Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Subhas Chandra Bose. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Problematic and biased lead sentence

This is regarding Fowler&fowler's reversion of my 6 May 2025 edits altering the leading sentence, which in its current form reads "Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero among many Indians, but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and military failure."

I attempted to modify this to a softer "but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan left him a controversial figure" and relegated discussion regarding his antisemitism and other specific controversies to later in the lead.

This is a sensible change as the placement of the antisemitism charge in the current version is undue and a violation of WP:NPOV. Most importantly, it is a misrepresentation of the provided sources. It appears to be a collection of cherry-picked sources talking about Bose and his relationship with Jews. However, in each cited quote from the source, it is not alleged that Bose was antisemetic. They mostly claim that Bose ignored the Holocaust and other atrocities. It is WP:SYNTH to derive from this an antisemetic motivation. In fact, one of the sources flatly contradicts the allegation of antisemitism, with Cronin (2025) writing "Bose's opinions did not stem from a place of deep ideological antisemitism".

There are similar problems with the other charges. For instance, his military failure is brought up. While this is true, it's not clear how due it is. Most Axis military leaders were, in the final result, failures, simply because they were on the losing side of the war. While the military inefficacy of the INA is worth discussing (perhaps even in the lead), it's unclear why this is being shoehorned awkwardly into the first sentence.

Moreover, the usage of the participial phrase "vexed by" is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and an instance of editorializing, as it is imposing a normative judgement on the ideologies of antisemitism and authoritarianism when the sources cited do not do this. "Vexed by" implies that there are many people today who are actively hostile towards Bose and his legacy because of his alleged antisemitism and authoritarianism; there is nothing in the quoted sources which substantiates this.

I was told by F&F that the current lead was the result of a "meticulously" obtained consensus. I have looked carefully at the edit history and the talk page history. The current version was introduced in 2022. It appears that F&F was principally the only person adamantly supporting these changes. The evidence does not support a particularly strong historical consensus for this and many have objected to it over the past few years, only to be overruled by F&F. JDiala (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I note your previous history, JDiala, of using racial epithets and your defence of it, both extraordinary and offhand, citing Edward Said's idiosyncratic take on Orientalism—of many-splendored meanings, that even Said had no direct knowledge (i.e. derived from a study of the primary sources)—for there was no paternalism involved when it was applied to James Prinsep, to whom modern India owes its awareness of Ashoka and Buddhism or William Jones to whom India owes its awareness of the origins of Sanskrit (whose lead I wrote in collaboration with Joshua Jonathan, I think). Perhaps you would also like to post on Talk:Sanskrit for most of India (95% of its population) does not think a progentor of classical Sanskrit was in import into the subcontinent.

Coming back to Bose, it is not true that the reference to antisemitism goes back no farther than 2022, for many years before that it spoke of a "troubled legacy," in the lead sentence in the citations to which antisemitism and authoritarianism are clear.

It was only when someone or other objected to "troubled" and I received an early copy of Marzia Casolari's book, that I made the legacy more explicit. In the current citations to antisemitism is that of Vinay Lal who no one to my knowledge has accused of racial paternalism.

Three years have gone by since January 2022 when the explicated lead sentence appeared and it has remained in place since, not to mention there are at least half a dozen more sources published by academic publishers that mince no words about this.

As for "vexed," it is used in the meaning of "OED I.3.b. Of a question, problem, subject, etc.: to present with difficulties with regard to resolution or understanding; to perplex, confound.," not "harass or trouble," which is what we are attempting to move away from. I am reasonably sure I said that somewhere earlier.

I should add that what objections there have been to Bose or the INA on Wikipedia, are often those of being a "quisling" or "puppet." See Indian National Army whose revised, NPOV, sourced, lead, I wrote after a long effort to root out those terms in Talk:Indian_National_Army#The_bone_of_contention. (I should note if we are going to rope in the opinions of a country's population: A large part of India does not believe Bose died in a plane crash on August 18, 1945. See Death of Subhas Chandra Bose)

Finally, as my use page notes up top, I am staying away from extended talk page discussion. I will defer to this article's old watchers: such as Martin of Sheffield or admins of South Asia-related content: RegentsPark , Vanamonde, Abecedare. If there is an extended discussion here, then the participants in the INA RfC, including those from WP:RS/N, should be included here. All the best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC) (Added a ping Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC))

The term "white" is not an epithet. It is used in mainstream scholarship all the time (e.g., whiteness studies). It is eminently reasonable to point out pro-Western cultural biases in an article on a major PoC historical figure, which was the point of my comment. But this is beside the point, if you're concerned that I was rude you can take it to ANI. This has nothing to do with improving the article which is the purpose of the talk page.

Onto the substance of your response. You write that "it is not true that the reference to antisemitism goes back no farther than 2022" and cite this diff. But the text of the lead sentence in this version (from December 2021) has no explicit reference to antisemitism. In fact it's far closer to the version I introduced in my 6 May 2025 edit. Thus, the main point of contention in our discussion here is actually your "making explicit" (your words) in early 2022, which I have argued is undue, OR, SYNTH and a misrepresentation of the sources. You haven't attempted to deal with the points I raised regarding this. You have addressed the choice of "vexed" but this is not the most important point; the main issue is how you are dealing with sources. I will still maintain though that "vexed" is not the most clear word and a word which may be suggestive of a particular interpretive viewpoint. Per MOS:WTW we generally prefer clear, neutral and precise vocabulary. This is particularly imperative for controversial lead sentences.

Your suggestion in your edit summary that this lead sentence was reached after "meticulous" discussion is somewhat misleading as it really seems to me that the decision to alter the lead sentence in 2022 (and maintain it as such in the years following, reverting edits by those who objected it) was largely a one-man project by yourself. There is nothing wrong with this per se, and your work on the article is appreciated, but the fact that it is chiefly just you who prefers this version does seem to me to undermine the degree of alleged consensus. Furthermore, merely being "longstanding" is not an adequate reason to maintain a version; even longstanding things occasionally need to be fixed. JDiala (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment 331dot, Daniel Case: No sooner had this editor (JDiala) emerged from their two-week block than they began to engage in racial baiting in the guise of a content dispute here. Historians such as Vinay Lal at UCLA or Navras J. Afreedii, an Indian Jewish historian at Presidency University, Kolkata, are not typically criticized in "Whiteness studies." Also, JDiala, who had no history of editing this article before their first edit just before their block (see also my post on their user talk page), seems to be directing their criticism unduly at me whereas their are other editors, such as Toddy1, Capitals00, and Flemmish Nietzsche, who have engaged in discussion before, see here. Other editors summarized what I added to the lead in the article's legacy sections. As I have explained on my user page and user talk page, I am unable to participate in extended talk page discussions at present. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

My original text in this discussion makes absolutely no mention of race. You brought up my edit summary from two weeks ago (which did, briefly, mention race, not in a WP:PA context to attack other editors or to 'race-bait' but as a purely scholarly criticism to highlight what I perceived were the Westro-centric aspects of this article, which is reasonable and not unusual in liberal arts) in your reply. But this edit summary was prior to my block (NB to other editors reading this, that block was unrelated to this article, it was an inadvertent 3RR violation on an another article). In the current discussion, I only responded to your allegation. So, it is false to say that I "began to engage in racial baiting" following the block. To the contrary, it is you who seem to be fixated on that edit summary (which was already brought up by you on my talk page without administractor reprimand), and don't seem to be wanting to engage in the substance of the content dispute.

The discussion you linked is interesting. You stated earlier that the current lead version was the result of "meticulous" discussion. But nothing in that discussion strikes me as "meticulous". Flemmish Nietzsche actually takes a soft view on the content, writing that its removal would be "uncontroversial", whereas Malhar1234 is also on my side. The repeated reversions of this lead over the years does seem to indicate a weak level of consensus, reinforcing the importance of a discussion.

You write that you "are unable to participate in extended talk page discussions at present" but it is not clear why other editors should be expected to accommodate this. See WP:OWN. Personally, I am willing to be somewhat reasonable and give you a more lengthy period to reply if required, but this is a gesture of goodwill and has its limits. Ultimately, if you are not able to effectively contribute to the consensus-building process in a discussion, then it is not clear why your views on this (and other controversial edits requiring discussion) must be considered . JDiala (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Flemmish Nietzsche didn't say the removal would be uncontroversial. She said, "The only notable change to the lead was the removal of the clause "but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and military failure", which from an outside viewers perspective does not seem like a very uncontroversial removal." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a meticulous discussion. Are you planning on addressing the specific substantive points I raised? JDiala (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@JDiala: Removing a meaningful statement from the lead and replacing them with a statement that he was a controversial figure is not helpful. Many of the biographical articles on present-day Indian figures either have "controversy sections" or have statements that this or that he/she did was controversial. An Indian politician who supported Hitler and Hideki Tojo during World War II is in a whole different league than that. Noticing that huge difference is Bharat-centric not "Westro-centric".

Regarding writing walls of text, very few people read them, and it is often hard to get the point (and often there was no point to get). I think he/she has answered you. Let other people have a say - and don't put words in other people's mouths. If editor X thinks you are right, he/she can say so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

If the 'walls of text' bother you, let's keep this very simple. The lead says Bose is antisemetic. The sources cited do not. Therefore, the claim should be removed. JDiala (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You should read the quotations that support the statement - they do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

They do not, for the reasons I outlined in my original text. This is textbook SYNTH. JDiala (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Toddy1. While I am open to suggestions to rewording the lede sentence (and, in particular, suggest combining some of the notes, so it looks less refbomb-y), JDiala's version that replaced particulars critiques with weasely "controversial" was not an improvement.

Also not impressed by JDiala's reasoning for the edit here based on scholars' supposed race, or their failure to simply admit fault when they misread/misrepresented Flemmish Nietzsche's position and their attempt to bluster through it instead. Abecedare (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This was a minor good-faith misinterpretation which doesn't really undermine the gist of my point, namely that meticulous discussion on the topic of Bose and his alleged antisemitism never really took place since the 2022 edit, contrary to what F&F claimed. JDiala (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

JDiala, this is getting tendentious. You misrepresented what Flemmish Nietzsche said. Didn't admit and apologize for it. And you keep insisting that the previous and current discussions didn't meet you standard of being "meticulous" when neither the sources nor any of the editors here support your proposed changes. Keep in mind that no one is obligated to satisfy you. Abecedare (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The tendentious one was F&F, as he steered the discussion into a rant about me using mean words two whole weeks ago (pinging admins too) rather than engaging with my arguments. I am not imposing my standard of meticulousness; the word 'meticulous' was originally used by F&F (see the edit summaries) when he was doing his "appeal to long-standing consensus" bit when reverting my edit.

I am the only one here actually wanting to talk about the sources themselves. That was the original point of my post. I've attached a further detailed analysis of the sources below. JDiala (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Analysis of the sources re: antisemitism by JDiala

I'd like to carefully analyze each of the provided sources for the antisemitism allegation. I will concede that, contrary to my original claim, there are a few sources that are acceptable for this. However, the majority do not support the allegation, and overall the claim is not DUE for inclusion in the lead sentence in light of the generally meagre sourcing.

A checkmark means a source supports the claim, a cross implies otherwise.

Vinay (2025), Hayes (2011), Casorali (2020) N

I will remind everyone of the standard set in WP:OR: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

In each of these three sources, there is no specific, clear allegation of antisemitism as stipulated by OR. These sources are just talking about how Bose ignored and didn't care about the Nazi victims. Not caring about someone does not clearly imply hatred, so this is OR. As we speak, there are atrocities happening throughout the world and yet many people simply do not care about said atrocities. This is not necessarily based on hatred for the victims. It could be due to other reasons. For politically active people, like Bose, it could simply be an amoral realpolitik, for example. This is precisely the kind of unreasonable inference that OR seeks to avoid.

Weinberg (2011) N

This is probably the worst of the bunch. It has nothing to do with Jews and the author is only talking about Gypsies and Asian women in Japanese-occupied territories. It cannot be used for an antisemitism allegation.

Shindler (2011), Aafreedi (2021) Y

These both reference an anti-Semetic op-ed Bose published in Goebbels Der Angriff. These are fair sources for the claim, but they are based on a common original source, so there is a certain redundancy.

Kumaraswamy (2010) Y

This source discusses an anti-Semetic comment made by Bose: "[Britain] has to please Jews because she cannot ignore Jewish high finance." I agree that this comment provides evidence of the claim, as the author explicitly describes it as an "anti-Jewish slur".

However, the latter half of the quote discussing Bose's efforts to refuse the settlement of Jewish refugees in India cannot be taken as evidence of antisemitism, as Kumaraswamy does not clearly state that. An inference of that kind would be OR, as it is not a "clear" inference that a nativist point-of-view on refugee settlement is indicative of racial hatred.

Cronin (2025) N

This source is interesting as it seems to contradict the antisemitism allegation. Cronin writes that Bose's views and reluctance to intervene in Nazi atrocities did not stem from a "deep ideological antisemitism", but were mostly expedient and based on a suspicion of the British. This is an actually argument in my favour.

Summary

To summarize, the only good evidence we have is a Der Angriff op-ed and an off-hand quotation cited by Kumaraswamy, and we have at least one scholar (Cronin) admitting that Bose was not an ideological antisemite. Moreover, even in the "good" sources (Shindler, Aafreedi, Kumaraswamy) Bose's alleged antisemitism is only discussed in passing; there is not a large corpus of scholarly material discussing this. In light of the meagre sourcing and Cronin's rebuttal, it is reasonable that discussion regarding antisemitism only be placed elsewhere in the article, not in the lead sentence per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:LEAD. Specifically per WP:LEAD, "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". The scholarly evidence provided does not support that antisemitism was a significant aspect of this person's life or worldview. JDiala (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

My reading of the quotes provided in the article's footnotes differs from your. Before commenting above, I did read them to see if the article's lede was based on "guilt by association" or possibly Bose's indifference to antisemitism, but the sources and quotes provided show that Bose bought into and promoted anti-semitism. Whether his anti-semistism was based on ignorance, ideology or expedience can be detailed in the article body but the origins and motivation do not rebut its existence. And IMO a simple mention of anti-semitism in the lede para is WP:DUE and, as I said above, certainly preferable to replacing the particulars with "controversial". Abecedare (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say I'm strongly opposed to mentioning it somewhere in the lead. Just not in the lead sentence, as it is bizarre location for such a relatively minor aspect of his life. For comparison, similar controversial figures like Robert E Lee or Hirohito include discussion of controversy but only well later into the lead. Even in the Hitler article is the Holocaust discussed only several sentences in, not the lead sentence. JDiala (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It is not a minor aspect of his life. It is in the lead sentence not just the lead paragraph because antisemitism (from the mid-1930s to just before his death in August 1945), authoritarianism (by association with Nazism and Japanese Fascism) and military failure (which caused the deaths not just of half the INA but a large proportion of the Japanese army) have become the central feature of his legacy. Obviously, he had a very minimal role in the final and successful campaign for India's independence. The Congress took pains to keep him at arms length after 1938. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You need a source arguing that antisemitism was a 'central' feature of his legacy. So far, you have a single op ed and an offhand quote where Bose makes antisemetic comments, exactly zero scholarly sources describing antisemitism as 'central' to his worldview, and one which clearly states that his antisemitism was expedient and not ideological. JDiala (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Reality check: JDiala compared the 1st paragraphs of the lead of the articles on Bose and Hitler. The one on Bose has three sentences, one negative and two positive about Bose. The one on Hitler has four negative sentences, accusing him of being (1st) a dictator, (2nd) a Nazi, (3rd) starting the Second World War, (4th) being responsible for the Holocaust and other things. Can you imagine what would happen to me if I rewrote 1st paragraph on Hitler to be 2/3rds positive.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The moral 'positivity' and 'negativity' of a claim as deemed by editors is not the standard here; it is the preponderance of the claim in reliable sources. Virtually every source discussing Hitler talks about antisemitism, the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes. I would suggest carefully reading over WP:DUE. JDiala (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Virtually every source discussing Hitler talks about ... Not true. You should read more widely.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

See citation 16 Lal, Vinay (2025). "Gandhi, the Indian National Congress, and the Jewish Question". In Lal, Vinay (ed.). Gandhi, Truth, and Nonviolence: The Politics of Engagement in Post-Truth Times. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198936626. (p. 240) Such a hagiographic narrative is without a shred of credibility: Bose's involvement with fascism ran deep. A cottage industry has developed over the decades since Bose's death in a plane crash in Taipei on 18 August 1945, just days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, devoted to lionizing Bose's role in the 'freedom struggle', but the principal episodes in the narrative of Bose's complicity with Nazism—and, it may be noted at least in passing, Japanese militarism—are equally well established. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That means, freedom struggle, nazism (and its principal basis, antisemitism), and Japanese militarism, carry equal weight. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

As I've explained vexed is used in a special meaning. I'm happy to change it to "legacy complicated by authoritarianism, antisemitism, and military failure." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That is a poor source for similar reasons. The source does not clearly describe him as an antisemite (as would be required by WP:OR). The inference that "complicit with Nazism" -> "antisemite" is one that you are making, so this is OR. You can theoretically be complicit with criminals without agreeing with their motivations per se. JDiala (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

All that JDiala is doing is making it clear why the lead needed to ref-bombed with quotations in notes, to make it easy for readers to see what the statements were based on.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Toddy1, and now they are badgering me on Talk:India about the lead sentence in India, see here. Both are pages in which (as far as I am aware) they had not made a single edit until yesterday. They are unaware of the history of the lead sentence on that page, of the FAR, TFA (2nd October 2019 for Gandhi's 150th), the changes of the last five years made to update the article and the sections added therein. This is fast becoming one of the worst cases of WP:Sealioning I have experienced on Wikipedia. Noting for Valereee. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

False. I have previously participated in a discussion in Talk:India in August 2024, see this. With regard to this discussion, I will humbly concede for now (since it's 1-against-3), but if someone in agreement arrives in this discussion I will considering restarting. JDiala (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

"False", as a complete sentence, is a rather terse thing to say, JDiala. I read FF's comment that you'd not made a single edit as referring to India, the last page they mentioned, which indeed it looks like you haven't edited (unless you did so very long ago; I quickly checked the history for the past 7 years only). Obviously I can't be sure if they meant talk or main page, but I guess you can't either. Bishonen | tålk 15:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC).

India 0 edits
Talk:India - 3 posts in 2024 (9 edits), 5 posts in 2025 (6 edits).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not even the lead of the article for Tsar Nicholas II, despite being much longer, calls him an anti-Semite, even though he clearly was. The most it says is that his liberal opponents criticized him for "perceived fault or inaction" in pogroms, amongst several other things. I don't really want to catalog a whole list of articles on "anti-Semites better known for other things", but I'd bet that whatever standard you are using to decide this is WP:DUE is entirely aberrant. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, Reza Shah was also sympathetic to and associated with Nazi Germany, but has no content related to it in the 5 paragraph long lead. John Rabe, who was literally a Nazi party member, also has a lead far more favourable than Bose has. Whether or not Bose was anti-semitic is very much WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the lead. Anti-semitism is not why he has became famous or an encyclopedically relevant person. His wartime actions against the British, fighting for Indian independence, is what he is primarily known for. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Coming here from the Amin al-Husseini where this is linked to in the lead (as corollary for his nationalistic motivations). Not sure about the other descriptives used here but antimsemitism appears WP:UNDUE especially in the first lead sentence/para without context (compare this to the Husseini article's lead for instance, whose associations with Nazi German are much more controversial, or any anti-colonial Nazi collaborators). I have looked at the archives and here, the discussion over "vexed" is pointless, WP:READERs aren't opening dictionaries or pontificafing over what that means, placing it so prominently in the lead sentence will only lead to the conclusion that antisemitism was a major aspect of his life which simply isn't the case. Gotitbro (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Seems to me to be a case of false neutrality. The lead is great as is and doesnt need to whitewash a VERY controversial historical figure, and go against reliably sources in the process EarthDude (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Please explain how is it great. The opening sentence here is more critical of the subject than a lot of Category:Nazi Party members articles. Even though no one knows or remembers Bose for his supposed anti-semitism, that is not what he is WP:N for. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We cover controversial material regardless of the fact that some find it unpleasant about their favourite personalities. "Even though no one knows or remembers Bose for his supposed anti-semitism," - is not an argument based in policy, that information is sourced to several reliable sources. Read any non-Indian source about Bose, you will find his anti-semitism or collaboration with Nazis and Japanese Empire mentioned there. We don't write articles based on popular narratives of the subject but what scholarly sources say. I also agree with EarthDude that the lead was somewhat sanitized to compensate with Hindu nationalists who frequently complain on this talk page. His edits are largely fine. Orientls (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Why do you listen to Hindu nationalists at the first place? That will project a pathetically wrong picture, and given Wikipedia's prominence would allow Hindu nationalists to claim him as their own, which would be a laughable misrepresentation of his political leanings.
Secondly, I am not saying that don't write about his supposed anti-semitism. But, is it really WP:DUE for the opening sentence? No one, except those involved directly in the operation of concentration camps or Nazi machinery, use this level of condemnation at the opening sentence. Reza Shah, and the category I linked above, who were well known Nazis (or sympathizers) have nothing like that in their leads. Anti-semitism, if anything, had been a minor part of his political activity. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you have to listen to everyone and this article is among those that has unfortunately compensated with Hindu nationalists to whitewash this biography. What other articles say about their subject in the lead is irrelevant here. The scholarly sources that cover him provide significant coverage to his anti-semitism and association with Nazis, it is thoroughly covered in the body and therefore due in the lead. Orientls (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Leave it. I can't help someone understand if they themselves don't want to. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:DUE for his antisemitism to be included in the opening para though, because it was a big part of his life, considering his alliance with Nazi Germany and refusal to criticise the Holocaust. Not only that, the given sources for his anti-semitism are both abundant and clear in it being a major part of his life as well. It is only fair for it to be in the opening para then. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No one *on the right* knows or remembers Bose for his anti-semitism and affiliations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. But that was a massive part of his life. We say what reliable sources say and the current version of the lead very well follows highly reliable scholarly sources. The current version is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:UNDUE. Instead, I would argue, it is the proposed changes that violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP very egregiously, by openly whitewashing negative aspects of a figure such as Bose, and by going against reliable sources. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think everyone knows about his "affiliations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan", including the right. That, however, doesn't automatically make one an anti-semite, because the motivation for such an alliance was different. It would be like claiming that "Jeannette Rankin was anti-semite" for her vote against declaring war against Nazis or Japan. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not his affiliation with Nazi Germany that makes him an anti-semite but his own views that do. Consider reading the article body first before making pointless arguments. Orientls (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

First sentence reads awkwardly

The first sentence as written is a little off IMO. I think it could help readability if the two clauses were either split into two sentences, or if the ", but" was replaced with, e.g. "; however." Right now there are two relatively long independent clauses that are only separated by a comma. CarringtonMist (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It reads better with "but".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring over the infobox

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says that infoboxes are meant to summarise "key facts about the page's subject". MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE expands on this. An editor has twice removed information about Bose's death from the infobox, saying that he/she "Removed false death according to official documents of India government." This makes no sense - the information he/she deleted is backed by reliable sources, and summarises what the article says.

The same editor made an earlier edit, in which he/she tried to use the 2005 Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry as a source. If you are interested in this commission, read Death of Subhas Chandra Bose#Mukherjee Commission 2005. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I also oppose the changes. A primary source alone is not adequate especially when the topic is controversial and the primary source in question is known for its flaws and being used to peddle conspiracy theories elsewhere. Yue🌙 22:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Promotional and sentimental tone

Much of the article's prose is too promotional and sentimental in tone for Wikipedia's standards. Some examples from the article:

More information Examples ...

Examples

He succeeded with distinction in the first exam but demurred at taking the routine final exam, citing nationalism to be the higher calling.
Among many in India, he is seen as a hero, his saga serving as a would-be counterpoise to the many actions of regeneration, negotiation, and reconciliation over a quarter-century through which the independence of India was achieved.
From her, Subhas imbibed a nurturing spirit, looking for situations in which to help people in distress, preferring gardening around the house to joining in sports with other boys.
Despite the preoccupation, Subhas was able to demonstrate an ability when needed to focus on his studies, to compete, and to succeed in exams.
Successful candidates had also to clear a riding test. Having no fear of these subjects and being a rider, Subhas Bose felt the ICS was within easy reach.

I could go on and on. This is borderline hagiographic. This is literally textbook WP:NPOV, and especially WP:PEACOCK. The article needs a rewrite to be less promotional and sentimental in its prose. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur, and I support this edit by EarthDude. The language is unencyclopedic in tone and diction. "From her, Subhas imbibed a nurturing spirit ..." come on. Yue🌙 07:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is right, but the changes need to be looked at in detail. Some are an improvement, but not all. Looking at the edit you made that was later reverted:

You changed the wikilink "Indian nationalist" so it pointed to Indian nationalism instead of Indian independence movement. In the context, Indian independence movement looks more appropriate because it is more relevant and focussed.
You changed The early recipient of an Anglo-centric education, he was sent after college to England to take the Indian Civil Service examination. He succeeded with distinction in the first exam but demurred at taking the routine final exam, citing nationalism to be the higher calling. Returning to India in 1921, Bose joined the nationalist movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.
to He received an education oriented towards British standards and was subsequently sent to England to sit for the Indian Civil Service examination. He performed notably well in the initial examination but chose not to proceed with the standard final examination. Returning to India in 1921, Bose joined the Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (simply known as the Congress). I think your version is an improvement - though I would delete "(simply known as the Congress)" as excess verbiage.
You changed After the large majority to After a large majority. The original is better.
You changed In April 1941 Bose arrived in Nazi Germany, where the leadership offered unexpected but equivocal sympathy for India's independence.^[1] German funds were employed to open a Free India Centre in Berlin. A 3,000-strong Free India Legion was recruited from among Indian POWs captured by Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps to serve under Bose.^[2]^[a] Although peripheral to their main goals, the Germans
to In April 1941 Bose arrived in Nazi Germany, where the leadership offered sympathy for India's independence.^[1] German funds were employed to open a Free India Centre in Berlin. A 3,000-strong Indian Legion was recruited from among Indian prisoners of war (POW) captured by Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps to serve under Bose.^[2]^[b] The Germans. There is very little difference between the two versions, your version seems neither better nor worse than the original. So it is not worth making the change.

I may comment on the rest of your changes later.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I initially wanted to go further than just the lead. But my change was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus so here I am. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler @Toddy1 @Yue, let's discuss how the article should be rewritten to better comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In my opinion, the following statements should be removed from the Early Life section, and I have given the specific policies I believe they violate, in the list given below. Thoughts? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 03:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Statements for proposed removal ...

Statements for proposed removal

A self-made man from the rural outskirts of Calcutta, he had remained in touch with his roots, returning annually to his village during the pooja holidays. WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE
The curriculum included English—correctly written and spoken—Latin, the Bible, good manners, British geography, and British History; no Indian languages were taught. WP:BLOATED WP:UNDUE
At home, his mother worshipped the Hindu goddesses Durga and Kali, told stories from the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, and sang Bengali religious songs. WP:NPOV WP:BLOATED
Still, Janakinath read English literature avidly—John Milton, William Cowper, Matthew Arnold, and Shakespeare's Hamlet being among his favourites; several of his sons were to become English literature enthusiasts like him. WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE
Here, Bengali and Sanskrit were also taught, as were ideas from Hindu scriptures such as the Vedas and the Upanishads not usually picked up at home. WP:BLOATED WP:UNDUE
To his mother, he wrote long letters which displayed acquaintance with the ideas of the Bengali mystic Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and his disciple Swami Vivekananda, and the novel Ananda Math by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, popular then among young Hindu men. WP:BLOATED WP:UNDUE
Despite the preoccupation, Subhas was able to demonstrate an ability when needed to focus on his studies, to compete, and to succeed in exams. WP:NPOV WP:PEACOCK
Subhas Bose followed his five brothers again in 1913 to Presidency College, Calcutta, the historic and traditional college for Bengal's upper-caste Hindu men. [Here, the phrase "the historic and traditional college for Bengal's upper-caste Hindu men" should be removed. It is an unnecessary detail.]
In the long vacations of 1914, they traveled to northern India for several months to search for a spiritual guru to guide them. Subhas's family was not told clearly about the trip, leading them to think he had run away. During the trip, in which the guru proved elusive, Subhas came down with typhoid fever. His absence caused emotional distress to his parents, leading both parents to break down upon his return. Heated words were exchanged between Janakinath and Subhas. It took the return of Subhas's favorite brother, Sarat Chandra Bose, from law studies in England for the tempers to subside. Subhas returned to presidency and busied himself with studies, debating and student journalism. Extremely bloated and a completely unnecessary and irrelevant detail for the article also WP:UNDUE
In February 1916, Bose was alleged to have masterminded, or participated in, an incident involving E. F. Oaten, Professor of History at Presidency. Before the incident, it was claimed by the students, Oaten had made rude remarks about Indian culture, and collared and pushed some students; according to Oaten, the students were making an unacceptably loud noise just outside his class. A few days later, on 15 February, some students accosted Oaten on a stairway, surrounded him, beat him with sandals, and took to flight. An inquiry committee was constituted. Although Oaten, who was unhurt, could not identify his assailants, a college servant testified to seeing Subhas Bose and his classmate Ananga Dam among those fleeing, confirming for the authorities what they had determined to be the rumour among the students. Both Bose and Ananga Dam were expelled from the college and rusticated from University of Calcutta. [The information is important to a certain extent but dedicating an entire para on this single incident seems extremely WP:UNDUE. I think shortening this to a single sentence should work.]
In April 1921, Subhas Bose made his decision firm not to take the final examination for the ICS and wrote to Sarat informing him of the same, apologizing for the pain he would cause to his father, his mother, and other members of his family. [The phrase "apologizing for the pain he would cause to his father, his mother, and other members of his family" should be removed. Unnecessary detail and editorializing.]

It is meant to be a biography of Bose. So provided the examples you listed in your 24 July 2025 post above are supported by citations to reliable sources, I think they should stay.

You say that "apologizing [sic] for the pain he would cause to his father, his mother, and other members of his family" is editorialising - if it is supported by a reliable source it is fine (though "apologizing" is regarded as American-English these days - Bose was not American). -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like its way too much detail which is given undue weight though. As per WP:BLOATED, information that accounts as "excessive detail" or "trivia" should be removed. Also, what are your thoughts on the removal of phrases i markes as againts npov or peacock such as Despite the preoccupation, Subhas was able to demonstrate an ability when needed to focus on his studies, to compete, and to succeed in exams? EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I already answered that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Have you considered numbering some of these lists? It would make it easier for people to comment on them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't see your answer to that. Also, I have reworked the lists to make them more easily readable. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The edits by EarthDude were an improvement and used a clearer language for common readers. They should be restored. Orientls (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Second this. I went ahead and restored his version. Rackaballa (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

References

@Fowler&fowler: Am I right in thinking that you have no objection to the correction of curly quotes, overlinking, American-English, capitalisation errors, and fixing of a citation template done here?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: My understanding is that you object to all the other changes that EarthDude wanted. I took the trouble to go through an earlier version of them, and commented on them. Please could you do the same.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: If you object to these edits please could you explain your objection to each of the components on this talk page. (If you explained your objections to each element, readers would agree with you. "Restoring consensus version of many years" tells us what you are doing, but not what the problems are with the changes.)

I have reverted the first element of that edit - the change of the wikilink from [[Japanese Fascism|Fascist Japan]] to [[Empire of Japan|Fascist Japan]]. Piped links should follow the principle of least astonishment (see WP:EASTEREGG). If an editor wants it to wikilink to Empire of Japan then the covering should be something like "Japanese Empire", with the word fascist outside the wikilink to Empire of Japan.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2025

Early life of shubhash Chandra Bose

Restoring the longstanding consensus version

I have restored the longstanding consensus version based on my close reading of the sources and my long association with the article's many prose incarnations. The bottom line is that "He received an education oriented towards British standards" is not accurate nor immediately comprehensible English. Please read the Early Life section I had written. An education in the Baptist Mission's Protestan European School did not merely meet British standards—for that was what Gandhi's had at the Alfred High School—it was overarchingly Anglo-centric. Most children who attended Bose's school were from domiciled British or Anglo-Indian families. No Indian languages were taught or spoken, but Latin was taught. The Bible was a subject as was British history and what is more, geography. By the time Bose reached school-going age, the British had opened hundreds (if not thousands) of schools in India, but the curriculum in almost all English-medium sechools, nevertheless, respected Indian traditions and backgrounds. Bose's education was unusual for most Indian nationalists of the era. The stark differences between the school's ethos (advocated by Bose's father) and the home environment (dominated by Bose's Bengali-speaking and religious Hindu mother) has been noted by scholars. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

PS For another example, you have changed "The early recipient of an Anglo-centric education, he was sent after college to England to take the Indian Civil Service examination. He succeeded with distinction in the vital first exam but demurred at taking the routine final exam, citing nationalism to be the higher calling." to: "He received an education oriented towards British standards, and was subsequently sent to England to take the Indian Civil Service examination. He succeeded with distinction in the first exam but chose not to proceed with the standard final exam."

The referees cited in Bose's ICS application included the Under-Secretary of State for India and a member of the Council of India. There were six vacancies that year. Bose placed fourth in the vital first exam. Everyone thought he was a shoe in for the more routine final exam. But Bose began to have doubts about a future in the civil service. By this time, Gandhi had begun to make his first polical waves in India. Letters were exchanged for nearly six months between Bose and his father and brother in India, who had invested much in the undertaking. Bose also exchanged letters with C. R. Das, the Bengali nationalist and Swaraj Party leader. In the end he stuck firm to his decision that nationalism was a higher calling for someone with his background, education, and, more importantly, mindset. He wrote anguished but firm letters to his father and to the Secretary of State for India withdrawing his application. He received a third from Cambridge. By the time of the convocation, he was already on his way to India, and he asked someone else to pick up his degree. That bit of history was an outlier for any Indian who had hitherto taken the ICS exam, and very likely for any after. You can't turn that into unmodulated, unemphatic, and inaccurate prose paraphrases, and I've written the above from memory.

PPS There are other issues with the paraphrase. "He receive an education oriented towards British standards." would apply a priori to any Indian who took the ICS exam. But would an education at Presidency College, Calcutta, originally Hindu College, and Bose's first college, which was attented by the privileged Hindus of Bengal, especially the Bhadraloks, be subsumed under the rubric of an education "oriented towards British standards?" Even Rajendra Prasad who was from rural Bihar, went to Presidency, I seem to recall, topping the matriculation exam for the college or the BA exam in Law, but he hardly had an Anglo-centric education in early childhood as did Bose. The history of Indian nationalism is complicated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler An apparently inaccurate paraphrasing in a mere two sentences does not justify a wholesale reversion of a version supported by many editors. The version you have restored includes extremely promotional, and at times outright hagiographic, paraphrasing throughout the article, such as "Among many in India, he is seen as a hero, his saga serving as a would-be counterpoise to the many actions of regeneration, negotiation, and reconciliation over a quarter-century through which the independence of India was achieved," or "From her, Subhas imbibed a nurturing spirit, looking for situations in which to help people in distress, preferring gardening around the house to joining in sports with other boys." These are only a few examples; none are remotely encyclopedic, and their inclusion is especially concerning given that the article is about a Nazi collaborator. You also reverted the inclusion of useful wikilinks. I will be restoring the edits, aside from the two cases you have highlighted. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You have turned precise idiomatic turns of phrase into coarse jerkily written rephrases, a far cry from what the sources say. Shenkl didn't give birth to Anita Bose Pfaff. During the middle of the second world war, she gave birth to a baby girl, who at the time, was just a baby girl. The best we can do is to wikilink baby girl to the adult she later became.

You and others have engaged in this sort of silliness and misinterpretations again and again. And yes, Indian independence was achieved over a period of a quarter of a century by many acts of regeneration, negotiation, and reconciliation.

I am wise to WP:Sealioning and will consider administrative action if you continue. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For the final time, Bose was more than just a Nazi collaborator. That was established on Talk:Indian National Army in a consensus overseen by editors at WP:RS/N. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Please can we have a little flexibility. Though in general I probably agree with you, in specific instances what Earthdude did was an improvement. For example, Earthdude found that two of the citations were only dead links because the newspaper had changed their URLs. It would be sensible for you to accept them. I have updated the access date (and commented out the original date) for Earthdude's updates to the citation templates.

old Loiwal, Manogya (18 January 2017a), President Pranab Mukherjee unveils Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's 1937 Wanderer W24 in Kolkata, India Today, archived from the original on 15 May 2017, retrieved 20 February 2017
new Loiwal, Manogya (18 January 2017a), President Pranab Mukherjee unveils Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's 1937 Wanderer W24 in Kolkata, India Today, archived from the original on 15 May 2017, retrieved 30 Nov 2025
old Loiwal, Manogya (19 January 2017b), "Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's favourite car restored; unveiled in Kolkata", India Today, archived from the original on 3 January 2018, retrieved 20 February 2017
new Loiwal, Manogya (19 January 2017b), "Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's favourite car restored; unveiled in Kolkata", India Today, archived from the original on 3 January 2018, retrieved 30 November 2025

~~-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)~~

Sorry I got the above wrong. The Fowler&fowler version is the one that uses URLs to www.indiatoday.in that work correctly.^, Whereas EarthDude's version evidently copied citation templates from an old version of the article, which had dead links.^, It had not occurred to me that someone would edit the article to replace live links with dead links.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What. That must have been someone else's edit, I didn't touch the sourcing in my edits. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits (January 2026)

An editor has been making edits that other editors have been reverting. So far, they have done three versions of these edits:

This shows how Version 1 differs from Versions 2 and 3 - the most important differences were that Version 1 had inappropriate capitalisation and bolding of words in the text. Versions 2 and 3 do not have those objectionable features. This was evidently in response to comments in the edit summary of the editor who reverted Version 1 – Capitalising and bolding the word "hero" in the middle of a sentence is inappropriate - English is not written like that.

This shows that Versions 2 and 3 are almost identical. The editor who reverted Version 1 wrote: The current text is supported by citations. Moving text around would make that not so. In addition, all three versions contain new text that appears to be unsupported by citations. The editor who reverted Version 3 commented in their edit summary: None of these factoids have made it to the scholarly textbooks, the benchmarks of reliability and due weight. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

He/she is now at Version 4, and has been warned for edit warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Part of their unexplained edits in Version 3 was to change "... inaugurated a Statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose at ..." to "... inaugurated a Statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose at ...". The link in question is to the article called "Statue of Subhas Chandra Bose". He/she does have a point with that one - with wikilink is more obvious if it includes the word "statue". But "statue" is a common noun, and should not be capitalised in the middle of a sentence. There is no need to capitalise it in the link just because it is the start of an article name, because the Wikipedia software handles that. I think it is best to use the article name, rather than a piped name; WP:COMMONNAME applies. According to that article, the statue is also known as "Netaji's Statue"; it makes no claims for it being known as the "statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose". I have changed the wikilink to the article title, and fixed the capitalisation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

[a]
"Having arrived in Berlin a bruised politician, his broadcasts brought him—and India—world notice.^[3]
[b]
"Having arrived in Berlin a bruised politician, his broadcasts brought him—and India—world notice.^[3]

Analysis of the sources re: antisemitism by JDiala

Discussion

Related Articles