. I was doing this by qualifying the "Head of State" with its reliably sourced qualifications. The other thing about Bose is that he did hold real office as well. He was Mayor of Calcutta in the late 20s and/or early 30s, he was president of the INC in two very notable terms, the second ending abruptly a few months into his tenure. The problem with infoboxes, on the other hand, is that they are in a very prominent place, eliciting first notice from readers, but usually escaping scrutiny, at least not of the rigor that an article's text attracts. My discussion with you was helpful, as it clarified some things. Your three examples especially were very useful because it was only in thinking about them, that I realized that the proper parallel for Bose is de Gaulle during the war. He held real office but also a symbolic office. That in turn led me to the Charles de Gaulle infobox and his "Leader of Free French" section. I am not the first to compare Bose and de Gaulle. Peter Ward Fay in his book The Forgotten Army spends a couple of pages doing it. I think overall the Officeholder infobox is better than Person for Bose for reasons I give above, but the years 1943 to 1945 are best characterized by "Leader of the INA." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:@RegentsPark:Fair enough. Although I still consider "Head of State" with a footnote explaining its situation and his leadership of the INA to be better. This was the name of the position he held in relation to be the leader of the INA and the whole "point" was to try to create a new government/state for India, not just lead a military unit. The footnote would also clarify everything, so no "overkill" or "too much credit" is given. This is like listing "Leader of the US. (note: President)" imo, disregarding the puppet-regime aspect ofc. Its just seems very "backwards" to have the description of his role as the title of the office with a note regarding his positions name, and not the have the real name of the position as the listed office with a description of his role... But I guess well have to wait for more users to find a better consensus now? --Havsjö (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is there double citations in the lead? It has one number citation for a source, then a letter citation with a quote and the same source. This seems redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.253.30 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

They are not double citations. The first links to the source the paraphrased version of content from which constitutes the sentence, or sentence fragment. The second is a footnote, which may or may not be from the same source. It has to be cited independently. This is not the only page that follows this style. Many do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

For most of them the source and the footnote are from the same citation, which seems a little much. And most pages don't follow this, and if they did it doesn't really matter because WP:OTHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.253.30 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Those pointing out to Taiwan Govt's 2003 reply to Mukherjee Commn to nullify the plane crash, let them and the readers know that the reply said that "they do not have any record" in support of the 18.8.45 plane crash. Lin Ling-San, the Taiwanese minister in his/her reply dated 5.8.03<JMCI Report, Vol I, Anx D/1> said that all civilian & military activities in Taiwan remained with the Japs till 25.10.45 long after the crash incident. Their reply is based on partially "hand over records" only.

The correspondences from Taiwan in 2003 was not based on any investigation. Rather, on India Govt’s request, the UK asked the Formosan/Taiwanese government to interview employees of the Military Hospital and Taipei Municipal Health Centre. The Formosan government sent the eyewitnesses’ accounts in June 1956 to the UK Mission, who in turn sent it to the India Govt. The Formosan Report<JMCI Report, Vol I, Anx D/5> cast no doubts on the details of the crash or the subsequent death of Netaji. 45.250.244.78 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

He did not die in plane crash...but died in Utta Pradesh India on 1985. Due to an normal death. AyushMukherjeeBose (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

edit

Kalp media (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Original Constitution of India there are 22 Illustrations, which were drawn by the great artist Nandalal Bose and his associates.

The Illustrations of Part XIX (Miscellaneous) of Original Indian Constitution at page 160 is the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and other Patriots trying to liberate Mother India from outside India. It’s included in the Serial Number 19 of the List of Illustrations of the Constitution of India and described as ‘Revolutionary Movement for Freedom’. India’s freedom movement was divided into two parts. The main part of the movement was led by Mahatma Gandhi in the non-violent way, other part was led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and other patriots trying to liberate Mother India from outside India. Before Congress’s Resolutions of ‘Purna Swaraj’ some of the patriots had wanted to liberate India by way of strong disorderly action. Khudiram & Prafulla Chaki, Binoy-Badal-Dinesh, Bhagat Singh, Savarkar etc. were the other notable patriots of our country. In the Congress Subhas Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru and Jay Prakash Narayan formed Congress Socialist Party in October 1934. Ultimately there was Right-Left confrontation within the party. Congress started Quit India movement, but by the pressure of some leading industrial House the Congress withdrew the movement. Gandhi wanted to suspend the movement. In 1938 the first National Planning Committee was formed when Subhas Chandra Bose was the President of the Congress. The federation idea was reflected in the Act of 1935. The issue of federations became the cause of a major rift between the Congress old guards and their left-wing. Bose faced election again in 1939 against the wish of Gandhi and elected as Congress President. Ultimately Bose resigned the post due to non-cooperation of the major elected AICC members. The Second World War was started in 1939. Bose was arrested on July 1940. He was released but kept under constant surveillance. In midnight on 16-17 January 1941 he fled from his Elgin Road residence in Calcutta to Kabul and through Russia he reached Berlin. The German government did not help much to Subhas Bose to liberate his motherland. Captain Mohon Singh a young Military Officer of the Punjab Regiment of the British India Army arrested by the Japanese in Malaya, agreed to cooperate Fuziwara to raise an Indian army to liberate India. Ultimately INA was formed and Rash Behari Bose, a veteran Bengali revolutionary flown in Japan took the Chair. Mohan Singh was removed and Subhas Chandra Bose took leadership of INA. The INA recruited around forty thousand men by 1945 Bose formed a women regiment named after the legendary Rani of Jhansi of 1857 fame. With the allied army of Japanese Bose reached Imphal (in Manipur) and unfurled National Flag on the Mother Land’s Soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downlz (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Indian Nationalist(s)" to "Indian Freedom Fighters" Srathaur165 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the popular media section, the link to the Netaji (TV series) is not working change it to Netaji (2019 TV series) Rohan Deb Sarkar (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2020 (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. The link in the headnote is already Netaji (2019 TV series). If you mean another link, please follow the edit request template instructions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done (by User:MPS1992). Thanks for pointing this out. --regentspark (comment) 16:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change died date, do not mention any died date as that is not proven. Supratikkoley (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done the text and quoted sources make it clear that while there has been doubt, acadrmic and other consensus is that he did die on the date stated. The article is also explicit that there are people who do not accept this consensus and have put forward other theories. Nthep (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose was not dead in the plain crash on 18th August, 1945. Even, any plain didn't fly up from that airport on that day. The Mukherjee Commission of 1999 and the 'Mission Netaji' had submitted that information too respectively in their reports. So I demand to remove the information of Netaji's death on 18th August, 1945 due to the plain crash. Rohit Sen 8 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the reply to the request (note, not demand) made above. The answer is the same to your question: please produce a reliable source and consensus for the changes you wish to make. Britmax (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

QUOTE: In those days, the British in Calcutta often made offensive remarks to the Indians in public places and insulted them openly. This behavior of the British as well as the outbreak of World War I began to influence his thinking.END OF QUOTE

The whole article could be the creation of some utter low class Indian academic. The above quoted words might be his or her figment of imagination. For the current-day Indian officials and academic craps use degrading words and usages to the common man and woman in India. As to the British, it might be good to clear mention if the word 'British' is meant to include the English, or the Celtic language speakers of Britain.

During the English rule in South Asia (current-day Pakistan, Bangladesh and India), around 90% of the population were treated like excrement by the higher classes. Maybe this Subashchandran also would be belong to the higher classes. Check books like Native life in Travancore, Malabar Manual etc to know the way the higher classes of the subcontinent treated the lower classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.186.2 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A classic Bengali proverb says, "thieves' mothers have high pitched voices. This proclaimer of British virtue and justice most certainly belongs to that camp. Of course he would try to whitewash the crimes of his Imperial ancestors. In case it is not known to you, atleast read Indian Struggles by Subhas Chandra Bose. You will be enlightened of some of the crimes of your grand lineage. And stop finger pointing at Indians. Europeans had committed much greater atrocities on their fellow human beings. Facts cannot be wished away by finger pointing at others. Your House of Lords and House of Commons do not exactly point to an egalitarian society and your authors like Charles Dickens do note exactly paint a rosy picture of British aristocracy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantdey (talk • contribs) 07:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, the lede section is absurdly detailed and should be reduced. Unschool 03:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the lead (see MOS:LEAD ¶ 1) is too long, but the article is politically highly sensitive. Feel free to attempt to précis it, but expect significant resistance. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that in a large number of South Asia related articles which have been embroiled in edit warring, or otherwise in various forms of POV promotion, the lead is created as an NPOV template (with sources), with the expectation that if and when the rest of the article has attained an NPOV and reliable state, it can be summarized to rewrite the lead or to add nuances as needed. This has been the precedent followed in dozens of articles starting with the flagship article, the FA India, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia (when it had degenerated in 2006–7) and down to the much more recent 2020 Delhi riots. They are the result of longstanding and hard-won consensus on article talk pages and WT:INDIA, and supported by dozens of administrators going back to Nichalp, arb and admin, who led the drive for more South-Asia-related content on Wikipedia. MOS has been brought up before in dozens of such articles. The precedent has held. Whatever changes are being proposed, need to be discussed in the talk page and a consensus achieved. I'm on vacation, so this is all I can do until early October. I will be logging in once a week, but please do not edit the lead directly. Again, please note that it is the rest of the article that needs to be rewritten in an NPOV manner using the sources in the lead. Only then can the lead be a precis of the article. Note also that this is one of the most ideologically problematic topics in modern Indian history. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Unschool: If you are looking to rewrite a lead, please do so for Death of Subhas Chandra Bose, an article I had written a long time ago (in an NPOV and reliable fashion if I may say so myself), but kept the lead very brief for reasons I won't go into now. Anyhow, the lead there bears expansion, and I would be grateful if you @Martin of Sheffield: and @RegentsPark: could do it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please change Subtitle of subhash chandra bose to indian nationalist instead of radical - radical is not a correct word to mention with great subhash chandra bose Abhijeetraj9 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say he was an Indian radical? The lead clearly uses the word "nationalist". --RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Further to RegentsPark the word "radical" appears only once in the whole article. See the second paragraph of the lead: 'Bose had been a leader of the younger "radical wing" of the Indian National Congress in the late 1920s and 1930s'. Try using the search function on your browser. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I did see that but all that says is he as the leader of the radical wing. That's not the same thing as being labeled (or subtitled) a radical. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: – the comment about using the search function was aimed at Abhijeetraj9, not you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A google search for Netaji Subash Chandra Bose will bring up his info on the right hand side, where it clearly has the short description of "Indian Radical". As this information is simply pulled from wikipedia, that means the short description (or something similar) must have "Indian Radical". On what basis is "Indian Radical" an appropriate short description? What is the definition of "Radical"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:E054:5100:493A:66B:4652:C4B9 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The only mention of radical is the one quoted by Martin of Sheffield above (the short description says "20th-century Indian nationalist leader and politician"). You're right about the google search though. Not sure where they get that from.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's odd, I put both "Subhas Chandra Bose" and "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose" into Google and the side box for both searches said "Subhas Chandra Bose was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy." No mention of the word "radical" at all. Even if the term did appear in Google, you must remember that Google does what it likes and builds these side boxes from multiple sources. Talk to Google (aka "bang you head against a brick wall") not us! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. When I checked in the morning, it said Indian Radical under his name. Now it doesn't. Is someone watching this page :) --RegentsPark (comment) 21:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that some editor changed "younger, radical, wing" to "younger, 'radical wing' " which is an incorrect edit, as the source Burton Stein does not say that. The poster has a point in that the word "radical" is kind of vague. Let me look at Stein again propose something more precise about Bose's (and Nehru's) ideological position in the Congress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposed, more precise, edit is here. The quotes in the citation has been expanded a bit. Please let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As no one has objected to my proposed version, which had made the word "radical" more precise, in six weeks (sorry in my edit summary I mistakenly stated two months), I have now added that to the lead. I would like to thank @Abhijeetraj9: for making a perceptive point. I apologize for forgetting all about this discussion. I believe the new version is historically accurate, supported by the best scholarly sources on modern Indian history. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I would like to request editing permission for the article titled Subhas Chandra Bose. This is because the date of his death is incorrect, in fact it has been proven many times that he has not died in a plane crash on 1945. What really happened was he faked his own death and traveled to Russia where he stayed for a long time. He then traveled to India, transformed into a monk and lived under the alias Gumnaami Baba. Many people that wrote letters referred to him as Netaji, which meant he really didn't die in 1945. Despite extensive research on the behalf of Mission: Netaji, the government failed to acknowledge, that he survived the plane crash in 1945. He really died under the alias Gumnaami Baba in 1985 at the age of 88. Many more evidences are found if you research about the Mukherjee Committee, its hearings, and also Mission Netaji. You will find out much more, but this is all I am going to say. All information I just told you was found after watching the movie about a true story, "Gumnaami". I hope I get the rights to edit this document, and change the date of his death, and show people, that he lived for much longer.

From a 12 year old (That is all true by the way.) 2600:1702:1210:5020:20C8:6BA:5314:807C (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello dear, first of all anyone can edit wikipedia. You don't need to seek any special permission from anyone. In case of this page, it is semi-protected to prevent persistent distruptive editing, so you can't edit this page unless you create your own account on wikipedia and become an autoconfirmed and confirmed user. Secondly, wikipedia is not a reliable source, so be always bold to correct any information. But it has to be in a systematic way, you must cite a reliable source in support of your information. I myself has heard many anecdotes about what you're saying, but a film which is a work of fiction can't be a reliable source. To avoid any undue weight, we prefer to use information(s) which are largely available from reliable sources. I hope this helps.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -ink&fables «talk» 04:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Hindu Mahasabha, like its Moslem counterpart (All-India Muslim League), consisted not only of erstwhile Nationalists, but also of a large number of men who were afraid of participating in a political movement and wanted a safer platform for themselves. The growth of sectarian movements among both Hindus and Moslems accentuated intercommunal tension. The opportunity was availed of by interested third parties who wanted to see the two communities fight, so that the Nationalist forces could be weakened..

Subhas Chandra Bose in his book The Indian Struggle^[1]

Fowler&fowler, this quote is not made up by Daniyal but written by Bose in his book. Can this be restored back. It gives the reader an idea of what bose thought about them. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your post @Walrus Ji: No, I don't think it is a good idea. Yes, it is Bose, but still quoted in Daniyal in the course of his analysis, serving some purpose for his conclusions. In any case, it is Bose's rationalization in his autobiography, which we cannot take at face value. In reality, Bose did communicate much with both Hindu nationalists and Fascists during the 1930s and early 1940s, agreeing, for example, on some aspects of strategy with Savarkar, but disagreeing on the questions of Muslims. Marzia Casolari has elaborated on this in her new book, In the Shadow of the Swastika: The Relationships Between Indian Radical Nationalism, Italian Fascism, and Nazism, Routledge, 2020. When I find some time, I will add something, but run it by you beforehand for input.

Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

After mulling this over properly, @Walrus Ji: I've reinstated your edits. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I see there is active work on this article, so if this is something that someone was already planning to address, I apologize. I find the notes in the lead extremely confusing and distracting—why do we need a note with a ref and the same ref again? I would think that when this is the case, the notes alone would suffice. Anyways, kudos for tackling a controversial figure. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Aza24: The double references had been removed, but someone put them back. They will be fixed in the revision. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a video or audio in which SCB pronounces his own name in the manner that Kamala Harris does (see lead sentence there)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Found it! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Taking the Kamala Harris page as a cue, I've added the pronunciation of Bose's full name; the audio has his name in his own voice from a radio broadcast on June 26, 1943, from Tokyo, Japan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

ChandlerMinh, the reader is better served by reading this as a section of the Biography article. Not enough content for a standalone article. New article can be forked later on see WP:CFORK --Walrus Ji (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Very good point @Walrus Ji:. Thanks. PS I've moved that paragraph to the end of the section, making the narrative chronological. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikifullness: It is already linked in the article by virtue of your own edit. See here. We cannot also have it in "See Also" by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#NOTSEEALSO I have reverted your edit. How have you created a standalone article, when the consensus here seems against it? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC) @Wikifulness: Repinging Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For a country that gave the world elementary arithmetic, how does one account for numerous reports out of India describing 23 January 2021 to be Bose's 125th birth anniversary? Please enlighten? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The description of Subhas Chandra Bose is given as Indian Author, which is ignorant towards his immense contributions in Indian Freedom struggle. Cydenar (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, the article seems quite comprehensive. Can you link to the part where you see this? Britmax (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bestagon ⬡ 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hayes need to be used a lot more. Why are we using primary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, Casolari. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe we are using primary sources; at least, I am not. I am in the process of revising the text. I have finished the lead (which in some articles is written first to frame the overall NPOV so as to have a template) and the section on early life and education. I am now in the second section (return to India, Calcutta, etc). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Check 128. I don't have this book with me and need to borrow from library but I don't remember the work providing incisive critical commentary to make it a secondary text.

The article (apart from the very good lead) gives feels of Bose-nostalgia in parts and lacking in utilizing recent scholarship. His anti-colonialism had a range of issues, which are amply documented in scholarship but typically swept under the rug in popular Indian discourse. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is problematic. I will eventually rewrite the whole article (if I can find the time). Obviously, we can't use 128, nor can we infer that he was anti-Fascist before 1939 or that Fascists weren't Fascist before 1939. Good catch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bose was the first prime minister of ' undivided India' and this is not mentioned in the article so it is a degradory measure taken for the greatest son of the nation after Rabindranath Tagore 2409:4060:E9A:DEFD:0:0:BC09:C300 (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing as well as the exact text you would like to add, replace or remove. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead, from what I see, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, is too long here, excessive verbosity for a summary text.

• For example: "In July 1940, Bose was arrested by the Bengal government over a small protest, and later kept housebound under a strict police watch. In mid-January 1941, he escaped from India in dramatic cloak-and-dagger fashion, heading northwestward into Afghanistan,"
• Summary: "Following a protest in July 1940, Bose was arrested in Bengal and kept under house arrest. In January 1941, he escaped India for Afghanistan."
• We should tone down the detail, that's what the main body is for. Acousmana 12:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SODOIT? Be aware however that this article has been repeated argued over and great care and sensitivity is required. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I did sense that there may be a certain attachment to the current construction, that's why discussion is probably preferable to bold at this juncture ; ) Acousmana 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I am expanding the rest of the article. Like many other controversial India-related articles, starting with the FA India itself, and not ending with Bhagat Singh, 2020 Delhi riots, Indian Rebellion of 1857, the lead is an NPOV template to be used to expand the article. Once that it done, the lead can be reduced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've written the leads of all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Except for India, of course, and the Indian rebellion of 1875, the main bodies of the others are still very poorly written. I've now revised the early life section of this page; see the discussion for the rest in a section above. Once the article is properly written, the lead can be whittled down. In instances in which an article's main body itself is well written such as in Death of Subhas Chandra Bose, which too I've written, the lead has not even been written yet. I asked someone to expand it properly summarizing the main body, but no one has yet. Why don't you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Apparently, someone has expanded it! But it is not a summary of the article, and it needs reworking of the close paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

But please don't change anything in the lead of this article, until the revision is complete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And Martin of Sheffield Why do you keep encouraging others to have a go at the lead, when you know fully well how the rewriting is proceeding? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [See below]

NPOV template? resulting from discussion? or established in some other forum? 2/3 of that "Death of..." article lead is a quote at the moment, so not ideal either. Acousmana 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That is why I have asked you to write that lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it is a result of long discussions on many pages. See Talk:2020 Delhi riots; see Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike. See also Talk:India/Archive_46#History_paragraph_in_the_lead and Talk:India/Archive_46#Final_proposal. There are 61 references in the lead itself. See also comments on the day of the TFA: Talk:India/Archive_47#Nice_to_see_this_on_the_main_page. It had the support of Vanamonde93, Johnbod, MilboneOne, and many others. RegentsPark, El_C and others left these messages on my talk page. It goes back to the days of Nichalp, administrator and arbitrator, and the force behind the early drive for improved South Asia-related articles on Wikpedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the context, potential minefield, Indian political content, no doubt. Writing a lead over there, that's a serious undertaking, relatively dense article, whittling away is easier! Acousmana 15:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - actually I wasn't aware you were working on it, after the fiasco of Monkbot I had cleared my watchlist and took an extended wikibreak. I have only recently restarted letting the watchlist build. That's beside the point though, if a registered user finds there is a problem templating and expecting others to do the legwork is rarely the best thing. If they are sufficiently concerned to template the article and write a three point argument on the talk page then perhaps they should be constructive and assist. Sorry, Acousmana, this is a general point; more of a scattergun than a targetted rifle. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

no worries, not a big deal, seems to be a valid reason, will check back down the line and see where it's at. Acousmana 16:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

He was not just an author, he was our freedom fighter our liberator from foreign rule. Also his death date is an alleged one. Make necessary changes or allow other with better knowledge to make them. Palak Mehta18 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He was not just an author, he was our freedom fighter our liberator from foreign rule. Also his death date is an alleged one. Make necessary changes or allow others with better knowledge to make them. 112.196.188.38 (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Melmann 19:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He was not just an author, he was our freedom fighter our liberator from foreign rule. Also his death date is an alleged one. Make necessary changes or allow others with better knowledge to make them. Palak Mehta18 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the impression that he is described as "just an author", the lead paragraph makes it very clear that he was a nationalist and freedom fighter. His date of death is not alleged, just not accepted by a lot of people. Again the article makes this very clear. Nthep (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

As his death is not confirmed by any solid source,I think we should not assume 18th August 1945 as his death day. Cause it's a very controversial issue. Souvikdind (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, several inquiries have concluded that he did die on 18 August 1945. Those are reliably sourced as well as being widely accepted. Just because there are theories and beliefs among some people that he did not die in 1945 is not reason to omit the information altogether. Nthep (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is beholden only to the reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Nthep, but nothing is proven till now. there are many theories but nothing has been proved, so how can we mention the death date? the references used here are mostly from the 2000s. latest investigations and studies show different things. we cant stick to any old and unproven theory just because its widely accepted. there are multiple reliable sources for this.

• indiatoday 1
• indiatoday 2
• thewire
• timesofindia
• scroll
• zeenews and many more... ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest things do not show any difference. The 2015 face mapping reports are just that, another opinion. To quote the Times of India article "Serious consideration must be given to the contention that the Tashkent Man (TM) and Subhas Chandra Bose (SCB) share very similar facial features and could potentially be one and the same person" (my emphasis). Not solid proof but another theory that may deserve mention in Death of Subhas Chandra Bose if it's not already there, but the basic premise still remains, numerous inquiries have overt the years come to the official conclusion that 18 August 1945 is the date of death. If the GOI held another inquiry and concluded that Bose died somewhere else or on a different date Wikipedia would take notice of that but grasping at straws isn't good enough reason to change the content. Nthep (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of the great Netaji should not be in the article..It is till not confirmed and most of the Indians do believe that subhasji did not die at that plane crash. Either Indians or Tokyo confirmed the plane crash..so to indicate death date of Netaji is to provide wrong information and to play with the emotions of Indians IamKrg (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

wikipedia better take out the death date and put it as controversial Ekpalka (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You should change the date of death. Because NETAJI'S death of date is unknown.So change it Crøcrøz (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the above. Nthep (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It's Controversial No Body Proofs It Kammu123 (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sri Subhash Ch. Bose wan not died on 18th August 1945, rather he lived a life of a monk and demised on 16th September 1985. Yes it can not be proven in terms of evidence required, but there are no clinching evidences exist which even substaintiate 1945's story. Until the issue gets resolved, better not to declare the date of death, rather "Unknown" should be there.... Amrish5Roy (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In the section 1941–1943: Nazi Germany, the Image of Bose and Hitler claims Bose is standing by Himmler, even though Wikimedia says it is the interpreter Paul Schmidt.

there are two photos, one of Bose with Himmler, one of Bose with Hitler. Nthep (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The cause of death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was not confirmed to be air crash. Justice Mukherjee Commission categorically stated that the cause of death was not air crash because no such crash was occurred/ recorded in Taihoku during that time. Hence this window of inconclusiveness should be there in "Death" portion. 117.227.53.3 (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See the discussion above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An editor @Peter Ormond: first added a "Peacock" tag to the top of this page and subsequently—after my revert and request per WP:BRD to discuss his edits on the talk page—has gone on to remove large portions of text from the article. While I do not disagree with one of his edits, I am nonetheless dismayed by the manner in which he has conducted the edit, without any communication on the talk page. In another edit, he has changed

... was an [[Indian independence movement|Indian nationalist]] whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2012|p=210}}{{efn|"His romantic saga, coupled with his defiant nationalism, has made Bose a near-mythic figure, not only in his native Bengal, but across India."{{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2012|p=210}}}}{{efn|"Bose's heroic endeavor still fires the imagination of many of his countrymen. But like a meteor which enters the earth's atmosphere, he burned brightly on the horizon for a brief moment only."{{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|p=311}}}}{{efn|"Subhas Bose might have been a renegade leader who had challenged the authority of the Congress leadership and their principles. But in death he was a martyred patriot whose memory could be an ideal tool for political mobilization."{{sfn|Bandyopādhyāẏa|2004|p=427}}}} but whose attempts during [[World War II]] to rid India of [[British Raj|British rule]] with the help of [[Nazi Germany]] and [[Imperial Japan]]

to

was an [[Indian independence movement|Indian nationalist]] but whose attempts during [[World War II]] to rid India of [[British Raj|British rule]] with the help of [[Nazi Germany]] and [[Imperial Japan]]

He has not only disregarded the sources but has also rendered the sentence ungrammatical. I have again undone his edits. As this is a controversial India-Pakistan-related article (broadly construed) I have also left an ARBCOM Discretionary Sanctions notice on his user talk page. So, again Peter Ormond, please desist from making these airy edits. Prefer instead to engage us here and seek consensus for them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I removed the unsourced content in this edit. If you want to keep it in the article, then cite reliable sources, just like the rest of the article. I don't think that it deserves to be discussed on talk pages, it is an obvious Wikipedia policy.

And the phrase "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India" definitely comes under WP:PEACOCK. Most works covering particularly from those years, suffer from propagandistic overtones. It should be removed and the lead sentence should be re-phrased. Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 14:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As a third party who keeps half an eye on this article, may I attempt some explanations and defusing?

• The text quoted above by Fowler&Fowler has citations within it: {{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2012|p=210}}, {{sfn|Metcalf|Metcalf|2012|p=210}}, {{sfn|Kulke|Rothermund|2004|p=311}} and {{sfn|Bandyopādhyāẏa|2004|p=427}} so calling it "uncited" is not accurate.
• The normal procedure with uncited text is to tag it with {{cn}}, not to delete without warning.
• There is a procedure known as WP:BRD which states:

1. An editor makes a Bold edit
2. Another editor Reverts the edit
3. So all editors go to the Discussion page to resolve the issue.

– so the edit most assuredly does "deserve[s] to be discussed on talk pages".

• Finally, "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India". Well Bose was defiant and was certainly a nationalist so there's nothing wrong with the first part. As for being a hero in India, I am not able to judge, but there have certainly been numerous attempts over the years to skew this article towards hagiography. Perhaps we should rely on the cited Metcalf & Metcalf? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that the phrase "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India" is unsourced. It is WP:PEACOCK. The term "Indian nationalist" is sufficient to explain his "patriotism" and "heroism". "Nationalism" is itself synonymous with "patriotism". Peter Ormond 💬 15:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Nationalism" and "Patriotism" are not synonymous; furthermore being a nationalist does not guarantee heroic status in your own or any other land. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I know there is a little difference. Thesaurus lists nationalism as a synonym of patriotism, but still I agree with you. However, the phrase "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India" is still WP:PEACOCK. Peter Ormond 💬 18:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As you will notice in the Death section, Gandhi's own words are telling.

In India the Indian National Congress's official line was succinctly expressed in a letter Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi wrote to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur.[40] Said Gandhi, "Subhas Bose has died well. He was undoubtedly a patriot, though misguided."[40] Many congressmen had not forgiven Bose for quarrelling with Gandhi and for collaborating with what they considered was Japanese fascism. The Indian soldiers in the British Indian army, some two and a half million of whom had fought during the Second World War, were conflicted about the INA. Some saw the INA as traitors and wanted them punished; others felt more sympathetic.

A man disappears from India in cloak-and-dagger fashion and courts the Nazis and the Italian Fascists hoping for a grand invasion of India. He then leaves his wife and baby daughter to an uncertain future in wartime Europe and disappears again in a U-boat eventually arriving in Southeast Asia in the hopes of attacking British India with an army, the INA, comprising Indian POWs of the British Indian Army (which the Japanese handed over to him). Late in 1944, the Japanese army driven in part by Bose's pressure and supported by the ineffectual INA attack northeast India but are eventually roundly beaten back. While the INA surrenders with the Imperial Japanese Army to the British, Bose attempts to escape on an overloaded bomber to Manchuria in the hopes of winning support from the Soviet Union for the liberation of India and is killed when the plane crashes.

When someone defies his compatriots (in India), expected commitments to his new family in Europe, the reality of his ragtag army, the reality of its eventual loss, the reality of military convention (in keeping with which even the Japanese surrendered), all in the dream of liberating his motherland (India) from British rule, using any and all available means, what is it if not patriotism? Reckless patriotism perhaps, but patriotism nonetheless. Patriotism is not nationalism; it is less well-defined. (The OED says: "Whereas patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment, nationalism now usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism.") Bose was a nationalist for the period 1926 to 1940, but what happened thereafter was such a mishmash of opportunistic, up for grabs, ideology as to constitute nothing consistent. Patriotism is what it was. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The present Fitzwilliam College at Cambridge commenced as "Fitzwilliam House" in 1869 "as a non-collegiate institution, providing Cambridge education to undergraduates who were unable to afford membership of a college. Teaching was initially organized from a handsome house opposite the Fitzwilliam Museum." SC Bose was affiliated with it in his Cambridge experience. How do I know? I learnt it when I was myself a member of Fitzwilliam in 1976 before I moved to Corpus Christi College in 1978. Subroto Roy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.125.66 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Date of death anniversary-16th September 1985 2402:8100:23C3:7307:8216:AC66:D92E:A68B (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Date of death is given by scholarly sources as 18 August 1945. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This article, as I look at it further, looks like a promising candidate for a good article, maybe even a featured article. But I don't think just plainly putting a nomination in the Good article list will help it become a good article. So, what do I need to do to help improve this? TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the biography of a controversial Indian nationalist. There are a lot of sources, and finding the happy medium (of consensus) there is very tricky. I've been puttering. I've got through the lead (which I wrote long ago); the first two sections, which are recent; and the Death of SCB (which also I wrote long ago). It will take time (say at least a couple of months more) for me to get all the information there. But if you want, you could propose Death of Subhas Chandra Bose for GA. But a proper lead and conclusion will need to be written for that. This article though will take time. Otherwise, GA or even FA is not such a great idea for such articles. The people at FAC are hardly going to know more about the topic than the people do at WT:INDIA. In my opinion, such articles can't be rushed through. Of course, you are your own person. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with F&f. I watched a lot of content disputes and they need to be settled upon first. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. The constant arguing over his death probably means that we'd have to sit someone at the gate virtually 24/7. Britmax (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This was just what I expected. I did a little copyediting of the article (i.e. improving the grammar and all, which is what I specialize in), and as far as I can tell, this article has been very stable recently. However, I am still not exactly too sure about what to improve, or what new claims to make here. I am open to any suggestions. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@TootsieRollsAddict: Thank you for your edits and for paying scrupulous attention to the article's details. Some edits were very helpful. Some others, however, have changed the meaning of the sentences (somewhat). Consider this diff):

• You've changed, "Subhas Bose was born into wealth and privilege in a large Bengali family in Orissa during the high noon of the British Raj." to "Subhas Bose was born into wealth and privilege in a large Bengali family in Orissa during the peak years of the British Raj."

• "high noon" has a slightly more general figurative meaning than "peak years." It can mean the period in which the Raj flourished; it can also mean crucial or pivotal years, on which the fate of the Raj hinged, or after which took an ominous turn. It is an expression often used in the literature for the late 19th-century Raj years. Granted, it is colloquial, mystifying to an uninitiated reader, and a better alternative is required ...

• You've changed, "his teenage and young adult years were interspersed with brilliant academic success, oversize religious yearning, and stark rebellion against authority," to "his teenage and young adult years were interspersed with brilliant academic success, oversized religious yearning, and stark rebellion against authority,"

• "Oversize," which is slightly later usage than "oversized," is used more often these days in figurative contexts (e.g. extravagant) and "oversized" more for literal size (e.g. t-shirts).

• You've changed "He was also rusticated from the University of Calcutta, but after reinstatement 18 months later he managed to study blamelessly and excel academically." to "He was also rusticated from the University of Calcutta, but after reinstatement 18 months later he managed to somehow study there and excelled academically."

• He was reinstated, so there was no legal obstacle to his studying there. You have needlessly editorialized. "Blamelessly" means "faultlessly," i.e. causing no further offense. "Somehow" is not needed. You also changed a sentence with two instances of the to-infinitive ("to study and (to) excel") to one infinitive and one past simple ("to study and excelled")

• You've changed, "Returning to India in 1921 to join the nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, Bose at first worked with C. R. Das in Bengal. He flowered under Das's mentorship." to "Returning to India in 1921 to join the nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, Bose at first worked with C. R. Das in Bengal. and flowered under his mentorship."

• (The typo after Bengal is entirely understandable.) The standalone sentence "He flowered under Das's mentorship." emphasizes the importance of that period in Bose's biography. When you string it at the end of a sentence, it reduces the emphasis.

• You have changed, "He then followed Jawaharlal Nehru to leadership in a group within the Congress. The group was younger, less keen on constitutional reform, and more open to socialism. Bose rose precociously to become Congress president in 1938." to "He then followed Jawaharlal Nehru to leadership in a group within the Congress. The group was younger, less keen on constitutional reform, and more open to socialism, rising precociously to become Congress president in 1938."

• I understand that this might have happened because of the long "efn" note in the middle and I apologize for that, but a participial phrase (with adverbial meaning) usually comes after a sentence fragment that semantically leads to it, i.e. "X hit the books that year, improving precociously to win a college scholarship." There is no real connect between being open to Socialism and rising precociously, besides it is not clear who rose.

• Your focus on the details is very welcome and I look forward to it. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but may I request that before making significant changes in the portions of the article that are halfway complete (i.e. Lead, Early Life, 1921–1932: Indian National Congress, and Death of SCB) you propose your edits on the talk page? Again, your contribution is very welcome. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The introduction of the article should be reconstructed as to Wikipedia standards. The current one is too fancy for Wikipedia. Phrases like "hero" or "troubled legacy" can wait in subsequent sections.

And moreover, Bose's legacy is not troubled in real sense, he is revered as an unquestionable positive figure. It is only among the education intelligentsia that his ethics are challenged. The mass public notion of India has no problem with his nexus with Nazi Germany. I think this information is relevant is writing the revised lead section. Appu (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources are cited in the lead. It has some of the great historians of modern India. "defiant patriotism" and "trouble legacy" are their very words. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES And WP:SCHOLARSHIP. His popular reputation in India is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

... 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)

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)

@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:

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]

There are many others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:06, 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:

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)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 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)

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)

Continuing from here - . 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 . 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" . --RegentsPark (comment) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Another one "Posthumously, he became one of the most acclaimed heroes of the Indian independence struggle" .--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 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)

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)

• 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)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

Give some brief information about Bhagat Singh 160.238.72.156 (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(1) Please do not demand try to request. (2) have you seen Bhagat Singh? There looks to be plenty there. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

He passed CSE (Civil Service Exam) conducted by UPSC. 2405:204:A206:195F:0:0:3E7:50B1 (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Bose was not just the Indian Nationalist, he was the Indian revolutionary and creation of Indian National Army weakened the hold of British rule in India which led to the Independence of India. Taking support of of Germany was not the troubled legacy, it is a very common political strategy which and enemy of an enemy is a friend. He had no interest in destroying the world along side of Hitler but just one motive “Total Freedom”. 2600:8800:1E8C:F400:A94C:6722:AF9D:4C4D (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the lead too lengthy? More so considering the relatively short size of the article? Appu (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@APPU: Your question has been asked before. I am expanding the article. Just haven't found the time lately, but the next three weeks look good. Thanks for the reminder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it seems like Wikipedia blacklists that source https://imgur.com/a/jtUTqQO Appu (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have shortened the lead of this article whose draft you can see here. I seek your revisions or feedbacks. Even if it's lacking somewhere, it is still a better draft to tweak and work on than the previous one which was messy. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: Appu (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Appu. I'll leave F&F to comment further, but it looks to be an improvement. However I know he's working on the article so I hope it's not a bit premature. I've got a few stylistic comments to make, so I'll put them on the draft's talk page rather than here, please feel free to delete them if you wish. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@APPU: The reason that the lead is so detailed is that it is primed to be used in the expansion of the main body which I am attempting to do. I grant that I have not followed up on that plan with the dispatch such promises customarily imply, but Bose's 125th is coming up in two weeks and I am keen to make some progress in the article. I apologize for this. Please allow me the work on the main body for the two weeks, and you will see that the lead will shrink miraculously if not self-destruct. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: - thanks for keeping us up to date, and especially thanks for your efforts over the years on this article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Thank you. I've been trying to spruce up the lead for Bose's 125th on the 23rd, nipping and tucking here, stretching there. I'll then work on the early 1930s section where he meets Emilie Schenkl, visits Mussolini, and writes a book. A busy life his certainly was. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Netaji was not died on 18th August 1945. 2405:201:800B:C056:F1E0:EEF3:595A:B21E (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest Mukherjee Commission appointed by Supreme court of India clearly said that, Netaji was not died on 18th August 1945 in plain crash. 49.37.34.144 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You have read the previous talk page entries about this plane (sic) crash, yes? Britmax (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia page, Subhash Chandra Bose's citizenship is mentioned as British Raj. This seems derogatory. The term itself is derogatory. I propose that it be changed to Indian, or at the least British India. British Raj is a colonial nomenclature, and the world is mobing away from those phrases. Atanu4ever (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd advise some reading first: Wikipedia:Five pillars - It has a lot of useful links. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

From British Raj:

The British Raj (/rɑːdʒ/; from Hindi rāj: kingdom, realm, state, or empire) was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent from 1858 to 1947. The rule is also called Crown rule in India, or direct rule in India. The region under British control was commonly called India in contemporaneous usage and included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom, which were collectively called British India, and areas ruled by indigenous rulers, but under British paramountcy, called the princely states. The region was sometimes called the Indian Empire, though not officially.

So the term appears to be correct and not derogatory. From the uses of "Raj" today Indians don't seem to have a problem with it, see the first four enties in Raj#Other. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC):

Of course he was a citizen of the British Raj. He wouldn't have had to start a freedom movement if he wasn't, would he? Britmax (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sudiptohbk (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
death_date          = 18 August 1945(1945-08-18) (aged 48)

| death_place = Army Hospital Nanmon Branch, Taihoku, Japanese Taiwan (present-day Taipei City Hospital Heping Fuyou Branch, Taipei, Taiwan) | death_cause = Third-degree burns from aircrash

This is not true. Sudiptohbk (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I just thought "though" made more grammatical sense than "but" in that place; I wasn't trying to change the meaning of the sentence. You seem to think I was implying something about the period of time in which Bose showed those signs, but I don't understand how you interpreted it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by पदाति (talk • contribs) 09:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Though" creates a subordinate clause (a rephrase would be: "Although he showed signs of ---, he defied British rule.") and minimizes more than "but," which as conjunction, offers a more straightforward contrast. We could change the "but" to an "and" to make it more NPOV. The second part of my edit summary was independent of the first part, as he showed these signs well before his rebellion in the Congress and flight to Germany, i.e. they were not simply ideologies inherited from the alliances. It is a tricky biography with multiple "what ifs," which are a part of his appeal to many. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

For now I have changed back to the version with "but." Perhaps you can tell me why you think "though" makes more grammatical sense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed back to an even older version. The lead sentence in a complex biography such as this is tricky. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Netaji did not die in any air crash. The last Enquiry Commission set up by the Government of India clearly states that no air crash occurred on the date mentioned here. There is no Death Certificate available too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banibhaban (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that the Japanese authorities were too worried about death certificates in the aftermath of the two nuclear bombs and the surrender? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. We are talking Japanese-occupied-Formosa during the period identified by Martin of Sheffield. PS In Japan Subhas Chandra Bose is commemorated every year on the anniversary of his death, August 18, at the Renkōji Temple in Tokyo, where his ashes lie by the descendants of the Japanese generals who had supported him, had reluctantly invited him aboard that already overloaded bomber, and had themselves perished in the same crash. Col. Habibur Rahman, Bose's assistant, the only INA man to accompany Bose, who guided Bose out of the burning bomber, survived the crash and later testified at the Khosla Commission. He had extensive burn marks on his forearms. Without the generals, Bose would not have been on the plane and very likely would have had to surrender to the British with the rest of the INA (as generals typically do). Without Rahman, he would have burned to death in the plane itself, and not several hours after the crash in the Taihoku Army Hospital. It is a testament both to Japanese traditions of performing under stress and to the Hippocratic oath that in the midst of so much confusion and stress, the Japanese doctors and nurses offered him the care they did. Please read Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to differ in every aspect. The Japanese Govt. announced his so-called death in 1945, it is absolutely impossible for them to deny that now, so they are still going on with the camouflage. Japanese authorities were worried about death certificates, this is your statement, not mine. But you haven’t even tried to respond to the fact that no certificates were issued in his name, instead a certificate in the name of a Japanese non-existent person was there, which was ridiculously used by Shanwaz khan Commission and Khosla Commission. The ashes in Renkoji Temple is never proved to be that of Bose. I think you do not know about the burn marks on the hands of Habibur Rahman. Ridiculous once again. When others have died, he only had some burn marks on his forearm. Don't you think it is totally ludicrous?

Do you want to have a long list of books which specifically proved that no such crash ever happened???

Basudev Ghosh Banibhaban (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we do want. Produce the long list of books which specifically prove that no such crash ever happened. But the catch is, they have be either written by a seasoned historian or published by certain university presses. Appu (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that the Enquiry Commissions were headed by "seasoned historians or published by certain university presses"???... No, they are not. But those reports were approved by Governments where also no " seasoned historian" was present.

Well, to begin with read Dissent Report written by Sures Chandra Bose, Subhash Bose's elder brother. Read one more book : "What happened to Netaji" by Anuj Dhar. These are just introductory books for you. Go throgh them and then more will follow. Banibhaban (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And once again you have referred to another Wikepedia post, "Death of Subhas Chandra Bose"...!!!... Wikepedia trying to prove its facts with another Wikepedia post. Isn’t it ludicrous!!!... Rather you give the names of some books by some " seasoned historians or published by certain university presses. " Banibhaban (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And once again you have referred to another Wikepedia post, "Death of Subhas Chandra Bose"...!!!... Wikepedia trying to prove its facts with another Wikepedia post. Isn’t it ludicrous!!!... Rather you give the names of some books by some " seasoned historians or published by certain university presses. "

Banibhaban (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

His collaborations with Japanese Fascism and Nazisim are problematic. His reluctance to publicly criticize the worst excesses of German anti-Semitism from 1938 onwards or to offer refuge in India to its victims, cannot be said to have arisen from a lack of awareness of the excesses.

Breaches WP:NPOV, and seems to be personal opinion of the editor. I suggest that this passage is removed.

2409:4072:8E3C:9C96:F105:BBD2:4D0C:3C1 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I have changed the first part to "poses serious ethical dilemmas" per the source. Thanks. The second is widely known. He had been taking anti-Semitic stances from the mid-1930s onward in the Indian National Congress discussions and motions. In other words, his was not simply a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." He had some knowledge of the German or Italian underbelly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's death in the so-called air crash has been denied by so many researchers in many parts of the world. Even there is no death certificate available for his death in that "air crash". One Enquiry Commission set up be the Govt. of India clearly stated that no air crash occurred on that day at Taihoku airport. The airport authorities of Taihoku also doesn't have any such record. The date and the reason put up by Wikepedia make millions of Indians dissatisfied and angry.

It will be much better if the date and reason is corrected and " nothing obvious and certain" is written instead of that. Banibhaban (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see your reliable source. Please read previous discussions on this matter. Britmax (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is the reliable source?...

I can give you hundreds of such, e.g. 1) Dissential Report by Suresh Chandra Bose (I hope you know that he was Subhas Chandra's own brother), 2) What Happened to Netaji by Anuj Dhar.

Go through these at first. Then hundreds more will come. Banibhaban (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have links for those? Britmax (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Search Google, you will get it yourself. Banibhaban (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think it should go into the article you should have done this yourself. Britmax (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The date of death is not confirmed yet. Ghoshkingsuk1991 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Most people seem to think it has been. What does your reliable source say on the matter? Britmax (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It is sourced reasonably well. You'd have to provide other sources disputing the source currently in use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

> his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism and anti-Semitism.

This is very recent. The first thing that people see when they Google "Subhas Chandra Bose" is "Nazi Germany" "Fascist Japan" "anti-Semitism". Why is this the case? Why are we allowing people to purposefully try and mislead the public into believing something that is not true?

Netaji Bose was not a fascist, he was not an authoritarian, he was not anti-Semitic. From his own words,

"I am not an apologist of the Tripartite Powers (Axis Powers) ; that is not my job. My concern is with India. When British Imperialism is defeated India will get her freedom. If, on the other hand, British Imperialism should somehow win the war, then India’s slavery would be perpetuated for ever. India is, therefore, presented with the choice between freedom and slavery. She must make her choice."

It seems that the person who is trying to associate Bose's name with Nazism is heavily biased and wants to spread a myth. It should be changed to something else less degrading. He is, after all, a freedom fighter, and no amount of "unbiased Wikipedia viewpoint" can change that. He deserves more respect than to be publicly degraded like this. Not even Hitler's Wikipedia knowledge panel is this biased. Pranath vir (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In other words, he is not a reliable source per Wikipedia rules and conventions. Among scholars published by internationally-recognized scholarly publishers, there is plenty about Bose's authoritarianism, his military incompetence, and unspoken anti-Semitism. Nehru, for example, not only made many public statements condemning Fascism and Nazism in all its forms but so did the Congress Party. Bose, on the other hand, when he was Congress president, was the only one in the Working Committee who opposed such motions (e.g. the one denouncing Kristallnacht). Please read the generous quotes provided in the scholarly sources that have been cited by the dozens in the lead. That Bose has become a tool for political mobilization by political parties of all hues, and his life is being "spun" in a certain way is not Wikipedia's issue. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You are telling me to properly cite myself yet you yourself cannot even cite the sources which indicate that Subhas was an anti-semitic person. He had Jewish friends who he was not afraid to show his contempt for the Nazis towards. Kitty Kurti was one of them, who he befriended while in Berlin. She has an entire book on it here. Bose's story is not a political tool of any kind. His life being spun in a certain way is Wikipedia's issue because Wikipedia's job is to provide unbiased and factually correct information, and people are only being misinformed because of the improper context given from here. Pranath vir (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bose did not die in Taipe. He did not marry Emily Shenkel. 2409:4060:2D89:DB7D:0:0:2C49:AD05 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "If all else failed (Bose) wanted to become a prisoner of the Soviets: 'They are the only ones who will resist the British. My fate is with them. But as the Japanese plane took off from Taipei airport its engines faltered and then failed. Bose was badly burned in the crash. According to several witnesses, he died on 18 August in a Japanese military hospital, talking to the very last of India's freedom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough, the time has come for Indians to know the real truth that netaji died in 16th September 1985 in Faizabad, UP. I wanna quote some words here : "Disappearance was planned by HIM [Netaji]. Long ago, before Jap surrender. Even before that he went to 'R' [Russia] and nobody knew it. He returned after one and half months. He knew all men under him and their capacity. He planned his disappearance, Jwellery and Treasure were packed for dropping at a place of his disappearance. First bomber was a dummy flight with publicity of Him, Kimura and others. Real bomber left after, for unknown destination. Minister Ayer was to follow the Bomber amd treasure. But he went to Tokyo handed over the treasure to Rammurthi. Disposed of some, encashed part of jewells, with help of Br [British] Military of Tokyo and Jap foreign officials. J N [Jawaharlal Nehru] knows it. Murthi gave "J" only small fraction of fabulous wealth. No treasure was burnt. It is a fabrication. Imperial Jap Army, British men, India Govt. and party men all involved. That is why no action was taken. Unfortunately, surprisingly and accidentally He [Netaji] met, was met by several Anglo-American personnel and Jap petty (unknown) officers at a small Hotel near Saigon, quite some day after the crash and Death news. These things only suggest one thing- so He in his own brain formulated at once another plan of strategical move."

Source - Oi mahamanab ashe (bengali book). S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please link us to the book so that this can be verified? Britmax (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link : OI MAHAMANAB ASE - OSESH https://www.amazon.in/dp/B09P6MP2CZ/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_NA4CVMVH4303QSHR2ZGJ. Hope there was an option to upload images :( S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You can add pictures by uploading them to imgur.com and pasting that URL in here. However, there is no need to do that now because the book you are citing is not a valid source. Please read WP:RS, especially

• Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

Apart from you I suggest you to leave this issue right here. It is a well-documented fact that Bose died when he did. At least, do not lie to yourself when the evidence is glaring right at you just because you want to end the day with a pride of being a Bengali/Bose fan. Appu (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

LOL, thank you, but it is also a well documented and a well written fact that netaji didn't die on "when he did" (so much so, that it was well written in the post years of 1945, and I hope there was no petty politics at that time eh ?). Do not lie to yourself either when the "right" evidence is glaring at you. And sorry, I am also a bengali sir/mam, so there no way I am disrespecting him by saying that. S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here are some videos : 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=13N0OIBdfoE&feature=youtu.be

2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=op2AoB7-Nqg&feature=youtu.be S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add to what APPU has stated very clearly. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES which states: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." and WP:TERTIARY which states: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. ... Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I have now added citations for Bose's death to four tertiary and two scholarly monographs, all published by academic publishers. They state that Bose died on August 18, 1945. I think this is enough to end the debate per Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah end the debate. What to say, better believe what you want to ! Also, pls end the debate with "your" policy, instead of Wikipedi's, hope you get it ! S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, unless you, or someone else, can provide a reliable source what's the point of doing anything else? Britmax (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Can it be something? https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/no-crash-killing-netaji-took-place/story-KobsStXGtmsUGcgpE5c8pI.html S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That is dated 2005. What became of those e-mails when verification was attempted? What were the conclusions of the Mukherjee Commission? Is there anything more recent than seventeen years ago? Britmax (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

death date is wrong Netajialive97 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As per mukherjee commission netaji's death date can not be confirmed Netajialive97 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So in death date there must be nil or should be removed Netajialive97 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Death date is not clear,it should be immediately removed Argha 19 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He was born in a Bengali Kayastha Family Argha 19 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Please approve my request Argha 19 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A vital information has been eluded from the article pertaining to the caste of Subhas Chandra Bose. He was Bengali Kayastha by caste. I urge the editors to add this info in the article. It is something which can't be left unacknowledged. Sources: 1).https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_JnQWzQlMN8C&pg=PA311&dq=subhas+chandra+bose+kayastha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE4funu8X1AhVEr1YBHUDbANQ4ChDoAXoECAgQAw#v=onepage&q=subhas%20chandra%20bose%20kayastha&f=fals 2)https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bkRxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA519&dq=subhas+chandra+bose+kayastha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE4funu8X1AhVEr1YBHUDbANQ4ChDoAXoECAcQAw#v=onepage&q=subhas%20chandra%20bose%20kayastha&f=false 3)https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rYSXPg9GUpwC&pg=PA57&dq=subhas+chandra+bose+kayastha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE4funu8X1AhVEr1YBHUDbANQ4ChDoAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=subhas%20chandra%20bose%20kayastha&f=false LALAJI1234 (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read due weight. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the sources I have provided is dubious. And speaking about his background that is" disclosing the community he comes from " can't be minority issue. Neither has Bengali Kayastha community disappeared . This subtle information may not bring about biasness or may imbalance the article. I disagree with your explanation on this issue.LALAJI1234 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please tell in words how his Kayastha lineage affected the arc of his life. No links please, just words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to know why wikipedia has kept his caste in cover?? I think its very intentionally,please put his caste he was a Bengali Kayastha by caste Argha 19 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Haynes is already there; why cite the same evidence he cites from multiple authors - especially, when they do not make any any claims about Bose's legacy? He and Casolari provide the most comprehensive treatment of Subhas Bose's adventures in Nazi Lands and they are sufficient. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You have used Bruckenhaus as a supporting citation but he speaks nothing about Bose's legacy. The place to use him is in the body where a detailed analysis of the cirumstances governing Bose's choices can be engaged in. I do not get the need of using low-quality sources like Kumaraswamy either.

Both Hayes and Casolari are excellent sources - leave at it. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

However, I wonder whether "antisemitism" shall be replaced with something more stronger but more accurate: "overlooking of Nazi atrocities incl. Holocaust."

The evidence is very very slim that Bose hold any personal opinion on Jews: the best example being supposed article in Goebbels’ Der Angriff, which has never been located. The rest, as Haynes puts it, is largely evidence of a radical nationalist blinded into caring for none but his own countrymen. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I was simply collecting all the relevant sources, as I've done in the past with other sections in this article, and they are more than just Haynes and Casolari. And the evidence is not slim in my view, he had given plenty while he was still in India, to which a large number of the remaining sources speak. Please see the discussion on my user talk page. Your comments are not helpful at this stage. As an experienced, competent, editor I know how to write an article such as this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I apologize for the last sentence above, which I have now scratched. I just noticed that you made a revert with edit summary, "I do not think this is NPOV; we need sources that EXPLICITLY note his legacy to be interspersed with antisemitism, which is a GRAVE charge" and then an hour later, a self-revert with "Reverted 1 edit by TrangaBellam (talk): Self-reverting until I write a detailed comment at talk-page" So, your comments are not coming out of the blue which is what I had thought. Well, "vex" has a fairly precise meaning in this context, and it is not "interspersed." it means, "Of a question, problem, subject, etc.: to present with difficulties with regard to resolution or understanding; to perplex, confound." (OED) For years the lead used to say, "a troubled legacy." But someone mentioned on the talk page that "troubled" is vague, and therefore not encyclopedic. The change was an effort to make it precise. I was collecting sources so as to transparently write the sentence and to then write a Legacy section (or rewrite it) Anti-Semitism is very much a part of what Bose's legacy is confounded with longer, i.e. starting earlier than his Berlin years. He is not just a radical nationalist who is willing to condone anything done by others as long as he can pursue his goals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the bits out. Why not use your sandbox to build the lead? Having references at the end of line, which do not support the claims (absent orig. research or synthesis) is misleading, even if temporary.

Haynes, the only scholar who has produced an academic monograph on the episode, is very explicit that the real deal with Bose's legacy is "overlooking" of Nazi policies and atrocities. In his conclusion, he even goes out on a limb to claim that if Bose had known the real depths of Nazi atrocities, a condemnation would have certainly arose. But I look forward to your sources.

I do not have any admiration for Bose or his ways—having been the first editor to propose utilizing Casolari, a year back and noting that our article goes easy on Bose's flings with Nazism—but we do have a responsibility to be accurate and true to sources. My view—upon a reading of Haynes and Casolari—remains that he was a [mediocre] radical nationalist, willing to condone anything done by others as long as he can pursue his goals.TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That being said, I am not a native speaker of English and I will think about "vex". TrangaBellam (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Casolari notes that Bose did undeniably know of Nazi policies etc. but (p. 114) concludes:

The nature of Bose’s relations with the totalitarian regimes is still open to debate and will perhaps never be entirely clear. There can be little doubt, however, that he entertained with the Axis powers an opportunistic relationship. On the basis of the principle ‘my foe’s foes are my friends’, Italy, Germany and Japan could be India’s friends, at least until the British Raj had collapsed.

TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have all the books, including Casolari. I don't think Haynes and Casolari are the only two books, nor do I think they are the most rigorous. The reason I chose "vexed" was to be able to include more of all the authors than I have quoted in the sources. The thing is that Bose opposed a Congress party resolution condemning Kristallnacht in 1938 when he was President, (which Casolari mentions but she is merely paraphrasing other authors) way back in 1938; he opposed another resolution of Nehru supporting refuge for European Jewish professionals in India. There was clear evidence of anti-Semitism. It is more than overlooking anti-Semitism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any source says he's mediocre. In the sources, he comes across as charismatic, driven, and a major Indian nationalist; the radical or socialist is secondary. Neither Haynes or Casolari is a Bose-historian of the stature of a Leonard A. Gordon; they themselves (at least Haynes) say that somewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

PS I've updated the spelling of the name: Romain Hayes. It is not Haynes. There was also the original book on Bose in Germany Germany in the time before and during Bose from which a lot has been borrowed, cited, or quoted by many others; it is Hauner, Milan (1981), India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Leonard Gordon reviewed Hauner in 1983 in India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War. by Milan Hauner Review by: Leonard A. Gordon The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Aug., 1983), pp. 989-990, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2054830. He begins the review with: "This long-awaited, searching examination of the place of India in Axis (particularly German) strategic thinking and activity from 1939 to 1942 is based on an investigation of British and German records that is unlikely to be attempted again or matched. It also draws on a wide reading of the literature of World War II, published Japanese and Italian documents, and a considerable understanding of the thinking and activities of the Italians and Japanese as grasped through German records. It complements, therefore, the excellent studies of the Indian National Army seen more in its Asian setting by Joyce Lebra, Hugh Toye, and K. K. Ghosh as well as the recent study of India in the war period by Johannes H. Voigt; and it parallels the skillful work by Lukasz Hirszowicz in The Third Reich and the Arab East. Hauner does make an effort to connect Indian nationalism and Axis strategies and actions, but his main focus is on the "often confused and pluralistic character of Nazi foreign policy" (p. 34)" Famous last words, ..., from half a century ago, now.

In a more recent review, Leonard Gordon has panned Romain Hayes's book (for the most part). I will post a link to that too later. But then Gordon has been criticized by others (I believe) for not taking Bose to task for his German misdemeanors, figuratively speaking. (This is one of the most worked over topic areas of modern history. So, there are going to be a lot of views.) I guess my point is that Romain Hayes's book should not be seen as the be-all and end-all. The more the merrier (in my view) at this stage of writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I thank you TrangaBellam for mentioning Marzia Casolari earlier. Her book sparked my interest again in this phase of Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Gordon is a biographer of Bose - how can you even compare him and Hayes? That being said, if you do prefer Gordon, you need to strike out the bits about antisemitism. Gordon had panned Hayes' book because he found Hayes to be too critical of Bose; it is disingenuous to leverage him in arguing that Hayes be treated at par with shriller non-specialist sources.

You have reinserted Bruckenhaus as a supporting citation and I reiterate that the source says nothing about Bose's legacy - antisemitic or whatever kind. The place to use him is in the body where a detailed analysis of the circumstances governing Bose's choices can be engaged in. You have also reinserted Joan G. Roland whose entire argument derive from The Jewish Chronicle's rebut to an article by Bose in Goebbel's newspaper. This is already mentioned in the preceding citation by Hayes, who had added that the article has been never located in archives. Since Roland does not speak of Bose's legacy, the only purpose served by the reference is to lead a reader to conclude that Bose was indeed Anti-semitic.

In the same vein, what is the purpose of Gerhard L. Weinberg? Weinberg notes historians to have not engaged with Bose's reactions to Japanese or German war-crimes. Colin Shindler is an executive summary of Aafreedi: mentions the same points of (a) Bose having opposed a resolution on Jews and (b) Bose's article inAngriff. I have already described the circumstances surrounding the latter. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You know nothing about the topic. You have written nothing of consequence on Wikipedia. You are blustering away about titbits that I have quoted to give the reader a general idea about the topic. As such I see you as nothing but a disruptive presence. I will continue to write the article. Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not care for your opinions of me and my knowledge; if you do not cease with personal attacks, you will be at WP:AE. There is a reason why multiple longstanding contributors (cc: Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan) hate to collaborate with you on anything: I suggest that you introspect on your behavior rather than throwing temper tantrums. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do take me to AE in this instance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"I reiterate" you say, "that the source says nothing about Bose's legacy - antisemitic or whatever kind." The cited author says, " As the western empires fought against Nazi Germany, most anticolonialists felt that they could no longer support, simultaneously, the emancipatory projects of anticolonialism and antifascism. Some, such as Subhas Chandra Bose, began to cooperate with the radically racist Nazis against colonialism, while others decided to work against Nazism with the very western authorities who had been engaged, over the previous decades, in creating a widespread network of trans-national surveillance against them." If you cooperate with a radically racist regime, what form of racism are you cooperating with if not anti-Semitism. Again, were are not required to provide sources that say, "Bose's legacy is: X, Y, and Z." Different authors do so in different ways. There are many ways to skin that cat. Similarly, you are nickel and diming Leonard A. Gordon's review of Hayes's book. I brought it up to make the point that there are many authors here, many shades of critical opinion. We can't put all our eggs in one basket. This is an art not a science. Similarly, Leonard A. Gordon has not panned Hayes's book because the latter is too critical of Bose. I didn't say that. I said only, "But then Gordon has been criticized by others (I believe) for not taking Bose to task for his German misdemeanors, figuratively speaking." A good part of the review (at least the first half) is about the errors of interpretation in Hayes or the lack of completeness. Here are a few paragraphs from R. Hayes (2011). Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany. Politics, Intelligence and Propaganda 1941–43. By: Gordon, Leonard A., Diplomacy & Statecraft, 09592296, Mar2012, Vol. 23, Issue 1:

Hayes details Bose's efforts week by week, especially from the spring of 1941 to mid-1942 to procure a declaration of Free India from the Germans and Italians. He describes, all too briefly, the work of the Free India Centre (a propaganda effort) and the training of the Indian Legion, a fighting force composed of captured Indian prisoners brought to Germany from North Africa. Given the sources to which he had access and the interviews he mentions, it is regrettable that he did not explore how the Indian work in Europe looked from the point of view of these soldiers. Hayes sometimes simplifies and distorts when he quotes other books. He uses this writer's biography (Brothers against the Raj: A Biography of Indian Nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose, 1990) as a source for asserting that Bose had a marriage according to Hindu rites. I, however, said that there were many different stories about when and how and if Bose married and none had been proved. Hayes asserts that Adam von Trott zu Solz "disliked Bose" and uses a biography of Bose by Mihir Bose as his source. Mihir Bose and this writer used the same sources to say that Subhas Bose and Trott never became close but dislike is much too strong. They worked together, but each had a different mission and neither fully understood the other. This was confirmed in my interviews with Trott's widow, Clarita, during the 1980s. ... With Bose's departure for Southeast Asia in February 1943, Hayes drops him like a hot potato. He also makes glaring errors (pp. 82, 84) in referring to the Indian National Army in Southeast Asia, having it fighting in Malaya and then helping the Japanese to capture Singapore even before it was formed. It was the brainchild of Japanese intelligence, particularly of Major (later Lieutenant-General) Fujiwara Iwaichi, who helped to shape it from the prisoners taken at Singapore by the Japanese.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Updated with the review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Gordon, Leonard A., "75 years of World War II: Trans-global solidarities in S. Asia", UCLA, Aug 2020

Hayes has produced a detailed account of Bose's maneuvers in Germany, using copious amount of archival sources esp. from Germany. Yet the definitive account remains to be written. Much of his [Hayes'] evidence can be interpreted to argue, as he graciously concedes, to portray Bose as a shrewd opportunist than someone with any fascist or racist inclinations.

TrangaBellam (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Emphasis and interpolations are mine. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Further, we do need to provide sources that say, "Bose's legacy is: X, Y, and Z."

You cannot take random sources that mention of Bose's collaboration with Nazi Germany or his refusal to pass certain resolutions to derive that antisemitism is a part of Bose's legacy. That is textbook synthesis. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stick to one argument.

• You started with, "Haynes (sic) is already there; why cite the same evidence he cites from multiple authors - especially, when they do not make any any (sic) claims about Bose's legacy? He and Casolari provide the most comprehensive treatment of Subhas Bose's adventures in Nazi Lands and they are sufficient." In response, I suggested that neither Hayes nor Casolari are the most rigorous. I brought up Leonard Gordon's review of Hayes's book to make the point that Leonard A. Gordon, Bose's definitive biographer, found Hayes to be sloppy as well in his interpretations of others. In other words, it is best to let the other authors that you claim Hayes to be summarizing, and whose citations you wish to remove, speak for themselves.
• You also began by suggesting that the evidence is slim that Bose held any personal opinion on Jews. But if a person's legacy is vexed, i.e. "confounded, present(ed) with difficulties with regard to resolution or understanding (OED)" with anti-Semitism, they don't have to have a personal opinion of the Jewish people. The sources that I have brought to bear bring up a past of several years before his arrival in Germany in which he had opposed either the Indian National Congress's resolutions condemning Kristallnacht or supporting refuge for Jewish professionals in India. Nehru, for example, his opponent in many of these arguments, was instrumental in bringing quite a few to India and Burma and the two had been disagreeing about that for some time before.
• You suggested that Hayes's Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany (a book which was published in 2011 and which I have used in this article, and in Emilie Schenkl and Special Bureau for India since 2013, if not earlier) and Marzia Casolari (2020) are sufficient: "I do not get the need" you said," of using low-quality sources like Kumaraswamy either. Both Hayes and Casolari are excellent sources - leave at it." In response, I have quoted extensively from Gordon's review." I am attempting to make a point that historical interpretation is not a precise science, that different authors make different judgments of notable personalities, events, and each other's works. Gordon for example is on point about Hayes's sloppy interpretation of Bose's Hindu marriage ceremony but is quibbling slightly about Hayes's "Adam von Trott, a senior official at the Special India Bureau, tried to entice Shedai by offering him control of the Free India Centre and the POWs, even going as far as to suggest reducing Bose to a figurehead. Trott, who personally disliked Bose, was speaking for himself as he had not received any such instructions from his superiors." Gordon, however, does say, "Most of the German Foreign Office group—Trott, Alexander Werth, Freda Kretschmer—appear to have disliked (Emilie Schenkl) her intensely. They believed that she and Bose were not married and that she was using her liason with Bose to live an especially comfortable life during the hard times of war. ...Bose acknowledged his family. But the woman he chose, though she contributed to his own work and life, helped alienate the very anti-Nazi Foreign Office officials to whom he might have come closer." So, perhaps, Hayes can be forgiven for saying that Trott "personally disliked" Bose.
• What now is the point of citing some other quote from Gordon? All he says is that Haye's evidence can be equally used to interpret that Bose did not have Fascist or racist inclinations. Who is talking about "inclinations" here? If a notable personality has been interpreted by quite a few authors (both before and after Hayes or Casolari penned theirs) to have positively discriminated against Jews by their actions, have been summarized to have collaborated with a radically racist regime, how can we not say that their legacy is confounded with anti-Semitism? We do that routinely in other articles, for example, Narendra Modi, when we say, "Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding," cited to half a dozen sources. And when people query, we refer them to the sources.
• I have also just noticed that you have made perplexing comments about JoshuaJonathan and Kautilya3. I have had my disagreements with them, but we agree on a large number of issues. Kautilya3, for example, and I have kept the Kashmir page vandalism-free for years. JoshuaJonathan and collaborated on a number of historical issues, despite our disagreements, for example the lead of Sanskrit.
• Finally, you have taken a bizarre stab at a summary, "(SCB is) a [mediocre] radical nationalist, willing to condone anything done by others as long as he can pursue his goals." He was not mediocre in any sense. I chalk that to your unfamiliarity with modern South Asian history. He was a major Indian nationalist, a charismatic and talented man besides. And he wasn't willing to condone anything. He certainly did not condone the Allies' fight against Germany; he positively opposed it. In other words, he positively opposed the anti-Fascists, not just condemnations of anti-Semitism. What you are suggesting is a very dangerous road to go down. This is as far as I go in engaging you. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Much of what you say is usual bluster, that is so characteristic of you. I will rebut to two particular points:

when we say, "Under Modi's tenure, India has experienced democratic backsliding," cited to half a dozen sources. And when people query, we refer them to the sources. - Thanks but no thanks.

There are half-a-dozen sources who explicitly note that India's democracy has regressed since Modi arrived. We do not append sources that claim (a) India's media-freedom has regressed under Modi or (b) that provisions of sedition are wantonly abused in Modi's India or something similar, and lead a reader to the conclusion.

Though an argument can be made, as in here, about how such actions do constitute democratic backsliding.

JoshuaJonathan and collaborated on a number of historical issues.

To quote from the horse's mouth: This attitude of yours is why I gave up "discussing" with you after the previous discussion []; it's useless. You're not open to discussion.

Whenever somebody dares to cross your path and oppose your edits, you harp about how all the FAs that you wrote and how nobody else understands the sources in their proper context. In the most condescending manner that can be possible.

Multiple editors including but not limited to Moxy (You are great at belittling people and is why people simply give up in trying to help the article.), 力 (If you don't dial down the constant implications that no other editors know anything about India, I will start an ANI thread about your behavior.), and पाटलिपुत्र (thread) have made the same observations within the past year. There are many others, that I have not bothered to link. You have already pinged Kautilya3; so he can explain whether my statement (there is a reason why multiple longstanding contributors (cc: Kautilya3) hate to collaborate with you on anything) was correct or not.

To conclude, I have never met an editor as toxic, incivil, and hostile as you and I think that this is a clever strategy to remove editorial opponents. I won't participate at this talk-page any further. But at the instance of the next repetition of such behavior, you will be explaining at ANI/AE about the many FAs. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't pinged anyone. I typically don't remember interactions with Wikipedians. But I did write large portions of Death of Subhas Chandra Bose, Emilie Schenkl, Special Bureau for India, and the first section of SCB. No interaction with any WP, pleasant or unpleasant, matches the discovery of these events, characters, and places, for example, the empathy born of the knowledge of SCB in the last months of his life ensuring that the mostly Tamilian single young women who had joined the INA were safely returned to their parents' homes in Malaya and Singapore, and Emilie Schenkl in the months immediately thereafter working away at the Vienna switchboard, a single parent raising a daughter, neither having talked much about their mutual relationship. That is why I never take anyone to ANI, for I don't remember them, only these characters that you have judged to be mediocre. That is also why ANI holds no meaning for me. If you take me, you'll waste your time, I won't respond. What will they do, ban me? Big deal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I think TrangaBellam pinged Kautilya (and Moxy and JJ), not fowler. For the record. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: Would you mind listing the sources you believe are unreliable, along with an explanation? The tag is way to generic to be meaningful without explication. Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry did not mean to add... buton slip I guess. Have no clue about the topic....was just on talk page because of a ping.Moxy- 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for removing it. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s demise is controversial. There is no proof of his death. Putting death date is misleading. 99.244.138.3 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Still can't see your source for that. Britmax (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

he didnt die in plane crash 49.37.108.252 (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change nationality and citizenship to "Indian" Cnaru (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Add per free sources netaji died at 18th September 1985 223.235.173.48 (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please point us to the sources. Britmax (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's 16th September 1985. S882iiqu2ey6 (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, where are you getting these dates from? Britmax (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Bose's date of death, 18 August 1945, is now sourced to ten reliable scholarly sources, nine of which are in a stack which includes Indian, Japanese, British, and Southeast Asian work, and one, Leonard Gordon, Bose's definitive biographer, is by himself. They constitute cites [4] and [5]. Please don't change the format to Sfn in these cites, although the format should be fine in later ones. Those who question Bose's date of death here can be safely referred to [4] and [5]. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You are not ready to accept any books except your 10 books. Why? I I can give you proof from more reliable books and sources, why you are not ready to delete this false death date of Bose? BadhanDharBN (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean additional reliable sources, or sources that are more reliable? In either case, let's see them, please. Britmax (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

subhash Subash 2409:4042:4D99:AEF5:0:0:CB8B:830C (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Subhas is how reliable sources spell his first name. And as Subhas spelled it himself. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Subhas Chandra Bose has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

List the accounts which have access to this page. Data needed for the transparency purpose. 14.139.196.12 (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone whose account is autoconfirmed. So that's somewhere in the region of 2.2 million accounts. Nthep (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

List the accounts, Nthep. 97.94.199.166 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To get autoconfirmed, you need an acount, 4 days of account age and at least 10 edits. WP:NOTCENSORED also comes to mind. A09090091 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the various IP's think there is only a handful of accounts who can edit this article (and hence by implication controlling it) rather than somewhere in excess of 2,200,000 who could edit it. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

After Netaji's sudden disappearance, in Ayodhya a monk named Gumnami Baba or Bhagwanji was Netaji. Netaji's Very closed ones personally visited Gumnami baba and confirmed that he was netaji indeed. A team is researching on this topic and showed a lot of proof to the government about the confirmation. But somehow it went in vain. Finally the disappearance of netaji still is a mystery. Srijitaaaaa (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read about the dozens of conspiracy theories about Bose in Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. He died of third-degree burns in the plane crash of August 18, 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)