Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 3

Whitewashing a Quisling

No wonder this article is locked. If we can not change the body of the article, how about some links to Bose's own words on how democracy is bad for India, and all the great things the Germans are doing for Europe? Or a link to opposing views, such as many other articles on controversial figures have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

vandalism by congress people

Some ip's are constantly vandalizing article. Likely congress party people trying to downplay Netaji. Constant watch required or we can semiprotect it for a while. Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

need a confirmation on dates

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhas_Chandra_Bose&diff=354644685&oldid=353968709 an ip user changed a date, can anyone cite the correct date? or confirm which date is correct?Profitoftruth85 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pgg804 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Editorializing and Bias - Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia

The article says "Bose never liked the Nazis but when he failed to contact the Russians for help in Afghanistan he approached the Germans and Italians for help. His comment was that if he had to shake hands with the devil for India's independence he would do that" . This is editorializing and hearsay. Can wikipedia backup its claim regarding the statement it says he made about shaking hands and that he never liked the Nazis. Its not even in quotation marks so it should not be in the article. He obviously liked the Nazis better than the British who were extremely racist as well, because he allied himself with Germany to fight the British. And obviously Germans were not racist towards Indians since they trained them and welcomed them into the German Waffen SS (not mentioned in this article). Other evidence Bose liked Germans better than Britons is that he married a German (actually an Austrian) in 1937 - Emilie Schenkl. His only daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff, is a German professor. Click on Schenkl's name where spouse is listed in this article for her biography. This also demonstrates so called "Nazis" liked Indians enough to marry one.

The article says he may have allied himself with the Nazis for pragmatic reasons. Thats probably a true statement. All countries behave pragmatically much more than for the idealistic reasons claimed. Great Britain and the USA aligned themselves with Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century - not many people say Churchill and Roosevelt were Communist sympathizers. Its claimed Britain and the USA fought for freedom even though they aided Stalin and other communist mass murderers.

What this article illustrates is how British racism is overlooked and ignored while German racism is highlighted and forced into peoples minds. The fact is much of the world was racist in those days. In many ways British racism was far worse than German racism. Britain and America operated the trans-atlantic slave trade and had slavery for hundreds of years. Britain colonized the darker peoples of a very large part of the world (India, Africa, Asia, the middle east after WW I, etc.) and their attitudes towards these peoples were overtly racist. They owned these colonies for hundreds of years. Germany on the other hand had overseas colonies for about 40 years. German interest was mostly in Europe and WW II started when Germany demanded the land back that was stolen from Germany and Austria (with millions of Germans living on this land) and the land was used to create the new countries Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1919.

I also doubt Ghandi disliked the Germans. Why should he? The British occupied his country, treated Indians as an inferior race, used Indian wealth to enrich England and smashed Indian heads when the Indians resisted. Ghandi said "the difference between Hitler and Churchill is only of a degree". The only problem with Ghandi's statement is it doesn't reveal which leader he considered a degree worse than the other.

This is not a Soapbox. You are entitled to your opinions - and I concur with some of them - but how does this add to the article? TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is not a soapbox, then do not use it to promote your inaccurate description of slavery, the start of WWII and the British Empire in general. Stick to the fragrant Bose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate instead of posting nonsensical ramblingsTheBlueKnight (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Legendary" figure - Edit war

I agree "Legendary" is a peacock term. Let's look at the article of someone like Winston Churchill - in the opening paragraph he is twice called a "statesman" which itself can be construed as a peacock term. S.C. Bose is legendary in India - that is a fact but if it is against Wikipedia policy then please don't push such a word. If a person reads the entire article, am sure his legend will shine through :) I suggest you guys stop the revert war. :) TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BlueKnight. "was one of the major leaders in the " seems appropriate. I have created a section for his popularity in modern India and placed your Orissa gov quote there. This section could also be expanded later and opposing views can also be discussed.

Actually, I don't care much about the quote - I just wanted to put in "legendary" without violating Wikipedia policy, satisfying both sides and ending the revert war. I am fine with it as it stands now. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - 'a legendary leader, like the legendary General Vlasov' How's that?.

Now it's even more "peacocky" than before. I agree completely with TheBlueKnight. For those who disagree, please go through the wikipedia Manual of Style. Gremaldin (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Popularity in India

We should not be asking a reader to judge the popularity of a historical figure based on the subjective views of provincial politicians of the present day. We should be explaining why he became so popular, and possibly the British response in the main text. Rsloch (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All views are subjective - facts on the other hand are not. The statement in question is not issued by a politician but by a government. If there is an official British response either affirming or negating this statement, then feel free to add it in. TheBlueKnight (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This statement does not constitute fact but rather opinion. The source of that opinion is doubtful. Thus the quote should not be included. Bose's legacy is worth more. Rsloch (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine - have it your way. TheBlueKnight (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Death or lack of

I'm thinking of splitting 'Death' section in two forming a 'Death' (plane crash) and 'Disputes regarding his death' (the rest) as per the Raoul Wallenberg article. Also finding another word for 'alleged'. Thoughts? Rsloch (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"is believed to have died", perhaps? I don't see the point of 2 sections. Do you think it is currently difficult to read and/or grasp? TheBlueKnight (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Haphazard editing and Protection

Too many changes are made to this page and too often. This article has often been significantly smaller that it had been beforehand or afterwards. Images that have appeared in the October 3, 2007 version, for example, [1] have been removed. Sections have also been deleted, and in their place a large section has been introduced with a large block of text that has been copied from somewhere, with even a reference at the beginning of a paragraph to a picture that doesn't exist in the article. In fact, changes are done to this article at such a fast rate, that are of a broad nature, many of them by ip users, and the registered uses without caring for consensus or doing reversion, that it is hard to find which change was made when. In fact, with all these changes occurring at a fast rate, the discussion page is surprisingly sparse. The remedy for this article isn't clear, it definitely needs some clean-up now, and revision of many edits. But one thing that should be done is to semi-protecting it now. Last time he was identified in Gomoh railway station in Jharkhand, now the railway station name is Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Railway Station.

This article has been nominated for semi-protection. 72.225.203.17 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly worth recommending for a semi protection. Thanks! -- SreejithInfo (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In this article, in the section "Escape from British India to Germany", it is mentioned that "Bose spent three years in Germany(1941-1943), during which he married Emilie Schenkl. Again, in the section "Personal life", it is mentioned that "Bose married Emilie Schenkl in 1937". Which one is correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.10.9 (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is Ridiculous

"In 1941, when the British learned that Bose had sought the support of the Axis Powers, they ordered their agents to intercept and assassinate Bose before he reached Germany. A recently declassified intelligence document refers to a top-secret instruction to the Special Operations Executive (SOE) of British intelligence department to murder Bose. In fact, the plan to liquidate Bose has few known parallels, and appears to be a last desperate measure against a man who had thrown the British Empire into a panic.[2]"

What? They were concerned about Bose aiding the enemy, at a time when Britain was fighting for her life. This makes it sound like it was Bose's independence activities that were the main concern. Someone has put a great deal of POV nonsense into this acticle, then locked it.

The discussion of "Netaji's" (hardly an objective way to refer to Bose, either) impact on the Indian independence movement is highly subjective. Not source is cited for the assertion in "Bose's Legacy" that the INA was not a puppet army of Japan or that the entire Indian nation was "aroused" by learning of Bose's struggle. The history of Britain's decision to give India independence is incorrect: it was not revolts in 1945 (which I don't believe happened) that triggered the decision, the Labour Party had decided on that course back in the '30s. A "substantial portion" of the British Indian Army did not revolt in 1945, and this article gives no evidence to support its view. Wretched.

I agree, There is not much on his Nazi collaboration. This page looks more like the Indian congress Party poster Earlyriser10 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in "Escaping" section

"From Moscow, he reached Rome, and from there he traveled to Germany.[4][5][7] Once in Russia the NKVD transported Bose to Moscow where he hoped that Russia's traditional enmity to British rule in India would result in support for his plans for a popular rising in India. However, Bose found the Soviets' response disappointing and was rapidly passed over to the German Ambassador in Moscow, Count von der Schulenburg. He had Bose flown on to Berlin in a special courier aircraft..."

The first line has him go from Moscow to Rome to Germany, and the rest of the paragraph has him go directly from Moscow to Germany. Which is it ? StuRat (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

Tamil:சுபாஸ் சந்திர போஸ்

Somusiva07 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see any reason to add another language to his name--there is no indication in the article that he was from Tamil Nadu, lived there, spoke it, or is particularly important for their history. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If on the other hand, it was a request to add the valid link to ta:சுபாஸ் சந்திர போஸ், note that interwiki links are normally added by bots. Dru of Id (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Already present. Dru of Id (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

As there is no documental/leagal proof of Subhas Chandra Bose's wife and daughter , kindly delete the names of Emilie Schenkl Children Anita Bose Pfaff from his family information. 120.59.46.63 (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a big edit and people might get a bit annoyed if I just removed all traces of them. They have their own articles too, so there's no reason why there shouldn't be links. If a lot of users have the same demand as you, then this edit can be done. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 16:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll mark the section as unsourced; if no one adds a source in a week or so, remind me on my talk page and I'll remove the whole section. WP:V does not require that we get consensus to remove unsourced info; rather, others would have to get consensus to keep it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A total blackout!

Why is there a total blackout of the information that emerged after the demise of the Soviet Union that Subash Bose had been a prisoner of the Soviet Union? That he had died in their hands. Siberia as the place of imprisonment was mentioned. That Nehru was aware of this fact, but did not want to bring him back to India, for what would then happen to his claim to Indian prime ministership is quite understandable. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you know of reliable sources that verify those claims, they can definitely be added to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Cornelius383, what are you trying to do in recent edits (like this one? With no edit summary, I can not understand purpose of your edits. Could you explain?--Tito Dutta ✉ 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry User:Tito Dutta you're right. My intention was to insert only the piece of The Tribune of India's article with the horrible way with which Emile received the shocking news of her husband's death. I accidentally added the entire piece. I have now made ​​the necessary adjustments. I apologize for the error. Thank you for your warning!--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Addings on "Early life" and "Personal life" sections

I added some information related with Subhas's family. I inserted the following informations with quotings (in this article many crucial information are still without quotations): 1)On the section "Personal life": the Subhas's wife Emilie Schenkl and on his daughter, Anita Bose Pfaff with relative citations. 2)On the section "Early life" I inserted links: a)with the article on Subhas's brother Sarat Chandra Bose (aka Sarat Chandra "Basu") and b)with the Subhas's nephew Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar aka Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, the indian phylosopher and Ananda Marga founder. I cited the book Dharmavedananda, Ácárya (1999). Travel with the Mystic Master. Singapore: Ananda Marga Publications. ISBN 981-04-0864-1.. All information inserted were properly quoted (in two sections where many crucial informations were, and are still, without any quote). The informations of point (2) were deleted two times from User:Qwyrxian and a third time from User:Titodutta. I ask me why.. This means that we can delete the addings with citations and leave all the other information that are no quoted? I don't understand the logic that supports all this.--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

some points were mentioned when you posted this in our talk pages... you have not mentioned those here and repeated the question.. anyway.. WP:RS, and WP:MoS--Tito Dutta ✉ 18:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Titodutta but I don't understand why did you delete for example the link with Bose's brother Sarat Chandra Bose?--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

there was not rs, was written like advert.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see the scribd link for some reason. Titodutta, are you saying that the underlying book itself does not meet WP:RS? I do have to say that the publishign company concerns me, since it appears to be the publishing arm of a religious movement, which would generally not be considered reliable for historical/familial info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not RS. the subject is the religious organization head from where the book was published. The author is neither a scholar nor a well known figure! Also some more minor issues like sing honorific etc.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

But all the section (and a large part of the article) is without quotations.. Why we have to delete the only part with quotations.. this seems to me irrational!--Cornelius383 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

can a problem be solved by mentioning another problem?--Tito Dutta ✉ 13:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes sometimes it's possible: a problem can be formed by some subproblems (this is complexity...). But I ask you: why you don't delete anything that is not quoted and you delete the only things quoted on the section? This is my point..--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We can try to write the section in a better form if you think so.. but I believe that we cannot delete the links with the articles of Netaji's relatives..--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

here is not any sub-problem. the attempt is to ignore a problem by mentioning second problem..

if you want i may try to find some rs.. gov docs.. scholar books etc! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok Titodutta.. you can try that's good. Belive me I don't have a particular interest to support at all costs my point of view. But, sorry if I ask you again (you are a "senior editor" and maybe you can explain me better than others..), why we have to delete the links with the WP-articles of Netaji's relatives? Can you exactly answer at this question 'couse I don't understand. Maybe there is a reason that I don't know?. Thank you--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

not only in this article, you have added the same links in Sarat Chandra Bose etc article.. please delete those! You can use "Brothers against the Raj : a biography of Indian nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose" of Leonard A. Gordon, that's a good source or use Sisir Bose's biography of Subhas Bose, that book was highly appreciated.

I can not find any book where it is told Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was nephew of Subhas Bose see search result.. self published, unreliable sources can not be used here--Tito Dutta ✉ 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues

As I see it, the article has the following issues:

1. The intro needs to be expanded, so that it adequately summarizes Subhas Chandra Bose's life.
2. The article needs additional citations.
3. The "Ideology and philosophy" section in particular needs special attention.
4. The neutrality issue needs to be fixed.
5. The article needs to be copy-edited, and the MOS issues need to be fixed. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 05:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Netaji rahasya sondhane

recently i have read one bengali book "Netaji rahasya sondhane" i.e "On search the mystery of Netaji" by Narayan Sanyal. Narayan Sanyal is a very famous writer in bengal and his book should be included in this article on Netaji as people who want to know about sudden disappearance of Netaji may find this book by Narayan Sanyal very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.9.85 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Netaji Lives on

About this revert, the citation failed to support the information there and it was written like advertisement with the website link in article body. The revert has been re-reverted! It is requested not to add it back without reaching a consensus here! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Artistic depiction of Bose needs to culled and write just few lines stating that Bose was depicted In numerous films and books, similarly under the section Disappearance and alleged death there is a sub section called Books on the mystery, it looks like an advertisement of the book “ India’s biggest cover up” . Although the whole page needs a lot of clean up but I thought lets clean small things first. --sarvajna (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This page does indeed need a lot better copy-writing. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

Clement Atlee's remark

Did not clement Attlee said effects of Netaji and INA were most important factors leading to india's independece? Who removed this from introduction system?Ovsek (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Most likely I did because they are WP:UNDUE. The current lead reflects the consensus of scholarly opinion on Bose. Incidentally, he is also dead, and not aged 116, living in Manchuria, preparing for this final march on Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Attlee's comment surely isn't undue enough to not exist in the complete article. I would agree to remove it from lead but keep it somewhere in the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You would have to source it first. There were four citations for that statement and not one of them supported the thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the myth of Netaji—a disturbed man in a mid-life crisis (which Gandhi, Nehru, were quick to realize), with a secret wife and child in Germany that he didn't have the courage to tell any one about, with no military experience, and physically out of shape, politically all over the place, until 1938 espousing radical socialist views, but thereafter courting the Nazis, Fascists, and Imperial Japan, rounding up the defeated British Indian Army POWs, whose other option was File:Japanese shooting blindfolded Sikh prisoners.jpg, then presuming to fight the British who were stretched thin fighting a global war, and then getting walloped once the British army was replenished—lives on in India, especially in Bengal. In India it does, partly as a result of the resurgent Hindu right's effort to diminish Gandhi. In Bengal it does, because Bengalis are desperate to make out they contributed something to the independence struggle, which they didn't after CR Das in 1927. That is the plain blunt truth. The Attlee remark, which I just checked is not about Bose, but about the INA trials and the public protests after the sentencing of Shahnawaz Khan, Sehgal and others. It is based on a reminiscence by BK Chakravarti, former Governor of West Bengal, whom Attlee visited in the late 50s in Calcutta. It is not directly attributable to Attlee, not something Attlee wrote. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

PS I mean, seriously, think about it: soldiers go to military academies, train their entire lives, fight in wars, rise in the ranks based on their performance, before they become generals in any legitimate army in the world. What were "Netaji" 's credentials? What army today would hire a 45 year old out of shape man with no military experience to lead it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

And if you think it is just me, here is Chris Bayly:

There are still some in India today who believe that Bose remained alive and in Soviet custody, a once and future king of Indian independence. The legend of `Netaii' Bose's survival helped bind together the defeated INA. In Bengal it became an assurance of the province's supreme importance in the liberation of the motherland. It sustained the morale of many across India and Southeast Asia who deplored the return of British power or felt alienated from the political settlement finally achieved by Gandhi and Nehru.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that content must be kept in this article any where as well as British Government forbade BBC from broadcasting news of INA I am not going to argue that Netaji still lives, and other personal attacks on him made by an user, what he did despite many faults that invasion's impact was a success when news of INA spread all over India.

“In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter-”mi-ni-mal”.” - See more at: http://www.deeshaa.org/netajis-ghost-the-freedom-struggle-by-n-s-rajaram/#sthash.23F8X4sa.dpuf

There are many more sources. No comment about Nehru a power monger, unrealistic thug. Netaji had basic training in Military. During WW1 he took military training in India as a student. @Fowler&fowler please instead of making stupid accusitions say "I am British so I am not willing to show respect to this man" it is nice. Charles De Gaulle exiled French leader made Free French Movement to free his country Netaji made INA to free India, what is wrong?

You prefer De Gaulle because he fought against Germans your enemy, Enemy's enemy is my enemy, ironically here you also follow the same strategy Netaji followed thus indicating that strategy is right.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/2250/netajis-ghost-the-freedom-struggle/

http://www.subhaschandrabose.org/bio.php Read a single book from here. I am much experienced about Wikipedia's anti-Indian freedom movement attitude with secretly dishonouring revolutionaries(mainly Netaji)as main aim and with Wikipedia's policy as excuse from British users and by Pakistani users to "prove" Pakistan was not part of India before 1947 and to ignore the fact that Pakistan resulted after 1947 partition. Thank you. I conclude.Ovsek (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Blog posts don't count. I know the source better than you do. It was a letter written in Bengali by the former Acting Governor of West Bengal PB Chakravarti to the publisher of R.C. Majumdar's Bangla Desher Itihas, Vol. IV on 30 March 1976, nine years after Attlee's death and when Majumdar himself was 88 years old (he died at 92). The facsimile of the letter was published in the appendix of Majumdar's Jībanera smṛtidīpe ("The light of my life's memories") (1978) when Majumdar was 90 years old, not in Majumdar's A History of the Freedom Movement in India (whose last edition before his death was printed in 1971). Like I said, the story is apocryphal, there is nothing to attest it, Attlee was long gone and Majumdar was in the last few years of his life. If it was such a bombshell story, why did Mr. Chakravari wait 20 years to tell it? It is an now an urban legend promoted by bloggers who have nothing better to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have gone off on a rant here. But thank you for the useful references. Majumdar being 90 should not be discounted because turning 90 doesn't imply diminished judgment. And questioning Chakravarti's motivations is conjecture on your part. Your opinions on Subhas Chandra Bose, Bengalis and bloggers aren't constructive; put them on your blog maybe. You should know better considering you're a senior editor. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

The Chakravarti letter is a primary source and can't be used per Wikipedia policy. The Majumdar reference is not a peer-reviewed history source, only a reminiscence. Decolonization, partition and World War II, are three of the most worked on fields of modern Indian and British history. It is hardly likely that Attlee, a post-war Labour PM, sympathetic to Gandhi, and committed to decolonization, would have said this to no one other than an acting governor of Bengal, in whose official residence he stayed for a couple of days as a visiting ex-PM of Britain in the late 1950s, and with whom he had no previous acquaintance. Attlee may have mentioned the British Army mutiny in 1945 (of some soldiers among the reinforcements brought in during WW2, who didn't want to stay on in India after the war), the INA trials, the naval mutiny in 1946, as reasons for hurrying decolonization after the war, and Mr. Chakravarti, no historian, either unwittingly misinterpreted what Attlee said, or deliberately finessed it to bolster his, and Bengal's, vanities about Netaji. Here's Attlee's remarks after Gandhi's death. Gandhi was not only the leading genius of the final 25-year long phase of India's nationalist movement, but one of the great men of the age. To suggest, that his contribution amounted to "not much," and then place it in the mouth of Clement Attlee, is both an insult to Gandhi and Attlee and to their admirers around the world. No reliable secondary source has paid any attention to Chakravarti. That is where the buck stops. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fowler, your ranting about Bose is not required on this talk page, most of your statements are hypothetical (It is hardly likely that Attlee....Attlee may have mentioned....Mr. Chakravarti, no historian, either unwittingly misinterpreted). If we can use a source then let us use it, personal knowledge is a good thing but not of much use here. -sarvajna (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The source being cited are pages 609-610 of R.C. Majumdar's History of the Freedom Movement in India, Volume III. It is to support the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose and his leadership of the INA did make a recognized contribution to India gaining independence. First, is the objection that the said text is not on those pages? If it is, then why can't it be cited as a source? Second, even if R.C. Majumdar did write it in his memoirs, which I assume is a separate book, why can that not be a source? It is not a work of fiction. Is it Wikipedia policy to bar autobiographies from being used as citable sources? Can the rest of R.C. Majumdar's works be cited? As to peer-review, Sugata Bose's book, cited as the source for Subhas Bose's date of death, isn't peer reviewed either. What is the difference between the two? There is no attempt here to discredit anyone else for their contributions.162.206.113.216 (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

Not just Sugata Bose's book, but Bayly and Harper, Bandopadhyay, Metcalf and Metcalf, Wolpert, Low, in fact the fist 10 footnotes attest to the fact that Bose died at the end of the war. We don't need Sugata Bose. What year was your vaunted source, History of the Freedom Movement, published? It's last edition before Majumdar's death was published in 1971. Chakravarti's letter was not written until in 1976. Your math is not adding up. This is my last response. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It would've helped if your comments were more articulate than frustrated. I get that Attlee's comments cannot be mentioned as factual because it has not been corroborated independently by other historians. It has been given credence to one historian, who, despite his standing, is in the minority, and admits so directly in the same text. In that light, it is not a consensus view. However, it should be okay to state that "R.C. Majumdar credits Subhas Chandra Bose with India becoming independent at the time that it did", or to that effect. Your derogatory comments were more informative about yourself than helping me gain insight into what rationale applies here. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep Apparently blogs DO count, per Wikipedia policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

Disappearance and date of death

The Indian government does not have any record to prove that Bose died on 18 August 1947. Even the Taiwan government deposed to the Mukherjee commission that no plane crash happened on 18 August 1945 that killed Bose. The posthumous Bharat Ratna awarded to Bose was later withdrawn by the Indian government because they did not have any evidence to suggest that Bose in fact died. In view of these, the death date of Bose cannot be established. Please check the article Disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose for more details. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting to do original research. :Doesn't make any difference whether the Indian government has his death certificate or not, or what the inquiry commissions concluded. Wikipedia is beholden only to secondary reliable sources. When such sources, authored by some of the best-known historians of the day: Christopher Bayly, Stanley Wolpert, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Burton Stein, and Sugata Bose say he died in August 1945, he died in August 1945. No amount of make-believe Wikipedia Pages or conspiracy theories will change that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(r to XrieJetInfo after ec) If you want to argue the case for mentioning alternate theories for Bose's death, you are welcome to do so here on the talk page and gain consensus. But this edit in which you replaced references to history textbooks with link to a rediff article (which only summarizes what a random website says) was clearly sub-par. Also note that you are edit-warring and liable to breach the three revert rule on the page. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope you will approach this issue with an open mind. It is foolish to say that Bose died because someone wrote he died. Isn't that sub-par? A government appointed commission found out that Bose did not die. There is official information from Taiwan government that he did not die in 1945 in the said crash. Based on these, is it not possible to mark the death date as "presumed dead" or "disputed" with the date 18 August 1945. My only point is this - in India there is still dispute as to whether Bose died on that date or note. Since it has been a long disputed issue, isn't it only fair to make that mention rather than giving a one sided version of it? Afterall, it is not just bazaar gossip. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I want to mention it here too that the undoing of another person's edit was not done with the intent to engage in an edit war. Sorry that it happened. Apologies. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not beholden to follow government appointed commissions, especially one whose report was rejected by the government itself (which very well may have been a political move, but illustrates why writing history is not a government's prerogative). Instead, as per WP:IRS and WP:HISTRS, we rely on published scholarship on the subject and give historians published by academic presses the highest weight-age. So if indeed they have given credence to alternate theories of Bose's death, we can include it in the biography section of the article. Else these "popular" theories need be mentioned only when talking of Bose's legacy. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Among researchers, scholars, and historians, there is still dispute about the death of Bose. There are books which endorse these views. I strongly feel that the dispute regarding his death should get proper weightage on his article. If a death date is mentioned without mentioning the dispute, it may not present the complete picture. Can't we write "presumed dead on 18 August 1945" or "Dead: 18 August 1945 (disputed)"? I am neutral and in no way favours one of the views. But since I have been following this issue for the last few years closely, I know a few things. But I welcome the result of the discussion here even if it does not come in agreement with my suggestions. But please don't get personal as someone did on my talk page. I don't appreciate that. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you (or others) cite the best available sources for these alternate views ? It would be best to focus on recent academic histories, as far as possible, because while I am sure 100s of popular press articles can be cited, they carry little to no weight relative to sources listed by Fowler above. I too will look up what I can find. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The random website mentioned above has an article Mission Netaji written by XrieJetInfo who also created Anuj Dhar. Raised them both at the India wikiproject because I have concerns about NPOV and other issues. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, searching jstor for Subhas Chandra Bose throws up reviews for these titles published in the last 10 years. Many of these books post-date the above-mentioned Mukherjee Commission, so if its finding were taken seriously be historians, that should show up in at least some of these works. Note that, I don't know (yet) how much coverage these titles give to Bose, and what they say about his death. I am listing them here solely so that others too can browse through them and see if there is anything useful related to Bose's death that is not already included in the wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent history texts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
His Majesty's Opponent, Sugata Bose, Harvard University Press, 2011 Quote: ""The strong historical evidence suggests that Netaji died as a result of the air crash in Taipei on August 18, 1945 while attempting to continue his fight for India's freedom at the end of World WarII. Stories of his being spotted in various places after that date lie in the domain of rumor and speculation, if not willful fabrication. In particular, there is no evidence to suggest that Bose succeeded in reaching the Soviet Union or Soviet-held Manchuria." Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany: Politics, Intelligence, and Propaganda 1941-43 , Romain Hayes, Cambridge University Press, 2012 Found no relevant quote. Forging the Raj: Essays on British India in the Heyday of Empire, Thomas R. Metcalf, Oxford University Press, 2005 Found no relevant quote Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945, Christopher Bayly, Tim Harper, Harvard University Press, 2005 Quote: "...presumed dead in plane crash September 1945" Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia, Christopher Bayly, Tim Harper, Harvard University Press, 2007 Quote: "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. British and Indian commissions later established convincingly that Bose had died in Taiwan. These were legendary and apocalyptic times, however. Having witnessed the first Indian leader to fight against the British since the great mutiny of 1857, many in both Southeast Asia and India refused to accept the loss of their hero. Rumours that Bose had survived and was waiting to come out of hiding and begin the final struggle for independence were rampant by the end of 1945." The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj, Denis Judd, Oxford University Press, 2004 Found no relevant quote The Impossible Indian: Gandhi and the temptation of violence, Faisal Devji, Harvard University Press, 2012 Found no relevant quote. Empire and Nation: Selected essays, Partha Chatterjee, Columbia University Press, 2010 Found no relevant quotes The Soldier and the Changing State Building Democratic Armies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, Zoltan Barany, Princeton University Press, 2012 Found no relevant quotes Democracy Indian Style: Subhas Chandra Bose and the Creation of India's Political Culture, Anton Pelinka, Transaction Publishers, 2003 Quote: "Whatever Bose had in mind when his plane crashed on August 18, 1945, he could no longer realize it. But in the imaginations of millions of people in India (and likely also in Pakistan and Bangladesh), Bose lived on....The Bose mythos begins with the doubts that Subhas Chandra Bose actually perished in the plane crash of August 18, 1945 in Taepei. Many people were willing to believe in a cover-up of mass proportions, regardless of who might have carried it out. Bose was alive, it was said, or had been seen somewhere, he was alive in a Soviet camp, he was a high-ranking member of Mao's People's Liberation Army and would soon, very soon, in fact return to India. He would come, like a messiah, to eradicate evil and thus, to fulfill the unfulfilled promise of independent India. ... Numerous commissions of the Indian government have examined the circumstances surrounding his death. They all arrive at the same conclusion: Bose died on August 18, 1945 in Taepei from the severe burns sustained in a plane crash. Bose's family also subscribes to this interpretation.... But the legend refuses to die"

I have added quotes from the previously listed texts above. Note that many other popular biographies (example, ones by Marshall J Getz, Mihir Bose and Nilanjana Sengupta) also refer to Bose's death in a Aug 18 1945 plane crash, but I have restricted the list above to academic authors/publishers. I haven't found any comparable work that discusses any of the alternate death or disappearance theories with any seriousness, except as a social phenomenon. Counterexamples welcome. Abecedare (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare - can you elaborate on how you are making the determination of one source being of less academic value than another? It is not necessary that contemporary historians should write up a book simply because the Mukherjee commission was setup. I don't see any Wikipedia policy written that states that only historians can be cited for articles on history or that only peer-reviewed academic works can be used. Judge the source by what it contains, not by his standing amongst academics and amongst Wikipedia senior editors. The accusation of independent research is not true because someone ELSE did the research; the reference cited is the book, not the documents released under RTI. I do see a caution to clearly delineate in the article that the view of Subhas Bose not dying in the air crash (as opposed to not dying at all) is the minority view, not a consensus view. That should take care of due weight concerns. There is a distinction between what Wikipedia policy is on citable sources and what Fowler's own recommended list of citable sources are. The book is listed in the Library of Congress catalog. In fact, all his books are. Again, not a certificate of reliability. But then again, neither is JSTOR.

Subas Bose's not dying in the air crash (again, that's different from him not dying at all) is a controversial topic. Hence, all the more reason to take a closer look at the resource being cited. Popularity of a source is feeble argument to bar a citable source. It is not a mark of reliability. If Fowler is an expert, he should give the book a read and verify himself. Come back with reasons why the claims are untrue. If he doesn't have the time, refrain from making judgements.

I'm also surprised that you gave Fowler's uncivil language a pass. That's the way of the Web I guess, regardless of what Wikipedia 'policy' states.66.162.75.2 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Indradeep

A few quick answers:

• can you elaborate on how you are making the determination of one source being of less academic value than another? Based on author, publisher, and reviews by peers (hence my reference to jstor above)
• It is not necessary that contemporary historians should write up a book simply because the Mukherjee commission was setup. True, but historians can be expected to update their work with recent findings that they find relevant and credible. That is the reason I specifically searched for more recent books. And if, as it appears, scholars are ignoring the report then it would be undue for wikipedia to give it any weight. Of course, as I said above, counterexamples from scholarly literature are welcome.
• I don't see any Wikipedia policy written that states that only historians can be cited for articles on history or that only peer-reviewed academic works can be used. See WP:IRS, and especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:HISTRS. In general the idea is to use the best available source, and when contemporary scholarly, well reviewed works by qualified historians published by academic press are available they trump all other.
• The book is listed in the Library of Congress catalog. Not sure what book you are talking about here. But being listed in LoC catalog is a real low bar, given the mandatory deposit requirement in US.
• ...neither is JSTOR Uh? Good reviews in academic journals definitely help establish reliability of a source.

Hope that helps explain how and why I selected the sources I listed above, and what type of sources we need to give any weight to the "death controversy" in the biographical (as opposed to legacy related) sections of the article. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedare. It did help in making a determination. I'm also trying to read up more around controversial topics on Wikipedia (Shiva Crater theory for example) to understand better on how to address due weight and reliability of sources. 66.162.75.2 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Indradeep

@Dougweller: As I already stated, I started and contribute to those articles, because I have an interest in them. You are free to read more about those subjects and verify whether the articles maintain NPOV. I also have started many cricket articles, but that does not necessarily mean that I run any cricket board. I will (or for that matter anyone else) write about articles that I am interested in. It is not a crime! These are my areas of interest. As I said, you need not get personal. Hope you understand that. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to withdraw all suggestions of COI if you can confirm that you have no relationship to Maharishi Ayurveda or Anuj Dhar. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Doug, there is no way for me to really know or prove it, but based on his edits and editing history, I trust that Xrie is motivated by his reading and interest in the subject,and not any COI or relationship with Anuj Dhar. Abecedare (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are probably right and he's just someone with an interest in the subject - we are all entitled to our POVs. But I've been bitten before and would just like confirmation that I'm wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But in any case, calling other editors vandals[2] is pretty discouraging. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, please look at these authentic sources which clearly indicate that the death of Subhas Bose is widely disputed in India and abroad. These are all published history books by noted historians and academicians.

Alternate sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Netaji: Rediscovered by Kanailal Basu. Published in 2010 by Author House. ISBN: 978-1-4490-5569-1 Tokyo radio said Netaji had died in Japan, yet newspapers reported that a telegram from Japan directed his body to be flown to Tokyo for the last rites,. In that case he could not have died in Japan as earlier stated. If he had not died in Tokyo, then, much before anyone could know, the news of his death had gone to Tokyo, or the direction would not have come. Usually important news is published as soon as possible. But the same did not happen in the case of Netaji. May be there were douts about his death. Or the delay was intentional as time was needed to plan what to make public and how to circulate it. (page 65) As these inconsistencies do not give any clear picture of the medical treatment given to Netaji, suspicions point to some kind of conspiracy. (page 69) Yet all the information that we have till date of Netaji's death and after are dependent on Japanese sources. All this we have to take into account when deciding what and how much to believe about Netaji's death and associated news regarding his death. (page 69) Two men's last days are surrounded in mystery. Netaji's and Hitler's. Nothing positive and no full proof of those events have emerged till now. (page 69) Raj, Secrets, Revolution: A life of Subhas Chandra Bose by Mihir Bose. Published in 2004 by Grice Chapman Publishing. ISBN 0-9545726-4-5. By November 1946 and after several investigations the British concluded that while there might be a ten per cent chance Bose might still be alive, there was not much else they could do about it. (page 286) The director of the Intelligence Bureau in Delhi visited London, met officials of the IPI and, "mentioned the receipt from various places in India of information to the effect that Subhas Bose was alive in Russia. In some cases circumstantial details have been added. Consequentially he is not more than 90 per cent sure that Subhas is dead. (page 296) So is this letter the key to the so-called Bose mystery? The British authorities refusal to release it is now the focal point for those who believe that Bose is still alive. (page 301) Netaji Subhas Bose: Bengal, Revolution, and Independence by Reva Chatterjee. Published in 2000 by Ocean Books. ISBN 81-87100-27-3. Field Marshall Wavell handed over this note to Mr. Attlee, the then Prime Minister of UK and the British Cabinet approved it on October 25, 1945, sixty seven days after the reported death of Netaji. The approval of Wavell's note by the British Cabinet unmistakably underlined the fact that the British Government not only disbelieved the story of Netaji's death, but it was in possession of definite information about Netaji's presence in Russia. (page 201) It appears, therefore, as part of a carefully prepared ploy, that although Netaji is supposed to have died on August 18, 1945, the announcement of his death was made five days after, that is, on August 23, 1945. This would give the Indian leader enough time to cross over the Manchirian border. (page 202) This whole question of the "mystery" of Bose's demise has, in very recent times, surfaced again because of new and exciting evidence that is tricklng in. The recent declassification of secret Soviet files promises to open up new areas of concern and foster a rethink about the "final hours of Netaji". (page 204)

As I said, the alternate theories of Bose's death (rather disappearance) are as strong as his death story. We need to give due weight to this. If you need me to cite more sources, I shall do that. The authors and publishing houses mentioned above are credible and reliable sources. Based on these, I request you to reconsider the death date give in the article. As it is not conclusive, the death date is best given "unknown" and given a reference to this article. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source list. Here are my quick comments:

• The Kanailal Basu book is a self-published work (see here), and not usable as a source on wikipedia.
• The Mihir Bose is a "popular/amateur history" book, which as I state above is not an preferred source for this article. But even setting that aside, the book clearly sides with those who believe that Bose died in August 1945 after the plane crash and pooh-poohs alternate theories of his death. For example just a few sentences after the quote you cite regarding the letter, the author says, "The letter does not have any bearing on, or contain any information on, Bose's death. But for those in India who relish the conspiracy theory, and cannot believe that Bose died as a result of a plane crash, the fact a letter has been withheld is further reason to flag this very dead horse" (page 301)
• I couldn't find any bibliographical information about the Reva Chatterjee book to analyze its suitability as a source, although it does appear to be a very obscure title. Can you provide us with information regarding the author and publisher, or link to any reviews of the book, that will help us evaluate it ?

Abecedare (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I shall come back with more details. Currently, I am made to run here and there and enter a lot of explanations on multiple pages regarding this subject. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because pretty much everything you are writing raises WP:REDFLAGS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Article about his death or alleged disappearance.

there is now no link, as far as i can see, to the article about his death and the plane crash. Incidentally, someone has improved that article a little by adding a general introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSN (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos of Sikh abuse

I removed the two photos (one showing the Japanese shooting blindfolded Sikhs and the other showing some of them bayoneted) which were added to the Subhas Chandra Bose article. Essentially, these do not belong there, because there is no Bose relevance in them. You may discuss it here. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems the user Fowler has reverted the edit. Please explain how the photos become relevant on Bose's page.

• The originally uploaded photograph does not have a description saying the people were murdered because they hesitated to join INA.
• INA was not founded by Subhas Bose. He was later invited to join the INA and take leadership.
• There is no historic data or evidence that suggests Bose ordered any killing of the Sikhs. The truth is that he had many Sikhs in the INA and one entire regiment was named Sikh regiment.
• The Sikh abuse photos do not have any connection with the subject of the article and they don't deserve to be on this page. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with XrieJetInfo, these pics have nothing to do with Bose.-sarvajna (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I too am not convinced that the pictures are relevant to this page. If the INA members under Bose were the shooters, I could see the point; but given that the pictures show Japanese troops shooting and bayoneting non-INA members possibly before Bose even joined INA, the link to Bose seems a stretch. The pictures would be better placed in the Indian National Army or the First Indian National Army (depending upon their date) with proper discussion in the article's text. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It might not be most relevant to this page. I too was unsure whether the INA article or the Bose article was the best place for it. But, after 7 years of people urging me to revise this article, could they cut me some slack (and I don't mean you Abecedare)? I'd put the text (see below) and the pictures in the Bose article until I determined, whether it is the best place or not. The source, Aldrich, Richard J. (2000), Intelligence and the War Against Japan: Britain, America and the Politics of Secret Service, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-64186-9, retrieved 6 November 2013, explicitly names Bose:

"Despite the systematic attempts of the Japanese, Germans and others to destroy archives, these field security teams had some notable successes in apprehending suspects and in securing material evidence, especially in Singapore (see plate 20). Mountbatten noted in his diary on 13 September 1945 that security services had captured a set of the 'most revolting pictures' showing the fate of some of the Indians who refused to join with Chandra Bose and the INA: 'The first photo shows two dozen Indian soldiers kneeling upright in front of the graves they had dug, with their eyes bandaged ... in the last photo one can see the Japanese soldiers finishing off the living with a bayonet.' page 370."

There are four pictures in all. The "first picture" Aldrich refers to was not the first picture in the Bose article. The latter picture, however, is the one that appears as plate 20 on page 371 of Aldrich's book, with the same caption as that currently in the article, viz. "Captured Sikh soldiers of the British Indian Army who refused to join the INA are executed by the Japanese." (I was aware that this might be controversial, so I played by the book.) Aldrich is about as reliable a source as one gets on Wikipedia. People, who upload pictures, are often unaware about the details of the picture. Given that all sorts of unreliable, untrue, and fringe material had (and has) remained in this article for 7 years, why am I not surprised that the same people who didn't bat an eye, and I don't mean you again Abecedare, when the article was lay steeped in the nonsense, are now, within a week of my editing the article, appearing from every direction and attempting to block my every path. Here are the four pictures in chronological order:

• 
  The Sikh prisoners are here seen seated blindfolded with target marks hanging over their hearts and stakes placed in the ground in front of them bearing the butt numbers of each "target". They sit with dignity awaiting their end.
• 
  This shows Japanese soldiers loading their rifles and getting ready to shoot their Sikh prisoners, who are seated, blindfolded in a rough semi-circle, 20 yards away.
• 
  The shots ring out. Some appear to be near misses, and none at this stage appear to be fatal.
• 
  The final act of brutality. One Japanese soldier can be seen bayonetting one of the victims.

Picture 3 appears in this article, and also on page 371 of Aldrich's book, to illustrate the text, which explicitly names Bose. These pictures might or might not be most relevant to this article, but there is plenty of evidence, sourced to high-quality scholarly sources, that the INA under Bose themselves committed acts of cruelty. I have removed the pictures and the text for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A mention of 'people refusing to join Chandra Bose and INA' does not mean that Bose ordered the killings or the killings were done with Bose's knowledge. Only if that is proved, we can consider any connection of these photos to this page. Fowler removed my mention of the Bharat Ratna controversy in Bose's case. That deserves a mention in the article (simply because it is the highest civilian honour in India) and not these photos. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the said photographs were taken when the British India soldiers (Sikhs) were captured and tortured by Japan after the Battle of Muar. This was in the year 1942. Bose joined INA in 1943. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fowler, your source still doesn't explain how these pictures are connected to Bose, I understand that you hate Bose for whatever reasons, we have seen it in the past. I respect you for everything that you are doing but if you are expecting no scrutiny on your additions then I am afraid that's not going to happen.Mountbatten noted in his diary on 13 September 1945 still doesn't explain whether these pics were taken before 1943 or after 1943. I hope you would get a better source.-sarvajna (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Chattopadhyay

@User:Abecedare: Gautam Chattopadhyay is a notable historian. His biography of Bose is listed in the Digital Library of India. In his book Race War!: White Supremacy and the Japanese Attack on the British Empire, historian Gerald Horne wrote the following:

Bose was "extremely friendly" with local Communists despite their hostility toward Tokyo and support for the Allies during the war. It would be "utterly wrong" says Gautam Chattopadhyay, to see him - and by implication other victims of white supremacy - as a "kind of quisling of the Axis powers". There was his "refusal" to fight the Soviet Union or the Burmans who turned against Japan in 1945. Chattopadhyay argues that "Aung San in Burma, Soekarno... in Indonesia, in fact all anti-imperialist leaders of Southeast Asia with the solitary exception of Ho Chi Minh... followed [Bose's] strategy."

In his book Communalism in Modern India, noted Indian historian Bipan Chandra refers to the 4th chapter of Gautam Chattopadhyay's book Role of Bengal Legislature in the Freedom Struggle and writes in page 87:

According to Gautam Chattopadhyay, the Swarajist support, including that of Subhash Chandra Bose, to the pro-landlord Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Bill of 1928, led to the alienation of Congress, pro-Congress, and pro-peasant Muslim leaders and opinion from the National Congress.

I don't think we need to treat only foreign sources as authentic or scholarly. -- Xrie (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talkpage: I do not think the source you cited (Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian Leftists and Communists, by Gautam Chattopadhyay) is reliable, let alone comparable to the scholarly sources being used otherwise in the article. The book is published by "People's publishing house", which seems to be the in house label for this bookstore, known for its "non-mainstream" wares. If that is incorrect, or you have other information about the author or the book itself (such as positive reviews in academic journals etc) feel free to bring it up on the article talk page.

Gerald Horne is hardly a authoritative source on Bose either, and in any case he is not even citing the work you quoted from (ditto for Bipan Chandra's quote). Can you clarify why you think the specific work you cited meets the reliability standards?

Finally, not sure why you raise the issue of "foreign [sic] sources"... did I or anyone else on this page, propose that as a standard ? To me it just comes across as an diversionary straw man, which is hardly conducive to continued good-faith discussion. Abecedare (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Apologies if you thought it was a targeted remark; it wasn't targeted or diversionary. From my little experience in Wikipedia, I have seen people asking for only foreign sources to cite something, on many occasions.

You asked me whether I had other information on the author and that's why I produced Horne's and Chandra's remarks about him, although the context was different. Just wanted to point out that Chattopadhyay is notable. I am surprised no article on him exists on Wikipedia. -- Xrie (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I found a reference to the Chattopadhyay's Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian Leftists and Communists in Haye's bibliographical review, where he says that it "offers a valuable, if distorted, Marxist perspective on Bose". Given that, and the dubious credibility (and obvious bias) of its publisher, I am wary of using it directly unmediated by scholarly evaluation of the specific claim it is being cited for.

But stepping back a bit, lets evaluate what the quote that was included and the one refernced by Horne above are intended to say about Bose's ideology. As I read them, they evidence that Bose was, at least per some historians, (1) not an uncritical supporter of the Axis-forces individual projects/goals (as in the Russian and Burmese campaigns), and (2) that he was not anti-communist, even though the communists were allied with the Allies.

I think these claims are not themselves false, and we should be able to find better sources to support them (at least broadly), including probably the Gordon and Hayes bio themselves. The wikipedia article already hints at this when it says:

His political views and the alliances he made with Nazi and other militarist regimes at war with Britain have been the cause of arguments among historians and politicians, with some accusing him of fascist sympathies, while others in India have been more sympathetic towards the realpolitik that guided his social and political choices.

Unfortunately this paragraph, though likely accurate, is currently unreferenced and in any case should be considerably expanded. So I would suggest that instead of getting hung up about one particular iffy source, the efforts would be better spent simply outlining what the available sources say about the (mis?)-match between Bose and Axis/fascist/anti-communist ideology.

Also pinging @Fowler&fowler: to check if I am barking up the wrong tree with respect to the sources or Bose's ideology; and since he may already have the ideology section scheduled for rewrite. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Emilie Schenkl merge

Per the AfD, I have done a hamfisted merge by incorporating the LEAD from the stand alone article. It is probably UNDUE to call it out in its own section, and most of the content actually appears to be duplicate content about Bose himself and could be cut. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have undone the merge as someone at Emilie Schenkl claims the article has been rewritten and the AfD results no longer apply. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I have reverted you. The previous AFD "consensus" whatever it was, is not valid since the article significantly differs from the past version. A new nomination is required, for deletion/merge/whatever. Solomon7968 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Solomon. Post the result of 13th Nov, F&f started his work of expansion on 17th Nov. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is an awkward one. The present version is a stub and cannot possibly amount to anything more significant than the prior AfD'd version. Nothing has happened on it for a while and Fowler is on one of their periodic absences. When Fowler is around, content tends to develop quickly but unless someone is willing/able to take on the burden right now, I think we have to merge & redirect. Should things develop in future then, of course, the redirect from Schenkl to this article can be reverted. I've little doubt that Fowler will take up the task but the duration of their absences can vary considerably and it is not uncommon for the period to be extended after an initial announcement of impending return etc. D'oh - I was looking at an old diff, presented above. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A thoroughly poor article that does not keep with encyclopedic principles and/or rules

A general comment here. This article is very poorly written and includes numerous statements that are opinion-based and/or subjective in nature. Furthermore, it appears that much of the article is written by contibutors whose first language is not English. There are numerous grammatical errors throughout the article. For those following this article, please work toward making it a more concise and fact-based description of this man's life. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.52 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In support of my general comment, here is an example of a statement that has no place in an encyclopedic article. Moreso considering that there is no citation whatsoever associated to it : "In all 3,000 Indian prisoners of war signed up for the Free India Legion. But instead of being delighted, Bose was worried. A left-wing admirer of Russia, he was devastated when Hitler's tanks rolled across the Soviet border"

These articles are meant to inform about basic facts not relay flowery narratives that are based on potentially biased or subjective views about a particular subject.

The article is misleading and suffers from the practice of omission or twisting of historical facts. a look at the citations listed below the main article will give anybody a fair idea that research studies conducted by European authors have been deliberately referred to justify the misleading information given in the page. There are other research materials which gives a neutral view of Netaji's life. His lifelong unselfish struggle for freedom has been blatantly undermined in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.75.158 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Lifelong unselfish struggle" suggests it is you who has trouble editing with a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the Legacy section of the page. There is no mention of the Mass Uprising during the trial of INA soldiers in the Red Fort in Delhi. No mention of Navy and Army uprising subsequent to that. It's a shame even after more than half a century after the supposed death of Netaji, people are still trying to deny him his due in this way.115.112.75.158 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Dibyendu Das

If you'd like to write an expansion (with sources) to the Legacy section other editors could look at it and comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN, can I ask how you have concluded my remark "Lifelong unselfish struggle" is an impediment to neutrality? Even M.K Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore had praised Netaji in much decorated phrases than this.115.112.75.158 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Dibyendu Das

That's the point. We're not here to "praise" any subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear NeilN. You and your coterie of Merry Men (Editors of this page) may not praise Netaji. But as a matter of pure fact you could have at least mentioned some of the initiatives taken by Subhas Chandra Bose when he was the Mayor of Calcutta. That was a vital part in his political career.

Suggested text and sources? Instead of just complaining, it's much more constructive to say "I want to add these sentences and here are the sources:" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

2602:306:38E0:3B69:28AF:EF68:334:E232 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC) You depiction is based on Western History and defining Bose as fascist while he only was trying to save his country India, which suffered a 200 year holocaust by terrorist occupiers who then rewrite history to make themselves look honorable and civil. Though Hitler was a horrible man, if it wasn't for the Germans bombing the shit out of Britain, I would be stuck serving tea to some British fascist in my birth country. So semi protect your lies Wikipedia

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Ravenshaw Collegiate School to alma mater.

Add Ravenshaw Collegiate School to alma mater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdnsyn (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written and highly biased

The article is highly biased against him and demonizes him in every possible way. Nearly all the so-called "academic references" cited are those by British Imperialist historians. This sort of quality in entirely unexpected from wikipedia. I have never had to criticize wikipedia in such terms, even after having read hundreds of articles on Indian history. This article has no place in a quality site such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.25.192 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014

I would like to add the Netaji's name in bengali: Bengali: সুভাষচন্দ্র বসু 94.205.102.166 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We dont do that WP:INDICSCRIPT.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Dear Editor, Subject: Correction of date of death mentioned for Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose I will be looking for presentation of correct information on legandary freedom figter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The information provided in wiki at the starting as - Subhas Chandra Bose ( listen (help·info); 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945(1945-08-18) (aged 48)[1]) was an Indian nationalist I would like to inform there is no official records on the date Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose died. The information has been provided based on news published by Japanese newpaper without verifying the authenticity of the news. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuj_Dhar or Mission Netaji Site for more details. In absence of authentic record I will suggest either you keep the date of death blank or give a citation ' The date is having controversies'.

I request you to understand the sentiment of million of Bengali people who do not want to see any miss presentation of their legandary hero without proper authenticity check of the information.

Your faithfully Saumya Panda Representing 'Amar Bangla' - A focussed group dedicated to Bengal welfare and development Date:28 /11/2014

Saumyapanda (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Hi and thanks for your request. Unfortunately, the date is well cited and cannot be changed. Do note that Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources (like the cited work) rather than on official sources. The controversy regarding his death is well noted in the article and is appropriately footnoted in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Death

How can you put a death section for him when there is dispute about the death? The following links will justify my comments.

1. Unveil mystery behing Subhash Chandra Bose's death
   
2. ‘Netaji was not dead but in Russia, and the govt knew it
3. SC cancels note on Bharat Ratna for Subhash Bose
4. Did Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose end up in Russia?

Until this issue is solved, please dont remove the neutrality disputed tag. Thanks! RRD13 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

because a few fringe conspiracy theorists that have fed mass public misconceptions do not rate when compared to the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TRPOD. This has been raised recently and answered; for instance, just read the above post. To summarise the consensus, his death in the plane crash is supported by all mainstream historians and it has been presented that way; however, this dispute is a conspiracy theory propounded by non-academics and the public--it has been given due weight. Since only non-academic sources, i.e. news reports, support this theory (see WP:HISTRS), we can present it only because of its notability as a conspiracy theory. There isn't any dispute among historians...just the public, so it has been shown in Death of SCB page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are so many academic research papers which does not support Netaji's death at the said air crash. there is a deliberate and blatant attempt to discard these research works as non academic. the entire page on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose is a creation of somebody with a vested interest to undermine HIS contribution in Indian Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.75.158 (talk)

Can you please cite these many academic research papers written by mainstream historians? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Roy, Purabi. The Search for Netaji: New Findings. Kolkata. Sanyal, Narayan. Netaji Rahasya Sandhaney. Kolkata. Both Purabi Roy (Eminent academician, Jadavpur University, Kolkata) and Narayan Sanyal (Eminent Author) actually travelled to the locations for their research work. I have read these two that's why I am only giving the names of these two authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.75.158 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many conspiracy theories about his death. The "death" section should note a summary of the theories. Britannica cautiously says "A few days after Japan’s announced surrender in August 1945, Bose, fleeing Southeast Asia, reportedly died in a Japanese hospital in Taiwan as a result of burn injuries from a plane crash." Historians and academics say that he died in 1945, note that the theories exist. For example, this biography notes the fact of his death, but presents a summary of the theories. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The death section is the lead of the page Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. The section refers to the conspiracy theories in Wikipedia WP:Summary style. The details of the legends, conspiracy theories, and enquiries are in the parent page. Britannica treats Bose in a number of places, perfunctorily in the page Britannica: Subhas Chandra Bose written by anonymous editor of Britannica. This page uses the expression "reportedly." The more important Britannica reference is in the page India, in the history section, a signed article written by historian Stanley Wolpert, (see India: History: Impact of World War II, which says,

It was also in 1941 that Bose fled to Germany, where he started broadcasting appeals to India urging the masses to “rise up” against British “tyranny” and to “throw off” their chains. There were, however, few Indians in Germany, and Hitler’s advisers urged Bose to go back to Asia by submarine; he was eventually transported to Japan and then to Singapore, where Japan had captured at least 40,000 Indian troops during its takeover of that strategic island in February 1942. These captured soldiers became Netaji (“Leader”) Bose’s Indian National Army (INA) in 1943 and, a year later, marched behind him to Rangoon. Bose hoped to “liberate” first Manipur and then Bengal from British rule, but the British forces at India’s eastern gateways held until the summer monsoon gave them respite enough to be properly reinforced and drove Bose and his army back down the Malay Peninsula. In August 1945 Bose escaped by air from Saigon but died of severe burns after his overloaded plane crashed onto the island of Formosa.

Signed articles in encyclopedias are more reliable per longstanding WP policy than perfunctory articles written by editors, especially now when any one can comment in Britannica. There is nothing "reported" about his death on August 18, 1945. The Death of Subhas Chandra Bose article has reliable references to his death, including those of major historians of decolonization, Second World War, and Bose studies: Christopher Bayly, Stanley A. Wolpert, Leonard A. Gordon, Joyce Lebra, Peter W. Fay. Sugata Bose, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf and many others. They all state definitively that Bose died on August 18, 1945. This discussion should be carried on the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose page after the doubting editors have had a chance to examine the quality of the sources uses. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Due weightage

The following lines represent the view of a Govt. of India enquiry. The weightage of the same cannot be equated with one-two text books cited. The very fact that files are still unclassified suggests there is more to be known than in public domain as of now. Thus the lines which are [sourced] should remain to maintain and [point of view]: That he did not die in Taipei in 1945 has been confirmed by the Mukherjee Commission instituted by the Indian Government. The truth probably lies in the unclassified files with the PMO which the government has refused to reveal under various pretexts, despite its own promises.

SP 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)  

Death

Should we call it mysterious, rather than providing extra material on lead? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read the above section, your issue has already been discussed there. Komchi^✉_☆ 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote authentication and context

Do we have good sources authenticating, and tracing the provenance of, the quotes in the last paragraph of Ideology section? Namely, ""Give me blood and I will give you freedom"", "Dilli chalo", "Ittefaq, Etemad, Qurbani". While I am reasonably confident that those quotes are genuine, and have thus not removed them from the article, they need scholarly sources that provide context as to when and where he said tham, rather than generic news articles/websites that repeat them ad nauseam. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section too long

The length and detail of this lead is simply excessive. Unschool 04:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is within the WP:LEAD "5 paragraph" guidelines.

As a summary of the subject, what in the lead is of lesser importance that you think should be removed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please change the name of the section "Death on 18 August 1945" to "Disappearance on 18 August 1945"

Since independence, three commissions had been setup by the Indian Government to solve the mystery of disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Each of the commission's report remained inconclusive due to unwillingness of the ruling political party of those times, to give adequate powers to the commissions, in order to proceed with their investigations. It's a well-known fact that the so called plane crash death claim is far from truth.

Therefore changing the name of the section "Death on 18 August 1945" to "Disappearance on 18 August 1945" would be more appropriate for a neutral reference site like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi partha (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"In the consensus of scholarly opinion, Subhas Chandra Bose's death occurred from third-degree burns on 18 August 1945 after his overloaded Japanese plane crashed in Japanese-occupied Formosa (now Taiwan)." We follow scholarly opinion, not conspiracy theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed the comment of the user NeilN. Before terming something as conspiracy theoriy, I would like to ask this person to study the reports submitted by the three commissions setup by Government of India. The latest in this was the Justice Manoj Mukherjee Commission of Enquiry, which had clearly said in his report that Netaji was dead but he did not die in the plane crash over Taiwan and the ashes in a Japanese temple are not of Netaji’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi partha (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To rephrase NeilN, we follow scholarly sources, not government reports, official or unofficial. --regentspark (comment) 16:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks regentspark. The conspiracy theories I was referring to was, "It's a well-known fact that the so called plane crash death claim is far from truth." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What scholarly articles?How do so called scholars pass judgement over things like death or disappearance of someone when those scholars dont have the authority to interrogate a witness?How many of the scholarly sources you mention have been to any of the places associated with the disappearance?So because "we" dont follow government reports we will also throw away the Taiwanese govt.report which acknowledges that there was no plane crash.Also do the scholars have access to the DNA tests done on the so called bones of Netaji?If scholars were to be the authority on judgement then there would be no need of investigating agencies and judges and courts.sunny.......... 22:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

The highest court in India in 1992 declared that Subhash Chandra Bose's death in the plane crash was not confirmed.And that court had access to far more evidence then so called scholars.sunny.......... 22:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Scholars have access to the judgement of the courts as well as the evidence that the court has seen. They can interpret and comment on those judgments which is why we rely on scholarly sources. --regentspark (comment) 00:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

When one looks for "Scholarly articles", one cannot be biased towards one school of thought. The facts that people have been denied access to 'classified' files and reports like US confirmation and Sinha's statement cannot be simply wiped under the carpet. There are scores of other 'scholarly articles'. Tinkswiki (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tinkswiki, if you can point us to the "scores of other 'scholarly articles'", we can certainly discuss and cite them in this and related articles. However, newspaper reports of what some MP (and relative of Bose) says are not an appropriate substitute. Abecedare (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The latest commision report of 2006 has catagorically stated that Bose didnt die of the plane crash and that the ashes in Renkoji Temple are of a Taiwanese man Ichiro Okura.Is there any SCHOLARLY ARTICLE after that which deals with the topic?sunny.......... 20:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

Reportedly, at his funeral on September 18, 1985, one of the 13 attendants cried out, "…there should have been 13 lakh people here!"

In 2005, the Taiwan government provided emails to Dhar that it has no records of a plane crash during the period of 14 August to 25 October 1945, at the old Matsuyama Airport (now Taipei Domestic Airport).

Counter claims[edit]

The scholarly view is that Bose died in the air crash and that theories that he did not are incorrect, speculative, mythical, and possibly fabricated However, Mission Netaji claims that Dhar's research will prove that Bose actually escaped to the Soviet Union after the war. Justice Mukherjee Commission which probed the death of Subhas Bose later concurred with Dhar's claim that Bose was not killed in Taiwan, although the Indian government rejected the findings.

In the book No Secrets, Dhar claims that, according to a newspaper article published by Bose's elder brother Sarat Chandra Bose in The Nation, Bose was in China in October 1949. Jithinpm10 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You have not made any specific edit request. (Please use a format such as "In the WHATEVER section, please change XXX to YYY") Also please provide a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight that supports your suggested change. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015

please correct the spelling of Bose's name in Bengali in the infobox. it should be "সুভাষচন্দ্র বসু" instead of "সুভাস চন্দ্র বসু". the signature provided in the infobox clearly mentions the right spelling as well as the article in bengali. Anupam207 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, but please check my work. I checked against the Bengali article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

Subhash Chandra Bose was one of the leaders whose role in obtaining Indian independence is often neglected or sometimes even ignored . Warrior12344 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2015 (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. No edit has been requested. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavily biased section named as Death on 18 August 1945

The bias in the section named as Death on 18 August 1945, is very much conspicuous, very much unbecoming of Wikipedia. There is a literary effort to establish unconfirmed events in the veil of so-called "scholarly opinion". It appears the page is intentionally silent on the report of the last commission and the inquiry commission by Taiwan Government, the country in which the air crash was alleged to take place. It is another matter, but quite relevant, that Taiwan itself has denied this crash having ever taken place. But what is most irritating is the last paragraph, where there is a emphasis on shock, disbelief at so-called death in India, which gives a lead into a suspicion that everything (even an Inquiry Commission report perhaps!) are all babies of this disbelief. There are pictures like Renkoji temple, or newspapers reports published at that time which unsuccessfully try to uphold the the death theory, but keeping silent on the other theories, increases the suspicion of a using this page as a tool to publish own opinions rather than information.Biswa roop (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

Today's declassification of more than 12400 pages of info on Bose from secret state archives clearly displays most governments did not believe that he died on 18th of August 1945. Should Wikipedia not reflect this uncertainty? 117.194.45.196 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done That's not a fair representation of the documents as far as I know. In any case, lets wait for scholars and experts to chew over the new documents and opine. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected

It appears that the recent news about classified docs has resulted in undiscussed changes and edit warring so I am fully protecting the article. Please gain consensus for content on this talk page and request they be made. This is not an endorsement of the version protected. —SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Subhas Chandra Bose's death

Hello everyone! This is Swastik. I'm myself a bengali & I can guarantee that Subhas Chandra Bose didn't die of any plane on August 18, 1945, either. It is nowhere written about a plane crash in Taiwan on this date! Some people even saw Netaji till 1970. There was a huge conspiracy by Nehru, who wanted to be the PM of India. So, he locked Subhash Chandra Bose in a lockup in Siberia, Russia. There was an Indian ambassador who knew this, but was warned by Jawaharlal Nehru that if he told this to anyone, first of all, he would be killed. So, please don't mention any particular date, in which he is rumoured to be died.

If anyone wants to be further acquainted with those details, kindly click on these links: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs) 18:12, September 19, 2015

@SWASTIK 25 and Padmalochanwiki: If you read the sections above and the talkpage archives, you'll see that the issue of when and how Bose died has been discussed at length, and the article reflects what scholars and historians say about Bose's death and the various conspiracy theories that have arisen in its wake. Per wikipedia policy we follow WP:HISTRS-sources on such a topic, and an official in the publication division of the India's I&B ministry in 1948 believing that Bose was still alive or newspapers reporting that "a senior government official" says that the documents show that "British and American intelligence agencies" were concerned that Bose was being trained to be another Mao etc, are not acceptable substitutes (and, the Zee News accounts are one step further removed from the IE reports!).

If the released documents result in historians reexamining the question and reaching a different conclusion, we can update the article accordingly. Sugata Bose, who is both Bose's grand-nephew and a historian has pooh-poohed the reports at the moment, but detailed examination by other (arguably less conflicted) scholars will take several months or years. That delay is not an issue for a tertiary source like wikipedia when writing about a historical subject. In the meantime we should not be trying to balance scholarly consensus with third-fourth hand newspaper accounts. Abecedare (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Then, what's the decision now about Netaji's death? Swastik (talk)

The decision is that we follow the mainstream scholarly consensus and present that he died in a plane crash and mention that there have been persistent conspiracy theories that he didnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

References

SWASTIK 25, I think I can guarantee that being Bengali doesn't guarantee that you are are all knowing. I am Australian and that doesn't guarantee that I know what happened to our Prime Minister Harold Holt for example, who disappeared 'mysteriously'. 220 of ^Borg 09:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

220, I think I can also guarantee that Harold Holt is more known to the world than Netaji. Being an Aussie, u may not know about Harold Holt, but being a Bengali, rather an Indian, I do know many controversial & undiscovered facts about Netaji's death. So, I would advise u not to waste your time in arguing with me regarding some irrelevant issues. SWASTIK 25 (talk

One of the purely "irrelevant issues" is your proclamations of your personal knowledge of "controversial & undiscovered facts ". So the sooner you drop that, the better off we all will be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 September 2015

I feel it is time to mark the section about "Death..." as controversial. The title be changed to "Alleged Death...." or something similar to make the article appear unbiased. The current version has too many aspects that have been questioned by too many historical references.

Another alternative: May I suggest the content of the section be moved to a different page, and let us just mark Death as controversial and let the other page discuss all theories about death. As such, the current page is misleading as there is no clear proof of death to validate any side's theories.

14.99.126.170 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that indicate that the date of Bose's death is not well established. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: There are lots of reliable sources see here, here, here and here. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sanskari. By reliable sources we mean scholarly ones rather than news sources. --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For that one need to dig Supreme Court's judgements and study of chief justice committee about his death. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are primary sources and are not acceptable. Look for sources published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. --regentspark (comment) 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary? Well, the courts judgements are much more reliable and acceptable (don't know why Wikipedia lacks this) since it is only based on the facts and finding and this is what laws means. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Court judgements, committee reports, etc. are all subject to interpretation (law journals consume reams of paper interpreting and parsing court judgements) and they should not be used directly on Wikipedia. Reliable secondary (peer-reviewed) sources examine these reports and judgements and that's what we use on Wikipedia. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation (from WP:PRIMARY).--regentspark (comment) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 September 2015

My request is Netaji's death date can't anybody believe in 1945. so please hide it.

Please read discussion above on this. Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2015

The day of death of Subhas Chandra Bose is actually unknown. The Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry which was constituted to look into the disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose conclusively proved in 2005 that he did not die in any plane crash on August 18, 1945. The supposed ashes placed in a temple at Japan are also not his - these are the findings of the Justice Mukherjee Commission (a judicial commission). here is the wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukherjee_Commission#Findings

Recently, on September 18, 2015, 64 secret/intelligence files on Subhas Chandra Bose were de-classified by the government of the state of Bengal in India. The de-classified files too point to the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose was very much alive post-1945. Here is a news article on the same: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Was-Netaji-alive-till-1964/articleshow/49005391.cms

So my request is to allow me to edit the section of this wikipedia post talking about the "Death" of Subhas Chandra Bose which in reality is "unknown". 180.151.26.68 (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Not donePlease read the discussion above, particularly the material on the nature of sources required to establish any date other than the August 1945 date as his date of death. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Subhas Chandra Bose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120410074114/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/hisbooks_6.htm to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/netaji/hisbooks_6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations, notes and references.

There is currently a discussion on the referencing of this article at template sfn. Please add comments there to ensure all interested parties read them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Death Of Subhash Chandra Bose

There are many files that are declassified. It says that Bose did not attended the flight at Taipei. His grand son says,'My grandpa didn't died in plane crash at least we do not support this statement' Many people in his family thinks that he died at the age of 78,but they have no proof.

It is officially agreed that 'The Death Of Subhas Chandra Bose is a deep secret like the Death Of Hitler' said by National Agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by God Srijan (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 January 2016‎

What's the point of these assertions? Wikipedia is based on reliable and neutral sources. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear GorgeCustersSabre, Where are these assertions made in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were replying to an IP. OK, will fix. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Have added subst unsigned. (I thought these things were added by a bot in the past. Hmm.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fowler's edit re:Atlee urban legend

Fowler has edited to remove a section that in summary stated that many consider Bose to have been strong influence on the decision of relinquishing the Raj, and that Atlee had made a comment to the Governor of Bengal that he himself considered the fall out from Bose's INA and the aftermath to be a key factor. This claim is attributed to a specific author in a respected website. Fowler has deleted this saying this is not backed up by Atlee's own recorded biography. Essentially, Fowler is synthesising information from what is not written to delete a verifiable source. Secondly, the substance of the article, that many in India and abroad, both scholar and laypeople consider Bose's contributions of stupendous importance may be against his niche view from post-raj historians, but tremendously POV, shallow, and one-sided as it ignores a huge body of scholarly work that dismisses this "Gandhyist-Nehruist" narrative as Raj-istly blinkered. So in summary, Fowler is essentially deleting a referenced edit that does not suit his view point (and trying to dismiss/mask a widely held view as inconsequential without any argument against) by engaging in WP:SYNTH. That is not acceptable, and moreover is POV. Since no explanation is offered here, I am going to revert this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: We are not here to determine "who won India independence" so dont go down that argument, that is not Wikipedia is about. Thankyou.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need more than a zee news article that relies on second and third hand quotes to upend decades of study by historians. For inclusion, this would need to be backed up by citations to articles by respected historians. Even if Attlee did'chew out' minimal, it does not follow that he believed that Bose was more instrumental than Gandhi in gaining India's freedom (perhaps he rolled out of bed on the wrong side that day). We don't build histories on uncertain passing comments by people, rather we let historians analyze those passing comments and let them decide what is plausible and what is not. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

With his accustomed eloquence and focus, RP has explained this better than I, but hopefully my sources below will be helpful in future discussions. I just did a Google search. This story is now being repeated by politicians on YouTube. Here is India's national security adviser telling one version at the 1:15 minute mark in a Youtube video (I found him difficult to understand) and an Indian cabinet minister(?) S. Swami telling slightly different version at the 5:30 minute mark. Given the current political atmosphere in India, I expect there will be many variant readings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"RP", with your eloquence I would have expected more than snide remarks of rolling out of wrong side of the bed to make an argument. Don't belittle the intelligence of those who contribute in WP, as much as your own, to pretend that "only a zee news" article had somehow survived in an " urban legend" that looked at a remark of long-dead british PM to a third hand source in concluding "who one India independence?" The remark quoted in the article is attributed and well cited in a publication authored by a respected Indian historian and his views will find many takers outwith the toffs of Cambridge, especially respected historoans across the atlantic. There seems to be a consensus with blinkers here where, in true intellectual dishonesty, consensus of one kind is claimed in the absolute lack of one. I will have to take this further in the WP:arbitration process if this nonsense persists.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is does a reliable source berify that JUstice Ca make the comments attributec to him and, do a large proportion of people jold voews similar to the justice's views, historoan or lay. I will let fowler's comments below speak for themselves without splitting hairs.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The question is whether a fringe view is due or not. Regardless of whether he said that he said that he said whatever he said. Rueben_lys, you've been here long enough to know that you need to get consensus for your edits when you find yourself reverted. If you find yourself reverted more than once, then you risk getting blocked if you keep reverting. You might want to undo your latest revert to show that you plan to continue editing in good faith. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the "fringe view that we had huge discussion in the India page a few years ago is it? Because the records I provided at the time substantiated that Bose's contribution is considered quite significant by Historians. My last edit summarised the jist and the popular perception of Bose being "not given due proportion of history" from two widely regarded long standing media reports, you nontheless stamp it as "fringe views". I am sorry, this is turning into you deciding content and then threatening me with blocking. I will have to take this to admin notice board.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: My last edit has nothing to do with the Atlee comment, why do you want this deleted? And you are suggesting Bose not being given enough weight in Indian history text books, is a "fringe view" is it? So something that has triggered a central information commissioner of India to demand an answer from NCERT is blithely dismissed by yourself as "fringe" because you havent read this in your history textbook is it?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS: The consensus issue applies universally regentspark, you should note (and you have been here long enough too) it was Fowlers edit that was reverted by myself. I have raised the issue at WP:ADMIN BOARD.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading the above comments it is difficult for others to follow what the discussion is about. Was the "specific author" G D Bakshi and "respected website" Zee News (not sure whether it is that well respected)? If yes, this does not appear to be important or conclusive enough to "upend decades of study by historians", as User:RegentsPark put it. The veracity of the claims appear to be questionable - it is not as if Attlee had stated this opinion in a book. It would be helpful if any such major changes are well explained with sufficient references, rather than merely attacking fellow editors in the community. - Aurorion (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the "specific author" is R.C. Majumdar, in whose memoirs the letter attributed to Justice Chakrabarty was published. Without conducting OR on whether the letter is genuine or not or whether Atlee could have made such a remark, Chakrabarty was acting Governor of Bengal when the purpoted conversation took place, and this claim is accepted and cited by other historians, including SN Sen (Prof of History in Uni of Calcutta, retd). Regarding thie jist of the edit, Bose's contributions are considered very important in the final decision of transfer of power, especially by Indian historians (see section below with the published analysis by TR Sareen, retired director of the Indian Council of Historical research, and by SR Sardesai, visiting prof of History at UCLA) The fact that some notable broadsheets and popular newschannels repeat these claims, and on top one "specifically states" that many in India consider Bose to have been not given due credit reflects the opinions on Bose in popular culture (which is what the poorly termed section"legacy" is actually trying to say, without oing into hagiography).rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeated deletions on Bose's legacy with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE argument

First of all the section in the article titled legacy is aweful and needs to be renamed and restructured. The content are more aptly headed under "controversies". Secondly for the content itself. Some editors, notably fowler have deleted sections that suggest or or state that Bose made an enormous contribution to Indian independence. This is in the same vein that Fowler stated a few years ago that nothing but Gandhi was important enough to make the cut in a short summary paragraph on the Indian freedom movement. We had a prolonged debate where I was forced to point out with extensive references that consensus scholarly opinion is far removed from what Fowler suggested and in fact attributed considerable importance to Bose's movement in the fag end of the Raj and on Bose's actions upon the decision to relinquish the Raj. This same debate has now been crept up here where every historical opinion ascribing importance to Bose's works are dismissed, usually against a lay editor who has scant access to historical journals etc and are instead stonewalled by the loops of WP:REF, by suggesting there popular newspaper or magazine quotations etc fail WP:REF and are not reliable.In so doing I am afraid, what appears to me evident is that Fowler as a historian (he claims to be a professor in his userpage and there is no reason to disbelieve he is widely read in history) belongs to the school that T.R. Sareen described in 2004 as

“ For Western Historians Bose has remained a traitor, a fascist, a tool of the Japanese and an enemy agent ”

(SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE, JAPAN AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM, T.R. SAREEN. European Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 3, No. 1 (2004), pp. 69-97) Sareen explains in the previous page that

“ Indian Historians have claimed that Bose's drive accelerated India's liberation" ”

, and goes on to explain how you view Bose depends to a large extent which side of the earth you grew up in and got educated. This is the background against which this debate keeps cropping up. Now coming to the main issue of how much is fringe and how much is not. Let's review some reviews of books published in scholarly journals.

Leonard Gordon in 1977 castigated Sarvapelli Gopal's biography of Nehru (contrasting it with Brecher's). Amongst the deficiencies he pointed out in the book was

“ Bose, an important ally and rival of Nehru's in the Congress, is dismissed as an egotistical loser, and Bose's important role in establishing the Planning Committee of the Congress in 1938 is curiously ignored... ”

A more recent monograph by Nick Tarling, The fall of Imperial Britain in South-East Asia (1993) was criticised by D.R. Sardesai in Albion as:

“ In chosing to work closely with British sources, and narrowly focussing on the British South-east asian possessions, Tarling has missed the larger conext of political convulsions in Asia and Africa brought about by the powerful winds of nationalism. He regards the British withdrawal from southeast Asia "not a surrender but a creative act" where the goal was to retain British economic primacy in the region, which he says was a continuation of her policy in the region in the ninteenth century...

...Such an Eurocentric approach to South-east asian history would be unacceptable to most historians in the field today... ...Tarling has also ignored the Indian National Army and the government-in-exile rounded by the Indian revolutionary, Subhas Chandra Bose, during World War II in south-east asia, largely from forty thousand Indian defectors from the British Army after the "fall" of Singapore...The only reference to Bose is as a "client nationalist", to whom the Japanese Japanese handed over the control fo teh Andaman islands. By contrast, histrians of the Indian nationalist movement, both of Indian and British origin, have underlined the important role of the Indian National Army, and the post-World War II trial of its leaders on the concluding phase of British transfer of power in India

”

(Reviewed Work: The Fall of Imperial Britain in South-East Asia by Nicholas Tarling. Review by: D. R. SarDeSai. Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. Vol. 26, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 579-581)

Even more recently, in a paper in 2010 in Modern Asian Studies, W.F. Kuracina contests the arguments of historians like Judith Brown and David Low that (in a jist) "Independence was coming anyway" by pointing out that

“ Both of these works overlook the fact that, despite British offers for limited self-governance, the true authority of the Raj (The British Indian Army) was not due to be fully Indianised until 1952, and that the Red Fort trials would never have been overseen by a British court-martial if the British had not intended to remain the rulers of India after the war. ”

He later notes...

“ ...the Congress elites betrayed a level of insencerity in their appropriation of the INA legacy ”

(Sentiments and Patriotism: The Indian National Army, General Elections and the Congress's Appropriation of the INA Legacy. WILLIAM F. KURACINA. Modern Asian Studies. Vol. 44, No. 4 (JULY 2010), pp. 817-856).

Here is Nirmala Bose writing in the The Indian Journal of Political Science in 1985

“ ...The independence of the country was achieved in 1947, mainly because of the INA and its Netaji... ”

(SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, Nirmal Bose, The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. 46, No. 4, Special Issue on The Indian National Congress: A Century in Perspective (October-December 1985), pp. 438-450.

I hope these simple opinions and works published in peer-reviewed journals will belie the claim of "consensus" that has so blithely been claimed. It will be amply evident that a wide discrepancy exists in the historical analysis, between Indian historians and those of some "Western" ones. Of course when national newspapers and publications repeatedly make the same statement that a certain someone is regarded by "many in the country" as having made a stupendous contribution to the cause of Indian independence, and that they have been given less than due credit in subsequent period by erstwhile political rivals, then I do not see how that is fringe. For example, Area 52 being a alien landing zone would not make it to the front page of the Guardian or the TIME magazine. Similarly, I do not see the The Independent or the Spectator magazine publishing a story that the moon landings were fake or that Kennedy was murdered by the Castro govt. The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Deccan Tribune, The Hindu these are all widely read and respected publications in Indian subcontinent (I dont why this is having to be explained). Therefore when they publish something stating this is widely regarded, I am very confused why the goalpost is suddenly shifted. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is unhelpful, no response has been offered here, no attempt to address the issues I have highlighted from peer-reviewed sources in academia, and on top of that my edits are being reverted with only cursory summaries of personal opinions. There is no attempt at consensus as I see, and no contributions from other editors to address the one-sided bias that I fear is being foisted on this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Clement Attlee remark

The anecdote has its origin in a letter written in Bengali by the former Acting Governor of West Bengal PB Chakravarti to the publisher of R.C. Majumdar's Bangla Desher Itihas, Vol. IV on 30 March 1976, nine years after Attlee's death and when Majumdar himself was 88 years old (he died at 92). The facsimile of the letter was published in the appendix of Majumdar's Jībanera smṛtidīpe ("The light of my life's memories") (1978) when Majumdar was 90 years old, not in Majumdar's A History of the Freedom Movement in India (whose last edition before his death was printed in 1971). The story, in my view, is apocryphal, there is no reliable secondary source to attest it, and no biography of Attlee mentions it.

More pertinently, the Chakravarti letter is a primary source and can't be used per Wikipedia policy. The Majumdar reference is not a peer-reviewed history source, only a reminiscence. Decolonization, partition and World War II, are three of the most worked on fields of modern Indian and British history. It is hardly likely that Attlee, a post-war Labour PM, sympathetic to Gandhi, and committed to decolonization, would have said this to no one other than an acting governor of Bengal, in whose official residence he stayed for a couple of days as a visiting ex-PM of Britain in the late 1950s, and with whom he had no previous acquaintance. If we are citing primary sources we can directly quote Attlee, who in his remarks after Gandhi's death, said, "for a quarter of a century, this one man (Gandhi) has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem." It is highly unlikely that the same man would have said, ten years later, as the anecdote has it, as his "lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, 'm-i-n-i-m-a-l'." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The remark is attributed to a person (of considerable omportance) in the published memoirs of a respected historian, and fails wp reference only because you wish to infer it as such. The deleted section attributed a claim from Attlee tp a a secondary source with a fascimile and printed against the name of an eminent Indian historian. It is only failing your wp test because you are picking and chosing what you consider what is rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence and what isn't, and stupendously dishonest.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Attlee was one of the early backers of India's independence, long before WW2. He had gone to India for the first time in 1928. He revisited for many months with his wife in 1929. On 25 November 1931, Attlee spoke in the House of Commons: ‘we in this party stand for India’s control of her own affairs ... our position is that India, as has been said, must be allowed to make her own mistakes." (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 416, 25 November 1931.)

(From: Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (2012). Attlee, A Political Biography, IB Tauris B.) "If Attlee’s interest in India had been peripheral prior to the Simon Commission, it had now become central to his political aims. On 2 December 1931, Attlee spoke in a debate on the government’s policy on India after the second ‘Round Table Conference’, which Gandhi attended after agreeing to call off his campaign of civil disobedience in a deal with the viceroy, Lord Irwin. The prime minister opened the debate, with Attlee making the second speech on the problems of India: ‘On their successful solution depends not only the future ... of ... people in India, not only the future of our own country, but ... the future of the world. I believe the solution of the questions between Europe and Asia will depend very largely on what is done.’ (Hansard, HC 1931– 32, vol. 260 (23 November– 11 December) column 1118, 2 December 1931.)"

That speech was prophetic, for the independence of India was followed by widespread British decolonization (Ceylon, Burma, Malaya, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Guyana, the West Indies, ...) in the following decades. Attlee was a socialist, responsible for creating Britain's National Health Service, post-WW2 nationalizations, and other welfare policies. Moreover, like Gandhi, he was much influenced by Ruskin's Unto This Last. He had been committed to decolonization in India for a full 16 years before 1947. Very little chance he would have attributed Britain's decision to decolonize to these last minute additions to the mix. He may have listed those as the reasons to hurry decolonization and to set a firm date for the transfer of power, but that is hardly the reason why the British left India. It is at best one of the reasons (along with Britain's depleted post-war economy, Direct Action Day and the prospects of more Hindu-Muslim violence, ...) why the British left India in a hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I gather you are going to cite this or leave this as your personal opinion? Since Atlee only came to power after the war (friend of Indian cause, he was indeed), and yes hurry to decolonisation is what is the topic, the issue was whether Bose's contributions are considered key or not (See the new section below). The precise point of how much weight is given to the INA and Bose is addressed by historians and I have cited those below, and as Sreen says, there are two schools, one where Bose is evil and a walter mitty figure, and the second where Bose is a hero. However, the problem is the second group is entirely eurocentric (as Sardesai says in his review of Tarling's work). I am sorry but you are merely regurgitating tise "Cambridge scholarship of history" that has been discredited,and yes I will provide you with peer-reviewed journals citations that show historians regard this simplistic view as one sided, biased, and incomplete. More on the topic, on top of not providing a reference and alluding to what I gather is your personal study of Atlee, you do not mention that Atlee (and the labour left) also met with Bose, and considered him the successor of the Congress hierarchy as early as 1938, before all the fiasco of leaving the Congress. Moreover, you have absolutely ignored the influence of the Indian army (the police of the Raj and the colonies) or the loss of reliability of it, as a factor in Atlee's decisions to leave in a hurry from all the colonial posessions (See Bose and Jalal's work for reference). On top of that, Academic historians do not consider the Atlee comment as implausible at all, so much so that it is mentioned in an academic paper in 2006, and repeated in a work of history by a professor of history who found the evidence acceptable and repeated this in his publication. Now if you wish to discuss whether Atlee could have made such a comment or not and base your decisions on that here, then that is OR. You are more than welcome to cite a secondary source that says this is not so, but I leave it open to the reader about what is going on here. On top of that I have cited a number of resepcted broadsheets in India to reflect Bose's legacy in popular culture, but the standard of evidence is apparently different here. I leave the reader to decide who is making a more neutral an balanced argument.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please contrast the comprehensive, high-quality sources being currently used in the article, with the ones you have posted above, one of which, by the history professor says in its blurb, "This Is To Keep The Younger Generation Fully Informed About The Aspirations Of The Freedom Fighters Whose Ceaseless Struggle Brought The Final Glory Of Independence. The Book Provides An Outline On The Most Crucial Period Of Indian History By Incorporating The Fruits Of Recent Researches Both Indian And Foreign On This Subject. In The Revised Edition Special Attention Has Been Focussed On The Contributions Of South India And North-Eastern India To The Struggle For Freedom. Bose-Gandhi Controversy Assumes A New Dimension In The Light Of Recent Unpublished Thesis." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do. I have cited peer-reviewed academic papers from journals authored by reknowned authors of the field] below, and the one I have cited above is [[a academic reference work of scholarship by a Professor of history of a world reknowned university. The reverted edit re:Bose in popular culture was a broadsheet op-ed and considered a reliable primary source. Incidentally, re: the world class references you quote above, these were also identified by myself and used to build the english wikipedia content on the Indian National Army, almost single handedly if I may say so with pride.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, your argument is fallacious. There are very good references to cite what is stated. The problem is the conflict is arising because you are first of all debaing the veracity of a secondary source, and secondly you are insisting that only one school of academic opinion is allowed (which is discredited as too eurocentric) and shutting out other widely considered academic views by insisting (oddly) that that is FRINGE, even when cited. On top of that an op-ed piece that highlighted widely held views in the country and analysed why these views arose got deleted, resulting in a hilarious situation where an Indian person will be told that what he thinks about Bose is not at all what he thinks about Bose. His thoughts are in fact diametrically opposite (re:Congress never forgave Bose, a later edit).rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You will recognise that in these references there hasnt been any mention of Sumit Sarkar, Laurence James and the likes. The Attlee claim is just a sentence. What is important is that that opinion is highlighted and that wide discrepancy exists between different schools of historians exists is also highlighted, and lastly that in popular culture Bose being the uncredited person is also highlighted. That makes the article complete. No body has to decide who won India independence in wikipedia. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I will point out a bit more. You are using Hansard to backup your views, and ascribing a direct link between Atlee's speech in 1931 (with all poetic words etc epiphets) and something that happened in 1947, ignoring everything in world affairs in the intervening period. I am raising serious concern that that is WP:OR. The right place for that is a peer-reviewed journal in History, not wikipedia.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I was using Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (2012). Attlee, A Political Biography, IB Tauris Books, which cites Hansard, and whose assessment I have quoted directly above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thomas-Symonds cites Attlee's speech as evidence Attlee had strong sympathy for the Indian cause. Or are you saying he links that speech directly to the post-war disestablishment of the Raj and decolonisation proces in Asia and Africa?rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

Please indent by adding one more colon than present in the post to which you are replying, or type {{od}} if they have staggered too far to the right and you want to start on the left. Please also keep the discussion focused. The discussion is about the remark attributed to Attlee which I am claiming is an urban legend. Attlee made his first explicit statement supporting dominion status in 1931. There is no mention of Bose, let alone Chakravarti or Majumdar, in all three biographies of Attlee that I have before me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No I dont imagine there would be any mention of Majumdar in Attlee's biography, I am not aware of them having corresponded and therefore that is very improbable. Nor do I expect there to be a mention of Chakrabarty, especially if he only visited him once in his life. And if there is no mention of Bose then what does that prove. Are you going to debate the authenticity or the lack of this purpoted letter? You are analysing Attlee's works and views and passing a judgement whether something published (as correspondence or otherwise) in a noted historians memoirs, and ascribed to erstwhile Governor of Bengal may be authentic or not. That is exactly what WP:OR is. This is not the page for that, that belongs to a peer-reviewed journal or a book. You are moreover missing the wood for the trees. What that letter summarises is a view (of historians as well as lay people) that Bose's work and his army was instrumental in the disestablishment of the Raj, accelerating, triggering or whatever you want to call it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

rueben_lys, you're attaching too much importance to a word that Attlee may or may not have uttered. Few, if any, credible historians assert that Bose's INA was the driving factor in India's independence and that's why we can't include your material in the article. Even the Sen reference you quote above merely states that Attlee's remark about not being able to hold India by force was prompted by the Naval mutiny. To take all this and then to state that it was Attlee gave more credence to Bose than to Gandhi for India's independence is extremely twisted logic. The INA, rightly or wrongly, is merely a footnote in India's independence struggle.--regentspark (comment) 14:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

rueben_lys: In fact there is no biography of Attlee that mentions Bose or the "Indian National Army" anywhere. (See here.) As for Attlee himself, his viewpoint, goals and accomplishments with regards Indian independence are well summarized by J. H. Brookshire, "Attlee called the viceroy and key officials to England in early December 1946: he also met with five Indian leaders, including Nehru and M. A. Jinnah. Following the talks of 4-6 December, Attlee dominated his government's Indian policy. Attlee believed both Congress and the Muslim League were uninterested in a realistic compromise for a united India and impervious to an approaching civil war. Attlee believed a British `scuttle' from India in chaos and war would negate the goal of a positive transfer of power and would harm British prestige as a great power. In addition, Attlee was faced during this same winter with decisions on Middle Eastern and eastern Mediterranean strategy (affecting Egypt, Palestine, and Greece), production of atomic bombs, large overseas military commitments, and the future relationship with the Soviet Union. Considering the Indian, British, and global conditions, Attlee's pursuit and accomplishment of his goal of Indian independence, which a decade earlier he had envisioned achieving under more tranquil conditions, was remarkable." (Brookshire, JH; Clement Attlee, Manchester Univ Press, 1995) This is as far as I go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The published views of historians in peer-reviewed academic journals I have posted below suggests otherwise RP. Please provide a reference to justify what you are saying (as I have), otherwise you are again stating an unsubstantiated position that belonged in the 1950s 60s that has unravelled in the face of academic scrutiny and is exemplified by Sardesai's review of Tarling's work I have cited and reproduced below.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Attlee's comment is not the issue here (please see above). Attlee's comments have been moved away from in my edits long ago. You are stretching a (justified) query on if Attlee may have made a comment (for which this is not the appropriate place) to conclude Bose's contributions (ie INA being a footnote in history) are not considered important by historians of the Raj (which is an incorrect position on academic views on this topic). You are missing Jala and Bose's contributions for example which concluded that the army (which they called the police of the Raj) could not be relied upon, therefore the British empire could not be held by "coercion or collaboration" leading unravelling of the colony. That is a far-reaching consequence. And you havent even mentioned the influence that the INA had on south-east asian Indians and activism after the war. See Lebra's analysis in 2008 for example.rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

There are many issues here. Here, in my view, is a summary of post 1943 events:

a) the effect of both Bose and the INA during the war (i.e. '43-'45) on either the Raj or the Indian Army was negligible. This, I believe, is fairly well documented; the Japanese ambivalence towards Bose and the INA too is well documented, including by Lebra, 2008.

b) Although the British were worried, the 2.5 million strong Indian army did not rebel and its demobilization went smoothly after the war (i.e. most soldiers recruited just before the war were given lump-sum payments and discharged). The Indian army remained loyal despite near civil war conditions 1946-47. This too is well documented, including by Lebra, and by the historians of the Indian army,

c) After Bose's death the INA trials did create turmoil in India and caused worry for the British, but this had little to do with Bose. It was mostly orchestrated by the Indian National Congress, and especially by Nehru, who had earlier said uncharitable things about the INA. In other words, the effect of the INA trials on the Raj (i.e. as one of the factors in hurrying decolonization) belongs to the Nehru page, the INA page, the Indian National Congress page, or the Raj page, but has little to do with the Bose page. If it is at all mentioned on the Bose page, it has to clearly cast in terms of the INA trials and their hijacking by the Congress, not in terms of Bose personally. A similar scenario, on a smaller scale, would likely have played out if Bose had stayed on in Germany and the First INA had been court-martialed, but we'll never know.

d) After most INA soldiers were pardoned by the British, some/many(?) joined militant organizations or paramilitary groups attached to Indian political and communal organizations (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) and thereby exacerbated political and communal violence during the partition, but this too does not belong to the Bose page. It belongs to the INA or the Partition of India page. This too, I believe, is well documented.

e) Bose's legacy: although he has had many supporters in Bengal, and latterly in the Hindu right, his legacy has rarely gone beyond the symbolic. Lebra, writing in 2008, says, "The INA leadership has not survived as a cohesive political-military elite, and Bose did not return to become India's man on horseback, as his counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia did. The man on horseback---German or otherwise inspired---has not found a real place in the post-war Indian politique. For a variety of historical, sociological, psychological, and cultural reasons he does not conform to the political culture of independent India." (Lebra, Joyce; Indian National Army and Japan, 2008)

f)Bose's ideological underpinnings, too, are murky and somewhat random. Although commonly described as leftist, Bose spent the last five years of his life dependent on the support of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which few leftists of the era would have contemplated (eg Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Nehru,). In that respect, he is more an all-purpose-adaptable nationalist like Aung San or Sukarno, than a more ideologically committed one like Mao or Nehru. For example, some 600,000 Indians left Burma in the wake of the Japanese invasion. Yet, in 1943-44, after arrival in Burma, Bose was unconflicted about requesting the Japanese to be given access to their assets, which the Japanese denied. This too is well documented. Although some family members have claimed that he was unhappy at the news of German atrocities, he never publicly condemned the Holocaust, though he had a full year in which to make that condemnation (the first concentration camps were liberated in Spring/Summer of 1944). Bose, obviously, never condemned, not even in private, the Japanese atrocities, not just in China, but also in the Death Railway in Burma-Thailand, about which he certainly knew, and the use of which he made in his final exit from Burma. His legacy, as the lead of the article says, is troubled. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS I should add that I have edited very few sections of this article: the lead, the "With the Indian National Congress" (section 2), and Death of SCB, which is a summary of the article of the same name which I wrote. The other sections legacy, ideology, etc I have not even cursorily glanced at, and they probably are terrible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me address your points one by one

a) the effect of both Bose and the INA during the war (i.e. '43-'45) on either the Raj or the Indian Army was negligible. This, I believe, is fairly well documented; the Japanese ambivalence towards Bose and the INA too is well documented, including by Lebra, 2008.

Effect of Bose and INA during the war is not negligible (what is negligible? In the battlefield? on the stability of the army?On resources?) The INA required the founding of a whole new intelligence branch dedicated to itself and a whole program of propaganda and newsban to preserve loyalty of the troops. I am not sure what you mean by ambivalence of the Japanese to the INA, but there was friction between the two at field level. Pre-Bose INA's relationship with Iwakuro is different from Bose-led INA's relationship with Kawabe or Tojo. I am not sure if you're trying to forward the "...they were pawns at the hands of the Japs, poor soldier and danced to their tunes building roads as coolies..." line of argument, or making an actual assessment of the impact of the INA (pre-Bose and post-Bose) eg from the works of Toye, Faye, Lebra, Aldrich, Sareen or any other noted authors for example.

b) Although the British were worried, the 2.5 million strong Indian army did not rebel and its demobilization went smoothly after the war (i.e. most soldiers recruited just before the war were given lump-sum payments and discharged). The Indian army remained loyal despite near civil war conditions 1946-47. This too is well documented, including by Lebra, and by the historians of the Indian army,

I am very confused here. We are talking about the same time-period ? "Did not rebel" as in during or after the war? I believe you are trying to say the Indian army did not suffer a whole-scale coordinated mutiny post-INA trials. The histories of the Raj extensively records the problems (Lawrence James does in fact use the word "mutiny") in the Indian armed forces during and after the trial. The briefings of the Indian Armed forces concluded the army, navy and the airforce were no longer trustworthy and that "only day-to-day assessments" of stabillity could be made(See James, making and unmaking of the British Raj, and any other modern history of India for that matter). Moreover, the Indian army sent to support post-war recolonisation in South-east Asia very rapidly began being naughty (See eg, Hyam, Sengupta, and many others) so I am not sure what it is that you mean by "did not rebel" or "remained loyal".

c) After Bose's death the INA trials did create turmoil in India and caused worry for the British, but this had little to do with Bose. It was mostly orchestrated by the Indian National Congress, and especially by Nehru, who had earlier said uncharitable things about the INA. In other words, the effect of the INA trials on the Raj (i.e. as one of the factors in hurrying decolonization) belongs to the Nehru page, the INA page, the Indian National Congress page, or the Raj page, but has little to do with the Bose page. If it is at all mentioned on the Bose page, it has to clearly cast in terms of the INA trials and their hijacking by the Congress, not in terms of Bose personally. A similar scenario, on a smaller scale, would likely have played out if Bose had stayed on in Germany and the First INA had been court-martialed, but we'll never know.

Again a very flawed self-defeating argument. The INA trials created turmoil in India very much because it was to do with Bose and the lifting of the reporting on Bose and his army. The second-INA was Bose's baby from birth (Azad Hind) to death (still drawn out,, see any of the memoirs of INA veterans, Jap veterans, or of British officers who worked with the INA) and as far as India is concerned Bose is the second INA (just google Subhas Bose). In fact as far as INA-solders are concerned INA was Bose and Bose was INA. A horse-drawn carriage cannot be very little to do with the Horse. The Congress only joined the fray after the tension started to grow in India in support of Bose and the INA, right after the newsban was lifted, and is in fact the very thing that Kuracina highlights in his paper I have quoted below. Congress churned an already volatile situation, and Nehru upped the ante to grab the upperhand over both the Raj and the Muslim League with one eye to the 1946 elections, public support had started building before that prompting Gandhi to make a statement. I am not sure how you are finding the link between INA trials and everything under the sun and the moon except for the INA and it's leader Bose. Ofcourse it needs to be clearly clarified that the Congress hijacked the INA turmoil, but I am not clear at all what you mean by Bose peronally. Are you saying you want to make sure "Bose does not get the credit for this"? That is where the problem is coming, that is not wikipedia is for.

I am not sure what would have played out if Bose stayed in Europe, again that is not wikipedia is for. What I do know is that the HIFFS were transported to India and scheduled for trials, which did not attract any attention either from Congress or from the defence committee, but they were released along with the JIFFs.

d) After most INA soldiers were pardoned by the British, some/many(?) joined militant organizations or paramilitary groups attached to Indian political and communal organizations (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) and thereby exacerbated political and communal violence during the partition, but this too does not belong to the Bose page. It belongs to the INA or the Partition of India page. This too, I believe, is well documented.

They were not pardoned. The trials stopped after ten trials to stop inflaming public passion (ie, the Raj was forced to stop). I am not sure what militant organisations or paramilitary organisations you are alluding to but yes they spread to many organisations in India Pakistan, Burma and Malaya and did many things, political and otherwise. That is indeed for the INA page, and is in fact there already.

e) Bose's legacy: although he has had many supporters in Bengal, and latterly in the Hindu right, his legacy has rarely gone beyond the symbolic. Lebra, writing in 2008, says, "The INA leadership has not survived as a cohesive political-military elite, and Bose did not return to become India's man on horseback, as his counterparts elsewhere in Southeast Asia did. The man on horseback---German or otherwise inspired---has not found a real place in the post-war Indian politique. For a variety of historical, sociological, psychological, and cultural reasons he does not conform to the political culture of independent India." (Lebra, Joyce; Indian National Army and Japan, 2008)

Bose's legacy is a godawful name to start a section with and bears all the hallmarks of either offering an argument to prove he was the best thing since Jesus Christ and George Washington combined, or the devil-incarnate and Hitler's lovechild with the devil.

At a more serious level, I think this section is a poor-attempt with good intentions that fails terribly to state anything meaningful from a WP:BIO point of view. What is the content intended for this bit? If this section is intended to convey what his influence was in post-independence India, then we need to find or identify (from sholarly sources) what if any of independent India's policies followed Bose's proposals or thinking. Incidentally, Bose's following is not limited to Bengal (where it's huge) but to South-India and to massive extent in Indian community in south-east Asia, mostly Tamils., and also if any other organisations, eg the CWC, or the tamil fronts in Malay and Singapore followed his model/theory/predictions etc. Note that this is very distinct from a very different section of "Influences on popular culture" which will have to highlight that the views that he is regarded as a very important (and with relevance to post-independence India, and anti-establishment) figure in the last days of the Raj, many things in popular culture he popularised, eg Jai Hind, Give me blood..., etc, death controvery, Nehru-Bose rivalry and perceived "writing out"s (which is where the HT referenced edit I made came in), and the knight-on-horseback-awaited views, controversies over rumours that he was on a war-criminal list, rumours about repeated sightings, and yes, the theories regarding the fakirs in various parts of India being him. That makes it a complete wikipedia bio article.

f)Bose's ideological underpinnings, too, are murky and somewhat random. Although commonly described as leftist, Bose spent the last five years of his life dependent on the support of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, which few leftists of the era would have contemplated (eg Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Nehru,). Although some family members have claimed that he was unhappy at the news of German atrocities, he never publicly condemned the Holocaust, though he had a full year in which to make that condemnation (the first concentration camps were liberated in Spring/Summer of 1944). Some 600,000 Indians left Burma in the wake of the Japanese invasion. Yet, in 1943-44, after arrival in Burma, Bose was unconflicted about requesting the Japanese to be given access to their assets, which the Japanese denied. This too is well documented. Bose, obviously, never condemned, not even in private, the Japanese atrocities, not just in China, but also in the Death Railway in Burma-Thailand, about which he certainly knew, and the use of which he made in his final exit from Burma. His legacy, as the lead of the article says, is troubled.

Great, do you want to put that into a section in the article? Makes it perfectly complete, don't you think? Be careful however to clarify that what is being said is that "many", historians, scholars, as well as lay people find the fact that he worked along side Japan and Germany inexplicable and debate why this may have been so, and not put out a blanket statement that he was a nazi-sympathiser or imply a weak-man for not standing upto Japan because remember that makes it PoV. Especially in South-east Asia he is regarded (along with N Raghavan) as the man and leader who saved the Indian community from terrible fate after the British army "raced past refugees" to retreat and blow up bridges in Malaya and Burma. I dont quite follow the logic of "Bose was unconflicted about requesting Indian assets...", Indians will offer the counter-argument that "Churchill was unconflicting about starving Bengalees..." ie that that is a hippocritical argument that was often propounded in the dinner tables of Cambridge in 1950-60. Indians left behind in Burma in fact consider Bose having saved them. Moreover I believe what you are saying is that Bose claimed under Azad Hind all abandoned Indian property in all of south-east Asia (which the Japs agreed), I dont see why you or I should be casting a judgement there, and I am in fact not aware of any substantiated criticisms of his policies other than some bizzarre statements by Philip Mason which I wont regurgitate here. They decided they said its a war time measure, state it, job done (although belongs to Azad Hind page). That is exactly on the same lines as not saying Churchill was a perpetrator of Genocide for his responsibilities for the Bengal famine. Or accuse the Governor General of Burma of being a nincompoop for abandoning the Indians to their fate, taking all the Europeans and running for Shimla (See eg R.S. Benegal, Burma to Japan with Azad Hind) That is not wikipedia's role. Incidentally, Bose did criticise Japan's role in China, and therefore when he met the Japanese envoy in Calcutta, the latter pleaded that he take a more sympathetic view of Japan, so that is an incorrect statement to make and I am not sure how this has crept into your stream of facts and reasoning.

More importantly, the issues you highlight regarding "left-over property" is to do with the first-INA, the entire fiasco that triggered the "we are not stooges of Japan" furore culminating in its dissolution (Toye records this in very extensive detail). The point I am making is there is many faces to history, you have immediately highlighted that self-defeating half-baked arguments that led to the Cambridgist views on Bose being so widely mocked and ridiculed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have appetite for long rambling arguments. I am writing quickly and eschewing Wiki language, but obviously I know how to cast an idea in acceptable NPOV prose. I stand by (a), (b), (c), and (d). (The legacy and ideology, I will address later below.) I will quote from just one book. Daniel Marston (2014), The Indian Army and the End of the Raj, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-89975-8, but many others Lebra, Bayly and Harper, Peter Fay, and the more general Indian history textbooks say similar things:

a) "The INA's battlefield performance was quite poor when assessed either alongside the IJA or against the reformed Fourteenth Army on the battlefields of Assam and Burma. Reports of its creation in 1942/3 caused consternation among the political and military leadership of the GOI, but in the end its formation did not constitute a legitimate mutiny, and its presence had a negligible impact on the Indian Army." (pp 17-18) "Slim had to issue orders that Indian Army soldiers were to take INA troops prisoner, not kill them out of hand. He recalled that 'our Indian and Gurkha troops were at times not too ready to let them [INA] surrender and orders had to be issued to give them a kinder welcome'" (p 127)

b) "In the final analysis, the historical record shows unequivocally that the vast majority of Indian Army soldiers, NCOs, VCOs, and officers were as loyal to one another and to the regiment as many previous generations had been, and under far more trying circumstances. Bonded by the battle experiences of the Second World War and by a shared sense of pride and professionalism that crossed ethnic, religious, and regimental boundaries, the army remained overwhelmingly cohesive and impartial, even when standing alone in the midst of the civil war that had erupted among their own villages and families. Ultimately, with only itself to rely upon, the Indian Army in the last days of the Raj was indeed a rock in an angry sea. (page 351)"

c) "There can be no doubt that the INA trials placed significant strain on the Indian Army. Gen. Auchinleck, in his attempts to reinforce the success of the Indian Army during the Second World War and offset the INA's impact, was upstaged and outmanoeuvred by Nehru and the Indian National Congress. This was possible partly because of Auchinleck's decision to make the trials public in order to send a message. Nehru and many in the Indian National Congress may not have agreed with the INA's inception or purpose but, in the public presentation of the trials, they recognised a major political opportunity, and seized it. (p150)"

d) "Released due to political pressure from both Indian and British political leaders, many of these (INA) men sought employment as 'military advisers' to the growing number of paramilitary political volunteer groups forming in 1946 and 1947, including the Congress Volunteer Corps, Rashtrya Swayam Sewak Sangh (RSS Sangh), Revolutionary Socialist Party of India Army, Muslim League National Guards, and Sikh Jathas (legion). INA veterans provided advice in military tactics, weapons, and organisation, and many went on to command and lead various 'gangs' in their pursuit of killing rival political or communal groups, wreaking havoc not just in the Punjab but also in Bengal and the United Provinces." (pp 118-119)

e) and f) There is positive legacy of course (which the Indian National Congress adopted, and which the Hindu nationalists are dismantling even as they elevate Bose symbolically): Not just the slogans, "Jai Hind," etc, but the language (Hindustani = Hindi-Urdu) in contrast to Sanskritized Hindi adopted by the right wing Congressmen and today's Hindu nationalists; Jana Gana Mana as the preferred song, and "Kadam Kadam" (in Urdu) as the marching song, in contrast to the Vande Mataram (harking back to the anti-Muslim protests following the 1905 partition), which again is being revived now by the Hindu nationalists; the appointment of Muslim, and Sikhs in addition to Hindus at the highest levels; the flag with the springing tiger, as has been noted by scholars, that was more religion-neutral than India's current flag or the Congress's flag at the time; the women's regiment; and the religious pluralism. All these were also values that many liberal Congressmen, eg Nehru espoused, and many were incorporated in the Indian Constitution or adopted in popular culture of independent India. Some of this is already summarized in the lead. But then there is the troubling legacy. This too is tersely stated in the lead and references given. He might have criticized the Japanese in Calcutta, before he jointed the Japanese, but after August 1943, all his arguments with them were about control and rights with respect to himself, and the INA, not about Japanese cruelties. As already stated, he was completely silent about the Nazis, with whom he spent two full years. That the Japanese saw him as militarily inexperienced, unrealistic, and yet insistent on his viewpoint is attested by several authors (Marston, Lebra, Gordon, Fay, and others). As for the legacy in politics, except for the Forward Bloc, the larger political legacy is symbolic. His death etc is treated with balance in the Death section and the post-death incarnations treated in the article Death of SCB in NPOV language. Again, I am responsible only for the lead, and I think the description there is fairly neutral and describes a large body of scholarly opinion. Then there is the private Bose: his personal religion; his quick intelligence; his need for an emotional and sexual relationship (with Emilie Schenkl from 1935 to 1943 and his fathering a daughter, whom he left behind as a four-month old baby), and yet---perhaps a reflection of the conservative religious atmosphere around him or the impossible ideals and expectations---his inability to even tell his Indian family at the time, his self-denial during his life in India and southeast Asia, his statements that he was married only to the freedom of India. There is more tragedy there than just the plane crash. I think a proper Wiki biography will need to address all those issues (in a neutral, balanced, comprehensive, and reliably sourced fashion, of course). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fowler I am sure you stand by points to a-f because they do arise from a historical perspective and analysis of Bose that did exist and still has a vocal proponent. The reference quotes you provide from Marston merely strengthens what I said about the INA. Nobody is here to argue the INA won many battles (as Shah Nawaz Khan did, and got castigated by Fay as much as Fay also rips Slim's accounts as too gung-ho to be true). In fact on top of affirming that INA caused a grave headache and saw imposition of drastic measures during the war, your reference confirms that the INA placed a significant strain on the IA as you yourself have reproduced. In fact on top of the paragraph you reproduced, the author in that very book quotes Bayly and Harper saying the INA was to become a bigger enemy in defeat than it did in the battlefield. The INA men may have worked in paramalitary organisations after release, I am not sure what that says about Bose or the INA, I am only come accross more famous ones who were courted by Nehru after the war or became important or famous in their own countries. I am not sure what that means or why that is relevant. What you (rather Marston) has missed out is the influence of INA on Indian army policing British French and Dutch colonies in south-east Asia. I am not sure what you mean by the troubled legacy for not criticising Japs during the war or Nazis in Europe or what conclusions you want the reader to draw from it? what do the scholars say about this? The point is not whether you think he was a bad man who should not get credit for winning India independence (Fascist and enemy agent as Sareen puts it) but what Scholars think about him (many differing view points each diametrically opposite to each other). Sure if he didnt say anything between 1943-45 then he didnt say anything, say so, and say what historians say about that. Let's not start foisting our PoVs to try and character assassinate someone. America turned away Jewish refugees, Churchill starved Bengalees to death, An Australian general did a runner from Singapore, Mountbatten blew up a war memorial, many things happened. It is not for us to judge who was an angel and who isnt. State the scholarly opinions on what is relevant, mention other prominent viewpoints. The problem is that in this article it is either Bose the fascist stooge or Bose the all conquering hero. Every relevant point with regards to WP:BIO is getting deleted in the middle, in which my edits have been oh-so-irritatingly caught and now I am having to explain what the Historians of Magadalene college thought, thinks and may keep thinking, what Harvard and UCLA historians think, and by the name of allmighty lord that is somewhere in between what what the Institute of South-East Asian Studies is saying.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One more time. Whatever I have written above are not my personal beliefs, but what I have inferred to be a balance summation of the reliable sources I have read. In all the work I do on Wikipedia I follow a hierarchy of reliability based on WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. ... a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." I stick to publications of academic or scholarly presses. The hierarchy I follow is 1) Widely used text-books published by academic/university presses (as these have been vetted for WP:UNDUE 2) Review articles of the literature published in scholarly journals, 3) Monographs published by academic presses. I seldom use papers, especially new ones, based on primary source material. I hardly ever use newspapers as my sources. For Bose, for me, the definitive biography remains Leonard A. Gordon's Brothers Against the Raj (as can be seen in the notes in the Gordon page, his book being even mentioned when the review is of other books eg Sugata Bose's. Similarly all the books I have used the textbooks Thomas R. Metcalf-Barbara D. Metcalf, Burton SteinJoyce Lebra, Christopher Bayly-Harper, Peter Fay, Daniel Marston, are all academically vetted books with high citation indices written by historians of high citation indices. As you will see in Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Works_cited, I have not added many research papers based on primary research, because once you open that can of worms, you are writing a review article about sources, not a biography in summary style. If you have issues with this approach you can approach the powers-that-be and start whatever it is they advise you to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

PS Part of the problem here is that we are arguing about intentions. There is no text. Allow me to write a summary style "legacy" or "ideology" section in the coming months, and we can then discuss it. After all, this article had remained in this state, without discussion on the talk page, for more than two years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I note what you're saying. My opinion however is peer-reviewed journal articles are more reliable than text books, nonetheless your approach is another way that I am sure is as valid. Let's make a start and clean up this article. One reason this article is in the current state is it has turned into a part hagiographically and part unreviewed summarisation of everything known about Bose that tried to cover everything. Let's break this down into summary style decent comprehensive article. I look forward to fowler's contributions (dare I say I will keep a close eye also).regardsrueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

:) I like the close eye bit. And speaking of text books, there is a new one out: Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia: Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-19694-8, which takes a less convention view of Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On the stated date of Netaji's death

Since there is a serious ongoing issue regarding the death of Subhas Chandra Bose, and there is at least one unresolved argument stating that his death has not taken place in Taiwan in 1945, is it not slightly brash, and in the interest of truthful record-keeping, slightly dishonest, to make a bold pronouncement of his date of death in the box below the main picture?

I would like to present the proposal that the field titled "Died" be set to the string "Uncertain", "Unknown", "Controversial", etc. or at least that such a text be appended to the date and location stated in the field.

Sincerely and out of concern, Rajarshi Bandopadhyay, Indian citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.81 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2016‎

I'm afraid, the evidence for the August 18, 1945 death in the plane crash is overwhelming and reliable. All major internationally recognized historians of Bose and of WW2 in southeast Asia are agreed on this. There were many witnesses, who were interviewed, by the Figess report (1945), the Shah Nawaz Committe (1956), the Khosla commission (1970) and interviewed by Leonard Gordon, the author of the definitive biography of Bose, "Brothers Against the Raj: The lives of Sarat and Subhash Bose," Harvard University Press, 1990. The last commission (Mukerjee) had no living witnesses (they had all died by then); its report is unreliable. The latest declassified files (1/23/16) suggest the same, that in 1995, the government of the day had concluded that Subhas Bose died in the plane crash. There were Japanese generals on board the same bomber, who did the extraordinary courtesy to Bose by taking him aboard, when all the aircraft mechanics advised against it. They perished in the same plane crash. Their families celebrate their death anniversaries on August 18. Col Habibur Rahman, Bose's trusted lieutenant, without whose help Bose would have perished in the plane itself, and who sustained third degree burns in the same plan crash and carried scars on his body thereafter, testified in the first two commissions. He lay on the adjoining hospital bed in the Tohuku Military hospital and watched Bose die. The Japanese surgeon, orderly, nurse, who administered aid (digitalis for the heart) etc, testified, the officials of the Tohuku Civil Crematorium testified, the Japanese army major who carried the ashes to Tokyo testified. The evidence is overwhelming. The reliable sources have concluded so. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler&fowler. Yes, there are various fringe theories regarding date of death - just as, for example, there have been occasional sightings of Elvis Presley in places called X, Y or Z - but the reality is that they are seriously on the edge of credibility. Conspiracy theories can be notable in their own right on Wikipedia but when the overwhelming evidence of scholarly sources etc confounds them then, obviously, we should assign due weight to the most sensible opinion. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence in support of Netaji's continued survival after 1945 is considerable, especially after the recent declassification drive in India. The secret archives of the Indian intelligence, together with the letters retrieved from the remaining possessions of the one known as Gumnami Baba, are quite strong, although not necessarily conclusive. It is an ongoing issue. Hence, I beg to differ from the currently accepted theory of 1945 plane crash. - Rajarshi Bandopadhyay, concerned citizen of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.125.81 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Soon now all your so called eminent historians and their "rigorous" research and all the "overwhelming" evidence will be nullified when the GOI declassifies all the files. You conveniently cite the Shah Nawaz Commissions and the Khosla Commissions and forget the Mukherjee Commission. It is clear that no one in India believes Netaji died in 1945 in a plane crash. The very fact that there is such a huge controversy regarding the same and the Govt had classified information on him for 70 years should be proof enough that the date of death is not at all certain . Even the GOI has agreed that there is NO evidence that he died on 18 th Aug 1945 , that's why the Mukherjee Commision was formed in the first place due to a court order. It is clear that the theory that he died from a plane crash is itself a FRINGE theory and a figment of imagination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 994u (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia uses only reliable secondary sources, to which category neither topical newspaper stories about recently declassified files, nor declassified files themselves (which are primary sources) belong. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.andaman.org/book/app-m/textm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of politics

I don't think that it is correct to say that his "defiant patriotism made him a hero in India". The majority attitude was that he was a revolutionary and enemy of India. His support of the Axis powers put him at odds with the British and Indian governments and the Indian National Congress. His treason did not have much support in IndiaRoyalcourtier (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry Royalcouriter but either your sources are wrong, or you have misread their content, or you are reading a history book from 1950s authored by one of the discredited colonial apologists. As a clarification, and to guide you in the right direction, may I suggest you search any of the Indian Newspapers online. Highy regarded publications like The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Hindustan Times, with quick read of their headlines over the last two or three days should disabuse you of the wrong perception you seem to have been given by your sources.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. You think being at odds with a colonial empire exploiting their homeland would make him less liked? The Congress leadership didnt like Bose or any other revolutionaries because they didnt want anyone else to hijack the independence movement. Gandhi ousted virtually all the contenders until they he was the undisputed leader of the party. 43.224.156.140 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

References, citations and quotations

About 3 weeks ago user:Ugog Nizdast raised an issue at Template talk:Sfn#Muiltiple sfns with a single .22ps:.22 field. Having had a look at this article I felt that a thorough overhaul of the technical aspects was required, and volunteered to do it. I've been a bit busy, and there has been a lot of content activity recently. I hope to get a chance to work on it tomorrow (UK time). I'll slap an {{In use}} template on it before I begin. If anyone has a problem with this, speak up now, here! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @Martin of Sheffield:, I've noticed that too. I was away for two years, but don't remember this problem before I left (and this page and some others have not substantially changed since). So, thank you and good luck! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Same problem in Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

After this, I'll try to do Death of Bose; it shouldn't be hard once I've seen how it's done. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done See edit, it was easy and hope it's right. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks great! Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking a break! The cite errors are sorted out, and I've been bringing all the "cite XYZ" type references into the existing "citation" style. Can someone please check up on the following points:

• Reference 20: "Gordon", I'm assuming that this is Gordon (1990) and not Gordon (2006). Can someone please confirm.
• Reference 44: "DesaiMeghnad" is a name and nothing else.

In my opinion the lead is too detailed. It should be about half its present length giving a brief outline for a reader who knows nothing about the subject, not an extended précis. I suggest a read of WP:LEAD, in particular WP:LEADCITE.

All quotations have been retained, but only one copy of each one. I am not a subject expert and so am not changing content. There does seem to be an excessive amount though, see WP:QUOTEFARM for guidelines. My personal feelings are:

• If the quote amplifies the text then it probably ought to be paraphrased and incorporated as part of the plain text.
• If the quote explains an obtuse point, then it is valuable.
• If the quote is merely to justify the reference, then is in needed? The reference itself ought to provide the verifiability.

In all cases remember WP:RF. I'll have a further go at the remaining references tomorrow. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing this. As I can plainly see it took a lot of work. I am the one who put all the Sfn quotes in the lead some two years ago to ward off the drivebys who were daily tweaking this controversial page in the best tradition of WP:Lead fixation. The idea was that high quality watertight sources in the lead, and some vigilant eyes, would have the effect of discouraging them, and to a large degree it worked. As you will have likely seen, there is little connection between the lead and the rest of the article. This is because the lead was also written as a template for rewriting the article, not as a summary of its content. Then I had to go away for two years ... so it languished in its current form during my absence ... and that is where it is now. I don't remember this Sfn problem before I left though, otherwise I would have attempted to fix it or to request help. I wonder if Sfn itself (i.e. what arguments it can take) was changed during my absence. Anyway, thanks again. I do feel guilty. I will try to answer the questions you have asked very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 20 is Gordon 1990; and 44 is just a name which can be replaced with a "citation needed." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)  DoneMartin of Sheffield (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I was also wondering if instead of splitting the former Sfn into an Sfn (without ps) and and efn, we could write: {{Sfn|Gordon|1990|p=33, Quote a|ps=: "This is the law of the jungle."}}? For another quote with the same page number, we'd write: {{Sfn|Gordon|1990|p=33, Quote b|ps=: "This is the law of the city."}} That way there will be less superscripts following a cited sentence and no error messages seem to appear But I don't know if this is acceptable on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

One could change the comma before the "Quote a" to a period/full stop if desired. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

{{sfn}} is meant to be short footnote. Some templates have a parameter for a quotation, SFN doesn't because it is discouraged. You are right though that SFN has been changed (or if not SFN itself, one of its underlying templates). Whereas before some errors were just ignored and only the first instance used, now they generate an error. I came across this issue when a reference like {{sfn|jones|1845|ps=. cited in {{sfn|Smith|1960|p=34}}}} failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 February 2016‎

Thanks! That was very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally  Done! Sorry it took so long, but I kept being distracted and then coming back to it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New Declassified Information

I found this article claiming Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose survived the 1945 crash citing this document File No 870/11/p/16/92/Pol

"File No 870/11/p/16/92/Pol, contains the content of these broadcasts, supposedly from Netaji.

The content likely came from Governor House in Bengal. It's mentioned in the file that one PC Kar, an official thete, claimed that a monitoring service had picked up the broadcasts on the 31-metre band. Kar apparently told then governor R G Casey about them.

The first broadcast, supposedly by Bose, was on December 26, 1945.

"I am at present under the shelter of great World powers. My heart is burning for India. I will go to India on the crest of a Third World War. It may come in ten years or even earlier. Then I will sit on judgment upon those trying my men at the Red Fort," the broadcast said. The second broadcast was on January 1, 1946."

Here are other related documents regarding the file numbers cited in the above article

http://www.netajipapers.gov.in/

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/29/netaji-declassified-files_n_9560450.html

http://bdnews24.com/neighbours/2016/03/29/india-to-release-more-files-of-freedom-hero-netaji-subhas-bose-online-tuesday

Another related link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Documents-hint-Bose-may-have-escaped-crash/articleshow/51403312.cms

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightinkarma (talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree to the above views and details. These details needs to be added in Netaji article suitably.... Yogee23 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read this section above.--regentspark (comment) 12:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with the section above. I have however, added some information into an Aftermath section about the declassification requests. It seems like it's more than just the information about his death (it's about surveillance against his family after his death) and I think it relates to the conspiracy theories about the death. I'll look for more reliable sources than various newspaper reports but those do seem like reliable sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

grew a beard overnight?

This is implausible:

"... and grew a beard on the night of his escape...."

One would have to be impossibly hirsute to do this.

--23.119.204.117 (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fixed in line with cited work. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016

Hi Respected Editors,

In reading the article about our respected "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose", I found this small mistake.

I think under the "Aftermath" section second sentence of first paragraph, "These theorists also demanded also the declassification..." second "also" word should not be there. So it should start like "These theorists also demanded the declassification..."

I would like to request "Wikipedia" to incorporate the requested change.

Since I am very new registered user of Wikipedia, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, Arnab Das

Arnabdas1982 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

@Melotown and RegentsPark: This is starting to look a little like edit warring. Please continue the discussion here and not by reverting each other. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:: for reference, these were the edits done by the above pinged editor, the rest were previously reverted. You may want to leave a courtesy refutation for the editor. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Ani1977 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't said what you want changed, merely that you want a change. Please include a "complete and specific description" of what you want changed, see the template text. If you do reactivate this request you will need to change the template parameter to "answered=no" to alert other editors. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

The current section "Works cited" includes a number of works which are not cited. As I've previously said, I'm not a subject specialist – merely a gnome. I propose to move the uncited works into a new "Further reading" section by the end of the week, and once I've done that can some knowledgeable types have a look at them and see if they are relevant to the expected readership? Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Thanks for doing this. Ideally, as your post implies, editors should have all the relevant references they plan on using in the Further Reading section, and as and when they use them, move them to the Works Cited section. Will take a look when you're done. Let us know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was quicker and easier than I thought, and I got it done during lunch. If you are interested see also Death of Subhas Chandra Bose where I've done a similar thing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have now commented out the less relevant, or less reliable, sources in both articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

subash chandrabose also had german citizenship.....plz edit it 117.248.41.33 (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"The real fault, however, must attach to the Japanese commander-in-chief Kawabe. Dithering, ill and decisive, prostrated with amoebic dysentery, he ... "

This is part of a lengthy quotation included as footnote "u" (27 March 2017). I am wondering if "Dithering, ill and decisive..." should read "Dithering, ill and indecisive...". Otherwise - at least to me - it doesn't make too much sense. Might it be a typo?

The source, as you can see, is given as "McLynn, Frank (2011), The Burma Campaign: Disaster Into Triumph, 1942–45, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-17162-4, retrieved 6 November 2013".

But I don't have access to the source. Is there someone out there who does who might be able to check this, please? And thank you.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Charles01: I have the Kindle version, and unfortunately it does say, "Dithering, ill and decisive, ....," though as you point out, it doesn't make obvious sense. Perhaps it is a mistake made in the optical character recognition (OCR) process for Kindle, though, those sorts of mistakes (indecisive-->decisive) seldom happen. I did check Google Books, there on page 427 there is no mention of Kawabe or of busted flushes! A search there didn't give a different page, further deepening the mystery. But then Google Books searches, too, are based on OCR, and they certainly make errors. Most likely the author did mean to write, "Dithering, ill and indecisive, ...," but, who knows, perhaps he meant something else. The best solution for us is to remove this anomalous bit from the (long) quote since, in any case, it is not so relevant to what it is citing. Thanks for your close reading. This bit has stood in this page for many years, and for many years before that, I suspect, in McLynn's book, part of the Yale Library of Military History series. Let me offer my thanks and admiration, especially since I may have added it, and it escaped me. I will be amending the quote now. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My (Proquest) copy says decisive as well. The rest of the text doesn't support decisive at all. I can check the physical copy but not for a couple of days. Assuming it's not resolved before then. --regentspark (comment) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did take a general look at the book. There are all sorts of strange constructions ("by the end of June Tanaka had lost altogether 12,000 dead, 7,000 killed in battle and another 5,000 to disease") and repetitions. "Dither," "dithers," "dithering," for example, occur seven times in the book. They are almost being used as military terms. ("because of initial poor intelligence and dithering," "another attack of the dithers") "Busted flush" occurs twice. I have a feeling the book may not have been carefully copy edited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's pleasing when a concern such as this triggers such thoughtful overnight (I'm in England) responses. Thank you.

Given that User:RegentsPark will have access to a hard copy of the book in the next few days, that looks like a solution approaching over the horizon. Thank you in anticipation, and I hope I'm not setting you (or someone) up for checking all the other quotes from this book that have made it through to wikipedia via OCR based transcriptions. It will be interesting to learn if it's simply some kind of an "OCR" error, or if the book itself contains (what I still am inclined to think is probably) a typo. Or rather a type setting error. Printing firms certainly did let such errors through, back in the old days. But I do remember, when I was about ten, looking on in awe at a whole room full of proof readers at a printing business in Edinburgh, me - as instructed by Mother - taking care not so much as to sniff for fear of disturbing them. It's a bit sad that poor little Google are so dismally underfunded that they can't afford proof readers. But maybe that's a digression too far on my part. Thank you again. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Including the Subhas Chandra Bose death controversy

This is to bring to others' notice that an important point regarding the controversy surrounding Subhas Bose's death is missing in this article,specifically regarding the Mukherjee Commission's report and why it was discarded.

Sagnik12 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

Death date/year to be removed as there are mo conclusive evidence till date. Sd2017 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

124.123.7.42 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No details supplied. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

his death date is not declared by indian government so please remove it

2405:205:6308:CF8B:ACD1:B1A1:CDA7:F136 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It does have a reference, unless another can be provided, or one pertaining to the fact there is dispute over the date, it will remain. Subhas_Chandra_Bose#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBaylyHarper20072-1 — IVORK _Discuss 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the sudden disappearance of netaji in 1945

There is no clear evidence of the death of netaji in 1945. Infact there have been evidences of him being alive after that. Hence the date and place of death should be written as unknown. Tushangi Gupta (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest to remove the death date of Subhas Bose as the latest commission's report (available in national archived Delhi) has concluded there was no plane crash and so there was no death of netaji due to that.

For example: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/No-crash-at-Taipei-that-killed-Netaji-Taiwan-government/articleshow/1010605.cms

deleted images

Why were the images of his wife deleted in this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Subhas_Chandra_Bose&diff=851057430&oldid=846980498 Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that happened as the result of a much needed cleanup of the article. If you think the image needs to be added, I suggest adding it along with a rationale on the talk page. If someone has objections, a discussion can ensue. --regentspark (comment) 01:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Can everyone hold off say for half an hour, while I try my hand at something? Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am done recovering some of the material that I believe was worth retaining. The images and corresponding captions that remain deleted are shown below, and we can discuss if any of them need to be re-added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Bose's parental home in Odia Bazar, Cuttack, now converted to a birthplace museum.
• 
  Congress president Bose with Mohandas K. Gandhi at the Congress annual general meeting 1938.
• 
  Bose, president-elect, INC, arrives in Calcutta, 24 January 1938, after two-month vacation with Schenkl at Bad Gastein, and secret marriage on 26 December 1937.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

I am a published author and want to write a book on Netaji, and his exemplary life and those against him. Chander perkash (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You do not need to edit Wikipedia articles to be able to write books on subjects covered by Wikipedia. Iffy★Chat -- 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sougatam (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018

• An Indian pilgrim...1897-1920 : Section works need to take note of un finished auto biography of Subhash Chandra Bose titled An Indian pilgrim...1897-1920 Ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.223.154.16 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

References

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. Sougatam (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Sougata MSougatam (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

HIS death date is not declared by Indian government so please remove it. Sougatam (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article cites sources for his death. If there is are sources that show a different death date please start a discussion to get consensus on changing the article. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Add a subheading under the "Legacy" heading with the following comment and entry:

Institutions and places named after Netaji

• Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkatta.
• Netaji Subhas National Institute of Sports, Patiala.
• Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Island, formerly Ross Island.

222.164.212.168 (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: User:222.164.212.168 I have added Airport and Island in Legacy with this edit diff. Please note that there are hundreds if not thousands of Institutions named after Bose. We cannot possibly enlist all of these institutes here. see WP:NOTYELLOWPAGE DBigXrayᗙ 18:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The picture included

Please add a picture which is easily recognised by people Sunaina Sahu (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

RAMA KRISHNAN

S.RAMA KRISHNAN (18 SEPTEMBER 2003)[1][a] was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,[2][b][3][c][4][d] but whose attempt during World War III to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left an ambivalent legacy.[5][e][6][f][2][g] The honorific RAMA KRISHNAN (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the name granted to him in the early 2019s by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, was later used throughout India.[7][h]

Bose had been a leader of the younger, radical, wing of the Indian National Congress in the late 1920s and 1930s, rising to become Congress President in 1938 and 1939.[8][i] However, he was ousted from Congress leadership positions in 1939 following differences with Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress high command.[9] He was subsequently placed under house arrest by the British before escaping from India in 1940.[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:7184:8A34:6D16:F740:1798:5A3 (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

Death date:18th august, 1945 to death date: Nobody knows when he died, he could have escaped the plane, no bodyy knows on what day netaji died. Don't put an abrupt guess on a legend. It's possible for him to die in an independent India too. 2405:204:419B:4077:0:0:2371:A0A0 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Images

Is there any reason why this article has so many images? It seems to be an extraordinary number and I'm not convinced that they are all needed as a means to inform the reader. It makes for a particularly tedious experience using the mobile version of Wikipedia. Using the Commons categorisation seems a better route. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

For such a whirlwind life, whose retelling today is so ideologically fraught, selecting one image for a five- or ten-year period is well nigh impossible. This was my experience earlier. If you choose one image, someone soon replaces it with something they think is more representative, or less revealing, depending on where they are coming from. I do agree that there is a surfeit. For now I have reduced the image size, and also limited the numbers to four per section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if anyone wants to change one image for another they should first seek consensus to do so, just as I suppose I am seeking consensus to reduce the number. I have no preference regarding which are retained but suspect that one image per section is ample. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll be bold and reduce them to two per section, for now preserving the gallery display format (because it is easier). This discussion can continue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You are more brave than me! I'll keep an eye out for further comments on this page, which I long ago took off my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As I had too. I have to say, after reducing them, and now in retrospect, few definitely is better than many. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Matter given here is not entirely correct.

Matter given here is not entirely correct. V.Srinivasrao (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the info of Netaji's Death date. He was died on 18th august 1945 but in his Wikipedia, there mentioned as 1982 which is incorrect... Shivamojha121 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't now see any reference to him dying in 1982 in the article. It was fixed in this edit. MPS1992 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The article claims Netaji was married- which is a disputed fact. There is no evidence of the marriage. There is no certificate and never any DNA test, no birth certificate with father's name for Anita. Emely was just a secretary. In Subhas's autobiography 'The Indian Pilgrim' (published Dec. 1937 from London Press) he wrote " I am not going to marry—-hence considerations of worldly prudence will not deter me from taking a particular line of action if I believe that to be intrinsically right" ( http://eagle262.dedicatedpanel.com/Ebook/bangla/An_Indian_Pilgrim.pdf). Again, Netaji's Visa to China on 23rd Nov. 1939 claims marital status as 'unmarried'( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Researchers-protest-Netajis-marriage/articleshow/1093983.cms).

Wrong information about death

Mukherjee commission plainly dismissed the fact that Subhash Chandra Bose was killed in Taihoku plane crash. Considering the fact that this inquiry was commissioned by the Govt of India, Kindly respect the report findings and ensure that the platform is not used for spreading propaganda.

Following is the link to the findings of the Mukherjee Commission Inquiry Report: https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/jmci-I-eng_3.pdf

--Sayantan life (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Arguing that the the Mukherjee report should outweigh scholarly consensus because "this inquiry was commissioned by the Govt of India" is a curious appeal to authority, since the Indian government rejected Mukherjee's findings.[3] --Worldbruce (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Without Reliable, Proper & authentic information, How Wikipedia Admins Allowing Soo Called Death date adding ?. Its totally illogical, and Childish. Those Who adding the That Death Date, does those admins did proper Research? Or Just Making Propaganda? Even Family of Mr. Bose don't recognize the Death Date. By Which Act Admins Adding That Date? Have they got DNA Report? Mr. Bose is related to 1.25 Billions peoples Emotion, its not a JOKE. Does Govt of India Officially Publicized The Death Date of Mr. Bose? If Ayes than OK, If NO than Easily A Case Can be registered In IT Act. So I AM GIVING SHUT UP CALL to Those Immature Admins. --Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk)

Please don't write garbage. I know Indians who were in Calcutta in 1945, in the same school as many girls of the extended Bose family. The girls came barefooted to school (a sign of mourning) for many days. And, especially, please don't make threats. It will get you banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I am Sorry for This Portion A Case Can be registered In IT Act. ---Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The information on death is not proved, and based on rumours. Mukherjee commission clearly reported Netaji did not die in that accident. If India Govt rejects, that does not mean it is not true. If yes, why map of India in Wikipedia still show Kashmir as diputed ? Does India not reject that ? Then,again, Asiatic Society scholars found evidences of Netaji alive inRussia in 1946- but then "in 2001, a conspicuous order was passed at the Society, locking up the papers and stopping further access to them".( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/49038874.cms ) Netaji's elder brother Suresh Chandra, who was a member of Netaji Enquiry commssion ( 1956), accused that Nehru as well as the head of the committee, Shah Nawaj Khan was already convinced of Netaji's death; so they just clinged to the idea of plane crash(https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-looked-the-other-way-as-netajis-brother-published-secret-papers/article8410450.ece). Also : Taiwan Govt said there was no plane crash between 14th August and 20th September 1945 ! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4236189.stm)

I am not saying everything is false, but at least there is a question mark, and this Wiki article is disallowing it.

The reliable sources, especially the scholarly sources, for example Leonard A. Gordon's monumental biography, Brothers Against the Raj, are agreed that Subhas Chandra Bose died of third degree burns in the evening of August 18, 1945, in Taihoku Military Hospital, (now) Taipei, Taiwan. The Japanese generals who generously went out of their way to make room for him and his assistant Col Habibur Rahman, and Bose's luggage, in an already overcrowded bomber, all perished in the plane crash. Their families mark their deaths every year on August 18. Rahman, who survived Bose, who carried a flaming Bose out of the plane, and later testified in the first commission, had very visible burns on his own body. The Japanese, a remarkably organized political and social culture, did everything they could at a time of great chaos (between the surrender of Japan and the beginning of the new American administration). It doesn't behoove opportunists in India's generally random contemporary political culture to continue to flog this dead horse of a conspiracy theory. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

LINE NO: 1; Subash Chandra bose year of death is Unknown. It is not officially confirmed that his death in plane crash, Because his body is not found. T0nyGir! (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the repeated previous discussions on this talk page and in the archives. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

In the infobox, change "Head of Azad Hind, a provisional government formed to liberate India with Japanese support, and based initially in the Japanese occupied Andaman Islands and later in Japanese occupied Singapore during World War II." to simply "Head of Azad Hind". The information can be stated somewhere else in the article and it is not standard to include long explanations in the infobox 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Moved to a footnote. @Fowler&fowler: your referencing competence is required, could you take a look? --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Referencing cleaned up. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Allama Mashriqi and Bose

In a controversy-ridden page such as this, we use only reliable sources, and as much as possible only scholarly sources published by academic publishers. Please also read Talk Page Guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

"Both men [Allama Mashriqi and Bose] believed that M.K. Gandhi’s methods were ineffective and could not bring freedom; and both adopted militarism in order to overthrow British rule. Gandhi opposed their ideas and supported their arrest." https://www.facebook.com/His-Majestys-Opponents-Allama-Mashriqi-Subhas-Chandra-Bose-100157188019549/?modal=admin_todo_tour

"His Majesty’s Opponents: Allama Mashriqi & Subhas Chandra Bose" by Nasim Yousaf (Historian & Scholar) https://www.facebook.com/100157188019549/photos/ms.c.eJw1yckNACAMA8GOEDbO1X9jKChoX6MFKut0Udyx0BbIAI0cH~_8P19jUX7m~;~_b7yAoexEDI~-.bps.a.100730114628923/119893939379207/?type=3&theater

An article on respected Allama Mashriqi by Bhavesh Saxena. Hindi version: https://hindi.news18.com/news/knowledge/know-about-khaksar-movement-of-inayatullah-khan-mashriqi-and-his-comparison-with-netaji-subhash-chandra-bose-2383414.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.49.11 (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening paragraph of the lead section

1. Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Biography prescribes the opening paragraph of the lead section to state, among other things, "the noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played". It also prescribes sufficient context to be provided. This is not a misquote, this is precisely what point four of the MoS under the lead section states.

2. Wikipedia pages of all the world leaders of the 20th century describe the positions they held in the opening lines of the lead section. For instance:- The Wikipedia page for Jawaharlal Nehru begins as follows - "Jawaharlal Nehru was an Indian independence activist, and subsequently, the first Prime Minister of India and a central figure in Indian politics before and after independence". The Wikipedia page for Franklin D. Roosevelt begins as - "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, often referred to by the initials FDR, was an American statesman and political leader who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945". Same is true for Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito, Enver Hoxha, Leopold III of Belgium, Getúlio Vargas, Robert Menzies, John Curtin, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell, etc. The exception seems to only have been made for Subhas Chandra Bose.

3. The fact that this is a "long standing stable version" is secondary to the requirement of neutrality and fairness. The manner in which this article has been written, including and especially the way it begins, displays a certain bias. Even the Wikipedia page of Adolf Hitler, a man infinitely worse than Bose, begins by mentioning his positions and not his reputation. The same standard should be applied everywhere. The purpose of the lead section is to inform, not influence, the reader. The least that can be done here is to include the positions held by Bose in the opening lines of the lead section, just as it has been the case for every other world leader of the twentieth century. RAMillikan (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RAMillikan, Bose is not known for the positions he held but rather for his activities against British rule in India. The lead should not be a mere compendium of facts but, rather, should be focused on providing the reader with essential knowledge about the subject. The first paragraph is particularly important but that's what most readers will read and the current first paragraph summarizes the important characteristics of Bose's life very well. Overloading it with every position he has ever held will make it harder for the reader to get a handle on who Bose was and why he is a notable figure. --regentspark (comment) 14:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

182.74.113.244 (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Subhash Chanra Bose NOT DIED IN TAIWAN PLAN CRASH

 Not done You would need multiple citations from reputable sources to overturn academic consensus. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Need to be careful

The death of Bose on August, 1945 is a hoax rumoured internationally by a sect of Indian filthy politicians, being facilitated by some internationally accredited platforms. Now, we the men of Bengal, have sufficient proofs regarding the fate of our Netaji and that essentially doesn’t relate with any hoax plain crash. Please conduct sufficient research before publishing anything regarding the greatest leader on earth in a platform, which we believe to be one of the authentic source of facts. Avijit74 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Make a edit that Subash Chandra Bose didn't died of a plane crash that everyone knows there is nothing to hide from the people and change it to he returned to India and died in 1985 as a monk in Ghaziabad and at that time his name was changed to Gumnaami Baba Ritam 110204 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You would need multiple citations from reputable sources to overturn academic consensus. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Spelling

Please run a spelling checker over this article.

The death of Bose on August, 1945 is a hoax rumoured internationally by a sect of Indian filthy politicians, being facilitated by some internationally accredited platforms. Now, we the men of Bengal, have sufficient proofs regarding the fate of our Netaji and that essentially doesn’t relate with any hoax plain crash. Please conduct sufficient research before publishing anything regarding the greatest leader on earth in a platform, which we believe to be one of the authentic source of facts. Avijit74 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a spell checker is for. Britmax (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Info about Free India government in infobox

@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. 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)

References

Double citations

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)

Taiwan Govt reply of 2003 to Mukherjee Commn is based on incomplete data

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

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

Illustration of Subhas Chandra Bose and Other Patriots in Constitution

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

Illustration of Subhas Chandra Bose and Other Patriots in original constitution

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2020

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

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)

Death of Netaji

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)

Death of Netaji

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let us discuss why after 73 years of Independence, Netaji death mistry could not be solved..? What are the intensions of central Govt behind it.. Why should we not boycott nehru's and Gandhi's fake ideolism? IamKrg (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Utter nonsense

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)

Issue with lede

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)

Subtitles as Indian radical is wrong

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

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)

Quote on Hindu Mahasabha from Bose's book The Indian Struggle

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

References

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)

Notes+refs in the lead

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)

SCB pronouncing his own name?

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)

Merged Parakram Diwas to here

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)

The 125th birth anniversary? How so?

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

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)

Bose and leftism

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

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)

Lead length

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)

Credits,and alleged death date.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2021

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)

Death and tag of Netaji

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)

Death of Subhash Chandra Bose

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" [4] (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)

Wrong Caption

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

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)

Unorthodox edits by a user new to this page

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)

Bose was a member of Fitzwilliam House at Cambridge

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021

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)

Is it a good idea to nominate this article for Good article status?

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)

Fancy lead

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Some Grammer mistakes on biography 202.142.121.148 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bose's 125th ...

... is coming up in January 2022. I expect it will be widely celebrated in India. This page as a result will receive much more drive-by attention than it does now. Please keep an eye on this page. @DaxServer, Martin of Sheffield, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, SpacemanSpiff, Kautilya3, and Graham Beards: I will try to rewrite the long-promised sections 3 to the end in the next few months. I will then rewrite and shorten the lead. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Seems like you are reverting other user's edits because you want to rewrite the lead?Akshaypatill (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing lead.

The lead of this article is too wordy and doesn't seem like a typical lead on Wikipedia. Rather than introducing the subject, the lead is giving conclusions on his lifework. Also, it is too wordy (almost 50 words in the first sentence) and hence the readability is compromised. I tried to rephrase it and add some details that actually introduce the subject but :@Fowler&fowler: is reverting the changes. Need your opinion.Akshaypatill (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm reverting your changes for a couple of reasons. First, and importantly, you're introducing the INA without contextualizing it (a lay reader might think that Bose was the c-in-c of the Indian Army). The para lower down does a much better job of dealing with this issue. Second, "one of the most prominent leaders" is awkward phrasing because it is overloaded with prominence ("one of", "most", "prominent"). Also, it is sourced to a book that is apparently a "tribute" rather than an academic examination of India's freedom struggle. Finally, though this is probably easily fixed, the link in your INA reference doesn't work. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:Thanks I will make the necessary changes.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Please have a look at the page. I have added new sources. Please leave a message if you are bothered by anything than reverting it. I will try to improve it else remove it.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if author is salient enough to put in the lead (he's not known for his writings afaik and the only book mentioned in the article is the Indian Struggle one). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Have a look at the lead now after :@Fowler&fowler: edits. I hope you will maintain the same UNBIASED attitude I had have been enjoying towards it.Akshaypatill (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

May I request that the article be locked in the last version before Akshaypatill's first edit? This is becoming very disruptive and a waste of time. We have an editor who from the start has relentlessly disrespected WP:BRD; he has copied my notices on his talk page back on mine in a seeming tit for tat; he is edit-warring, opening dispute resolution frivolously; he is attempting to wreak vengeance on my edits on pages he has no familiarity with such as this page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: No locking please. I ain't disrupting anything. I just want a proper lead with proper introduction to the subject. Don't punish other contributors. As evident from one of the discussions, apparently Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote the lead 10 years ago. And seems like he is trying to retain the same. Also he has got 3 edit warring notices in the month, 2 by me and 1 from another user.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Also @Fowler&fowler is adding false sources for his content as apparent on my last revert, which I have taken back. The source doesn't mention the facts he is claiming to be there and now he is telling me that he don't have the book at the moment and that's why he did it.Akshaypatill (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

@Fowler&fowler: I still hope you understand what lead is. Please have a look at the lead at Jawaharlal Nehru for example. Seems like you are taking it personally. I am assuming good faith. For my tiny edit, you have been insisting that I should bring a consensus over it. But you have changed the whole section without discussing anything.Akshaypatill (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who has posted it, but let me say that I have written the lead paragraph of Jawaharlal Nehru. I do know what a lead is, at least one sourced to impeccable scholarly sources. Aksaypatill moved the INA into the lead sentence; he insisted on a repetitive mention of Indian nationalism (which is the same as India's freedom struggle), once in "Indian nationalist" and again in "was known for his contributions to India's freedom struggle." I did not add anything new. I merely moved the portion about the INA further up in the lead, so that it does not appear disjointed. He added the bit about Bose being an author, citing an announcement by the Government of India. I have moved up the portion of the lead that already had a mention of the The Indian Struggle and his meeting and falling in love with Emilie Schenkl during its writing. I can't help it that the sources don't think Bose had Nehru's notability. Nehru's books, for example, were read around the world. Bose's book went largely unread. Again, I have not added anything new, only shuffled the sentences for greater textual coherence and cohesion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems Akshypatill has also now violated 3RR. This is very sad. Random and relentless disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

He has removed an edit explaining the origins of the INA on the grounds that the cited source did not say that. That Major Fujiwara founded the INA, however, is a well-known fact. Joyce Chapman Lebra for example, wrote in 2008:

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.

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)

References

Lead restructure

The lead of the article is not following Wikipedia guidelines for the lead. The first sentence contains almost 50 words, which compromise the readability of the lead. Also the lead, instead of introducing the subject, is giving a conclusion on his lifework.

I am proposing a slight change and addition in the lead -

   Subhas Chandra Bose(/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (About this soundlisten) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS; 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist. He served as leader and commander of Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj ) during 1943-1945. Often called as Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the honorific title was given to Bose in early 1942—by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, Germany. His defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but his attempts during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.

Referances - https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-army-and-the-end-of-the-raj/oclc/879421945 https://www.worldcat.org/title/indian-national-army-and-japan/oclc/646980059

I would like to know if anyone has any objection to the content.Akshaypatill (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, :@RegentsPark:Akshaypatill (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the original lead which introduces the subject far better. For example, the "hero in India" phrase is important but missing in your version. The INA is still uncontextualized (no one outside of India has heard of the Azad Hind Fauj). If you want to bring in the INA, it would be better to describe it "raised an army formed by Indian POWs captured by Japan during WW2 to fight the British for India's freedom" or some such but that would lengthen the lead. I'd also suggest replacing "Often called as Netaji" with "Known throughout India as Netaji" (but, wait! That's already in the current lead!). Frankly, I'm not sure what your problem is with the current lead because you're not really adding value with your version. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed it but "hero in India" phrase is still there. I am not proposing removal of any existing content. As I said earlier I just want a proper introduction to the subject rather than a lengthy sentence. Thanks for the feedback. For value - I think Subhash Bose is known for his work he attempted through INA. I don't know why some people having problem with insertion of this information. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It is very much there in the lead. Not everything needs to be in the very first paragraph. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark Not everything needs to be in the very first paragraph, I agree partially. I would like to see a reference to INA in the first paragraph, but I ain't doing it right now. I Will keep an eye on it though.Akshaypatill (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PEACKOCK in lead - "whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India"

Continuing from here - [5]. 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 [6]. 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" [7]. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Another one "Posthumously, he became one of the most acclaimed heroes of the Indian independence struggle" [8].--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 [9] 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)

Request for comment on the lead of the article.

The lead (The first paragraph) of the article is biased and shows the subject in a negative light. Seems like an attempt to disrespect the subject. What do you think? Akshaypatill (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The lead as a whole looks like it could use some work, but it's hard to tell from this RfC what the specific issue in question is. What opinion is it biased towards, and what is the alternative? Does the current balance and/or focus differ significantly from most reliable sources, and if so in what way? CMD (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Let me add more details.Akshaypatill (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have now restored the longstanding version of the lead on which we can have an RFC. We cannot have an RFC on the version of the lead that has appeared a few hours ago as a result of the disruptive edits of the RFC's proposer. An RFC is about longstanding and much-discussed issues, not fly-by-night ones. An RFC is a serious thing, not something frivolous that any drive-by (for that is what this editor is) can propose after making two edits on the page. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Per WP:RFCBEFORE, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The RfC proposer has not made any real effort to discuss anything. S/he does not know how to cite, does not know a reliable source from an unreliable, has appeared on this page some 12 hours ago, has attempted to make some edits (like many before him), but upon being reverted has sought to have his way by (i) edit warring, (ii) opening a frivolous dispute resolution, and now (iii) a frivolous RfC. This is a gross abuse of the RfC process. Just as the DRN was closed, this should too. If every editor who couldn't have his or her way in an article had taken to starting RfCs Wikipedia would shut down. Recommend close of premature RfC Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, you cannot start an RFC about one edit among evolving edits on a page; an RFC is about longstanding, long-discussed things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Akshaypatill (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on the lead of the article. 2

• The lead of the article is not following Wikipedia guidelines for the lead. The first sentence contains almost 50 words, which compromise the readability of the lead. Also the lead, instead of introducing the subject, is giving a conclusion on his lifework.

I am proposing a slight change and addition in the lead -

• Subhas Chandra Bose(/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (About this soundlisten) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS; 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist. He served as leader and commander of Indian National Army (Azad Hind Fauj ) during 1943-1945. Often called as Netaji (Hindustani: "Respected Leader"), the honorific title was given to Bose in early 1942—by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, Germany. His defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but his attempts during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.

Akshaypatill (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment :@Chipmunkdavis: An editor has reverted the lead to previous version. Please give your view. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Per WP:RFCBEFORE, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The RfC proposer @Akshaypatill: has not made any real effort to discuss anything. S/he barely knows how to cite. S/he has appeared on this page some 12 hours ago. S/he has attempted to make some edits, but upon being reverted has sought to have their way by (i) edit warring, (ii) opening a frivolous dispute resolution, and now (iii) a frivolous RfC. This is a gross abuse of the RfC process. Just as the DRN was closed, this should be too. If every editor who couldn't have his or her way in an article took to starting on-the-fly RfCs Wikipedia would shut down. Recommend close of premature RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

PS I am going to bed now, but I hope someone will stop this bizarre attempt at unraveling a longstanding article (with impeccable sources) in its tracks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment :@Fowler&fowler:, don't disrupt the discussion please. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Discuss by all means, but please do not jump straight for WP:RFC. As RfCs go, the three that have been started so far on this page have all been badly formed, and I agree with the early termination of the first two - and am removing the {{rfc}} tag from this one as well. Please do not add it again without a thorough normal discussion in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. Then if you really feel that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is absolutely necessary, read WP:RFCST and WP:WRFC before using {{rfc}} again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2021

It is not know exactly what was the cause of death so its better to specify/add "as claimed" in the statement of "Cause of Death" Rkrishnavedic (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This looks to be a contentious issue and therefore is outside the scope of an edit request. Discuss further here on the talk page as necessary Cannolis (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Best suited adjective

Is Bose a folk hero? If yes, should that make it to this article ['s lead]? Appu (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No. A folk hero is someone who is the stuff of folk tales. S/he needs to exist either far back enough in history or be a partly mysterious modern figure for tales to sprout. Robin Hood is a folk hero, and Joan of Arc is, or in the Indian context Rana Pratap is or Laxmi Bai is, both being the stuff of ordinary people's stories and poems. Among more recent figures, Che Guevara was a folk hero in Latin America, but Fidel Castro was not (really) because he was too much of a politician; Bhagat Singh was a folk hero, but Lajpat Rai—in mistaken retaliation of whose death Bhagat Singh went to the gallows—is not. Mystery and gaps are needed in the biography. Bose is not a folk hero because his life is too well documented, warts and all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler. May be User:APPU has read our talk page discussion above. Contrary to this reply, you had purposed to change the 'Hero' to 'Folk hero' once. That said, I agree with you. I don't find 'folk hero' to be suitable in this case. Akshaypatill (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I was thinking hurriedly there. Later, I had time to reflect in light of RegentsPark's comments above. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

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)

IAS Carrier

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

Introduction Correction

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)

Lead size

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

@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)

Removed a dailyhunt citation

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

New lead

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)

Wrong date of Death given.

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

Death

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)

Subhash Chandra Bose's Nationality/Citizenship

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

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)

"Though" instead of "but"

@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)

Death

He did not die in a plane crash. It is not officially accepted. Edit that part. Please have some concience. 103.249.7.17 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No. It officially accepted, just not acceptable to some people. Nthep (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Duh Appu (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

WP:VOICE

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)

Date of Death

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

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)

The knowledge panel is heavily biased and misleading

> 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

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)

Death

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

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)

Caste of Subhas Chandra Bose

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)

Refbombing

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)

Unreliable sources tag

@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)

Incorrect death information

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

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)

Netaji died on 18 sep 1985

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)

Reliably sourced date of death

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

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)

A mystery

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

Srijitaaaaa (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to edit the article

You can edit this and other semiprotected articles when you account becomes autoconfirmed, which usually happens when the account is at least four days old and you have at least 10 edits. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Srijitaaaaa: Please read Death of Subhas Chandra Bose and read it very carefully before you make any edits in this article related to Bose's death. He died of third-degree burns in a plane crash in Taipei airport Taiwan on August 18, 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove the so-called Death date of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

There is no irrefutable proof of Bose's death in the so-called air crash of 18th August 1945. In a news published by the National Republic on September 1956, they said:

"Government and the People of the USA don't believe the so-called death of Chandra Bose in the reported plane crash. Moreover, some people had seen him after the incident with a field nurse. There is every possibility that Bose is alive."

If you talk about Government documents, Check File No. (PMO)/870/11/P/16/92-POL in the National Archives of India. The Govt. file is telling that Bose gave three radio speeches after the so-called death.

In 1999, the Mukherjee Commission was founded to look into the death of Netaji. Justice Manoj Mukherjee led it, and the conclusion of their investigation confirmed what the public had speculated for years that Subhas Chandra Bose did not die in a plane crash, and the ashes in the Japanese temple is not his. If you want those reports, let me know. I shall give it.

And, let's talk about Prof. Gordon. If you believe Prof. Gordon, You must have to believe others. Writers like Keshab Bhattacharya, Jayanta Choudhuri, Maj Gen (Retd.) GD Bakshi and various other renowned researchers and editors, clearly told that There was no air crash at Taihoku Airport on 18th August 1945 and Bose didn't die in the plane crash.

Check the News of Indian Newspaper "Hindustan Times" dated March 04, 2001. This is telling that Bose was in Russia after the so-called air crash and death.

Moreover, there is no proof of any plane crash at Taihoku airport on August 18, 1945, and no documentary evidence such as a medical certificate, a cremation certificate, plane crash records, etc are available.

Colonel Nizamuddin, a 102-year-old man in 2006, also claimed that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did not die in an air crash on August 18, 1945. "Netaji was not on the plane that crashed in Taipei in 1945, as he changed his plans to board aircraft at the last minute. He was not killed in the crash, but died a few years ago as Gumnami Baba in Faizabad," claimed Nizamuddin, the driver-cum-bodyguard of Netaji in the INA (PTI, May 17, 2006). He also claimed that he met Netaji and his brother Sarat Chandra Bose in 1946 over a bridge on a river in Thailand. He backed the Mukerjee Commission findings and said, "He (Netaji) did not die in the air crash. The plane did not carry him, but instead had on board Captain Ekram, Lal Singh, a Bengali soldier and a woman, all AHF members, besides two to three Japanese."

Do you need any more evidence to remove the so-called death date of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadhanDharBN (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do, and shouting in capitals and stamping your foot won't persuade others to agree or help you find it. Britmax (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not shouting at you. You are repeatedly wanting "Proof" on behalf of the claims that Netaji Bose didn't die on 18th August 1945. You have to understand that Subhas Chandra Bose is the national hero of India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. He is the bravest son of the Indian Subcontinent. So, it is not possible to allow to spread of hoaxes related to Bose.

Would You Need More Evidence? If Yes, let me know. I will provide you. Otherwise, Remove this wrong date from Wikipedia. BadhanDharBN (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"I'm not shouting at you." Look around at some internet etiquette guides. If you write in block capitals then yes, you are. Britmax (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine, I'm editing this comment. I didn't have the wish to shout on you. I didn't know about that guideline, sorry. BadhanDharBN (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me prove you wrong. In Wikipedia, There is a reference to 5 books for declaring Mr. Bose is dead on 18th August 1945. But, it is not correct to conclude every book as Right. I also gave you the reference of various renowned writers. More specifically, Now I'm giving you some of the book's names on behalf of my claim:

1) Chakrabuhye Netaji, Writer: Keshab Bhattacharya

2) Khama Karo Subhas, Writer: Dr. Jayanta Choudhuri

3) Netaji Gelen Kothay, Writer: Dr. Jayanta Choudhuri

4) Bose: The Indian Samurai - Netaji and the INA A Military Assessment, writer: Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Gagandeep Bakshi

5) Bose: The Untold Story of an Inconvenient Nationalist, Writer: Chandrachur Ghose

6) Conundrum, Writer: Anuj Dhar & Chandrachur Ghose

7) What Happened to Netaji, Writer: Anuj Dhar

Now, I have given the reference of 7 books in the opposite to 5 books.

Would you please remove it now? BadhanDharBN (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology regarding shouting. However, this is not a situation where one person with seven books somehow "scores" higher than someone with five. The books, and any sources quoted, have to be of sufficient quality to be reliable by the standards we hold to here. Editors with a great deal more knowledge of the situation than I have say that Bose died in an accident in 1944. I cannot change that against them, and they will be the ones assessing your claims. Sorry. Britmax (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC).

What types of proof Do I need to submit in case of removing the Misinformation? BadhanDharBN (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@BadhanDharBN: See WP:HSC for how scholarly publications in history are typically evaluated. At a quick glance I don't think any of '7 books' you list would qualify . Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@BadhanDharBN: Leonard A. Gordon, whose Wikipedia page I might have created, and whose definitive biography of Bose I have read with great pleasure, gives detailed evidence of the interviews he conducted with the Japanese surgeon, the male nurses, and with Col. Habibur Rahman who were present in the fateful ward in Taihoku General Hospital where and when Bose died.

Rahman, who was badly injured himself is the only reason that Bose survived for the few hours he did; without Rahman, Bose would have been incinerated in the burning bomber like the Japanese general Tsunamasa Shidei who out of great sympathy and charity for Bose agreed to take Bose and his heavy luggage on board an already overloaded and malfunctioning bomber. Rahman carried burn scars on his arms and legs long after the plane crash. They were visible to all during the Shahnawaz Committee hearings 1956 at which Rahman gave testimony, traveling for the occasion to India from Pakistan to which he had moved after the Partition of India.

The families of Shidei and other Japanese who perished in the plane crash commemorate their deaths every year on 18 August. The Japanese who attended on Bose, part of an immaculately meticulous culture— but which we shouldn't forget had also inflicted great cruelty on all its enemies and subject peoples during the second world war— displayed some of that same meticulousness during their treatment of the dying Bose, even during those chaotic days at the end of the second world war (which Gordon has recorded).

Major historians of the war in Asia, such as Christopher Bayly state that Bose died from third-degree burns on that day. Major historians of modern South Asia such as Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf and Stanley Wolpert consider Bose to have died on that day. Bose's own daughter and close surviving family are now certain he died in the plane crash. Although this does not count for Wikipedia evidence, I have personally interviewed aged Indians who as children in middle-school in Calcutta in August 1945 had seen girls from Bose's family who were their classmates come barefoot to school in ritual observance of his death. Let me respectfully suggest that by continuing to resurrect tired old conspiracy theories promoted by the talking heads of today, you are disrespecting all who played any tangible role in Bose's last years. I am not going to engage you in a spurious discussion, but I'm attempting to give you a feel for the knowledge of sources and access to resources I had brought to bear when I wrote the article Death of Subhas Chandra Bose many years ago. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There is lots of proof about Bose's appearance in South-East Asia and the USSR after 18th August 1945. BadhanDharBN (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are also egregiously disrespecting Bose, for character flaws he might have had aplenty, but lack of courage was not one of them. He is hardly the person who would have chosen the life of a hermit in the Himalayas, pussyfooting around authority and controversy, and away from the very people he had loved such as his companion Emilie Schenkl, his daugher Anita Bose Pfaff, and his brother Sarat Chandra Bose, who had offered him refuge in what must have been very difficult times. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. You are the only person who "respects" Bose by spreading the false death and marriage of Bose.

How will you feel If anyone spread your false death and marriage news when you are alive and unmarried? Just think about it and then you possibly can feel how much disrespect Bose is feeling in the name of so-called respect. BadhanDharBN (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The oldest living man on earth is 112 years old (see List of the verified oldest people) Bose, if alive would be 125-years old. Please write to the Guiness Book and record his age. Your work on Wikipedia is over. If you persist in trolling here, I will make sure you are banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In where I have told that Bose is alive? I have told you and others, responsible persons, to remove the controversial death date of Bose.

And, are you threatening me in the name of banning? I'm telling you one quote of Bose:

"One individual may die for an idea, but that idea will, after his death, incarnate itself into a thousand lives."

There is something called Freedom of Speech. You are denying my proof without any reason! What kind of proof do you want? Documents of Indian Government? Documents of the French Secret Service, British & US Secret Service? Just let me know. I shall submit these proofs here. BadhanDharBN (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indian Government repeatedly telling that they have no stand regarding the death of Subhas Chandra Bose and they have no irrefutable proof which concludes that Bose had died in the reported plane crash on 18th August 1945.

You have been declaring that Bose died on 18th August 1945 on the basis of a book written by Leonard Gordon. If you consider Leonard Gordon a specialist for Bose, then you also have to consider Dr. Jayanta Choudhury as a specialist researcher for Bose because he is a Ph.D. on Bose from Kolkata University (India). BadhanDharBN (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You aren't even telling me that which type of proofs do I need to submit to remove the death date of Bose!!!

Have you the will and guts to remove the death date of Bose (from Wikipedia) on basis of evidence?

There are newspaper cuttings (from renowned newspapers of India), Verdict of Mukherjee Commission (which was formed by Govt. of India to solve the disappearance mystery of Bose), Various popular books (written by popular authors), and most importantly, Intelligence report of the Government of India, Government of French and Some other countries including the USA and UK (these reports are quoted from the files declassified by Govt. of India) which is telling that there is no IRREFUTABLE proof that Bose had died on 18th August 1945.

Wikipedia should be a clear and trustable website for people of all walks. It shouldn't deliver misinformations.

Wikipedia is losing its quality for spreading misinformation in the name of Bose.

So, please take all the necessary steps to remove the wrong death date of Bose. If you need more proof, let me know and I shall deliver it to you. BadhanDharBN (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is veering into the personal and unhelpful. Unless BadhanDharBN has other sources of comparable reliability (by wikipedia's standards) to those already used in the article that we need to discuss, we can end the debate here. Abecedare (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Then just let me know which types of proof do you want to make the change. BadhanDharBN (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my previous post: see WP:HSC for the type of sources that would help move the discussion forward. Abecedare (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"What type of discussion" means? If talking against injustice and misinformation is a "personal matter", then declare Wikipedia as an autocratic website.

You must have to remove information if the information is proved as wrong information. I already gave you various types of information but you are denying removing the misinformation related to Bose. If you have a problem with my information, then let me know which types of information do you need to remove the misinformation. I'm agreed to give any kind of information (including the answer of Govt. of India regarding the Death of Bose on 18th August 1945). BadhanDharBN (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you know that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed on Indian High Court (Calcutta High Court) for knowing whether Bose is dead or alive? The case filling number is WPA(328)/2021. If the Government of India is sure about the death of Bose in the reported plane crash, then the PIL would not be accepted. BadhanDharBN (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the matter was concluded as an instruction to hurry up, no "accepting". "Keeping in view the difficulties expressed by respondents as well as the suffering of the petitioner due to the long pendency of the appeal, WPA 328 of 2021 is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 to dispose of the said appeal of the petitioner under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, as referred to in the present writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, positively within May 31, 2021." See Sanjoy Saha vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 March, 2021 PS: apologies, I forgot to sign. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Then you are aware that the death date of Bose is controversial. Then why you are declaring Bose dead when you know it is controversial and you or no other parties have no irrefutable proof about this claim? Please take steps to remove it or at least add controversial signs with the date. BadhanDharBN (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of Netaji's so called death date. He was not died in plane crash on 18th August 1945. Instead he used to spent his life as Gumnami baba or parda baba or Bhagwanji. We should respect him and remove the false information of his death and his marriage. He never married to a German woman. The woman who claimed herself as Netaji's daughter, totally lied. Srijitaaaaa (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The death of Shri Subhash Chandra Bose is very controversial, these perverted editors are repeatedly presenting Wikipedia with Netaji's fake death.

The Mukherjee Commission has already proved that there was no plane crash at that place in 1945 on that day.

Someone threatened to block me from Wikipedia. To that man I say Ah welcome, you rogue capitalist flatterer do whatever you want Abcd amureet (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Netaji's self-proclaimed ideology in his autobiography, speeches and interviews.

If it is edited by revealing the truth, it is deleted. I added some points with very reliable sources and archives and own autobiography of the personality. But the biased editors who don't want to reveal the truth have deleted it. want justice. Abcd amureet (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Either delete the "ideology" part or let the truth be written.

In an interview with R. Palme Dutt in 1938, four years after the publication of his autobiography Indian Struggle, Bose announced his philosophical line; “… I have always understood and am quite satisfied that Communism, as it has been expressed in the writings of Marx and Lenin and in the official statements of policy of the Communist International, gives full support to the struggle for national independence and recognises this as an integral part of its world outlook.”

Bose's correspondence (prior to 1939) reflects his disapproval of the racist practices and annulment of democratic institutions in Nazi Germany: "Today I regret that I have to return to India with the conviction that the new nationalism of Germany is not only narrow and selfish but arrogant." However, he expressed admiration for the authoritarian methods which he saw in Italy and Germany during the 1930s; he thought they could be used to build an independent India but later admitted that his previous assessment of fascism was fundamentally wrong.

Bose had clearly expressed his belief that democracy was the best option for India. However, during the war (and possibly as early as the 1930s), Bose seems to have decided that no democratic system could be adequate to overcome India's poverty and social inequalities, and he wrote that a socialist state similar to that of Soviet Russia (which he had also seen and admired) would be needed for the process of national re-building. Accordingly, some suggest that Bose's alliance with the Axis during the war was based on more than just pragmatism and that Bose was a militant nationalist, though not a Nazi nor a Fascist, for he supported the empowerment of women, secularism and socialist ideas; alternatively, others consider he might have been using populist methods of mobilisation common to many post-colonial leaders. Abcd amureet (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As a true socialist, he wanted to free the peasants and workers from exploitation. While inspecting the objectives of the "Samyabadi Sangha" literally meaning 'Communist Union', he said: "We stand for the interests of the people, the peasants, the workers, but not for the interests of the landlords, the capitalists and the moneylenders."

Sources https://archive.thestatesman.com/?p=1481230319

https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/jan2004/englishpdf/chapter1.pdf Abcd amureet (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler reply Abcd amureet (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Abcd amureet, I saw the recent edits you made to the article (that Fowler&fowler reverted) and I too had concerns about the (1) sourced content that you deleted, and (2) possible synthesis based on primary sources (i.e., quotes by SCB). In your above comment too, I am unclear about which part is your own analysis and which part reflects the analysis of the sources you are citing. It would help if you could slow down, specify a particular change you are proposing, and provide the relevant citation (and source quotes, if needed) that support that change. Abecedare (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Prior to my edit, it was written that Netaji considered the synthesis of communism and fascism to be the ultimate philosophical ideal. The fact is, however, that in 1938, he explained his full ideological views and resolved all the confusion with his ideology in an interview with Rajini Palme Dutt, which was published in the Daily Worker. This interview is very famous. I added some more such information with reference and reliable sources of Mr. Subhas Basu's own statement, which was not tolerated by Fowler. And I also inform you I have reverted the edit. Now explain which sources are not reliable; Netaji's own written autobiography "The India Struggle"? Abcd amureet (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Abcd amureet:

Although I am sure you know this, The Indian Struggle is not Bose's autobiography, but a history of the Indian nationalist movement from his viewpoint, and a beautiful book. It still makes me nostalgic for something I can't put my finger on, ... the interwar years perhaps, historically. It was written, as you must know, in Austria in the mid-1930s with the help of Emilie Schenkl, with whom he later had a daughter during his second extended stay in Europe from 1941 to 1943, during which he wrote the second part of the book. Gandhi had encouraged Bose to take the mid 1930s break abroad after Bose had expressed feelings of general exhaustion.

Bose was a hero to many, not only many in Bengal, not only the POWs of the British Indian Army taken by Japan after the Battle of Singapore (1941) who had joined the first INA, but also the thousands of young men and women (mostly Tamil) volunteers from Malaya and Singapore in the second INA who heeded Bose's call and enlisted in 1943 after Bose's arrival in Singapore. Both the Japanese and the INA suffered terribly during the long withdrawal in late 1944 and early 1945 through Burma, nearly half dying under harsh circumstances, before the survivors surrendered to the British in Singapore in August 1945. Bose was a major Indian nationalist, a complex man, a driven man, but human with strengths and flaws. Wikipedia has to be neutral in a scholarly manner about all aspect of Bose's biography.

Although I am an admirer of Palme-Dutt and the British communists of that period as well, neither his interview nor Bose's history is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.

If you read WP:RS and WP:SOURCETYPES you will see that modern scholarly sources are the best ones. May I point to Leonard A. Gordon's Brothers against the Raj, the definitive scholarly biography of Bose, in this regard? It has an extended description of Bose's stays in Austria and of the book. In addition the books of Marzia Casolari (2020) and Romain Hayes (2011) have substantial discussion of Bose's various relationships with Italian Fascism and German Nazism based on archival material in Europe. The books of Joyce Lebra give a perspective on Bose from the point of view of the Japanese.

Having said this, I should add: I have not taken a look at the ideology section. You might be correct about it needing improvement. Please give me a couple of days. I will get back to you here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You made a couple of days into a couple of weeks… Abcd amureet (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I will take a look this week. Thanks for the reminder Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

let's see it's the last day of the week As I won't be allowed to edit Take in more facts that are worth adding (1) "During all these years we have meant and explained by freedom-political freedom alone; but henceforth we have to declare that we do not want to liberate people merely from political bondage. We want to liberate them from all forms of bondage. The struggle for independence has as its aim the removal of the triple bondage of political, economic and social oppression. When all shackles are removed, we can proceed to build a new society on the basis of communism. The principal aim of our freedom struggle is to build a free and classless society. This ideal and this dream have inspired men in all ages and in all lands." IN A HANDWRITTEN LETTER OF NETAJI TO BARINDRA GHOSH. (1930) source;The Bose Brothers and Indian Independence: An Insider’s Account By Madhuri Bose (2) "I want a socialist Republic of India. I want political freedom and complete economic emancipation. Every human being must have the right to work and right of living wage. There shall be no drones in our society and no uncarned incomes. There must be equal opportunities for all. Above all, there should be a fair, just and equitable distribution of wealth. For this purpose it may be necessary for the state to take over the control of the means of production and distribution of wealth. And thirdly I want social equality for all. There should be no caste, no depressed classes. Every man will have the same rights and the same status in society. Further, there shall be no inequality between the sexes, either in social status or in the law, and women shall be, in every way, equal partners of men." NETAJI ADDRESSING THE ALL-INDIA NAOJAWAN BHARAT SHABHA IN KARACHI, MARCH OF 1931 source; Samar Guha, "Socialist Image of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose", National Herald, New Delhi, August 15, 1971

(3) IN 1929, BOSE RAISED A DEMAND FOR "FULL SOCIALISM", AND CAME SECURE TO BHAGAT SINGH'S SOCIALIST ORGANISATION HINDUSTAN REPUBLICAN ARMY. "... A new society has to be recognized on basis of full socialism. Economic disparity is to be removed and everybody, man and woman, is to be given equal opportunity for education and advancement in life. We necessity see that a sovereign state is recognized on a socialist basis." ADDRESSING THE MIDNAPORE YOUTH CONFERENCE IN 1929 source; Modern India (1857 1969) NIILM University, Chapter-5 NATIONALISM: INTER-WAR-II, Indian national congress-socialist ideas: role of Nehru and Bose

(4) Get to know the internationalist Basu- The Chinese Communist General, Zhu De, made an urgent request to Nehru to send medical aid to China. Their application was accepted and Subhash Chandra Bose as the President of the Congress sent a medical mission to China where Dr. Kotnis played a heroic role.

(5) Netaji against bigotry- "I would request Savarkar, Jinnah & to all those who still think of a compromise with the British to realize once for all that in the world of tomorrow there will be no British Empire." -Netaji Bose via Azad Hind Radio (1943) references; Selected Speeches of Subhas Chandra Bose, Pg 116–117, (Publications Division, IB Ministry) Netaji Collected Works, Volume 11, Pg 144

Or at the end of the week I will present the article myself with all proofs Abcd amureet (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notion of assuming good faith does not mean giving a carte blanche to fringe theories. If you continue to vandalize the article as you have done, you are staring at penalties and blocks. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The truth is that you are the real vandal Abcd amureet (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose, President of the All India Trade Union Congress.

He was a shining face in leftist trade union politics. He was elected the All India President of AITUC. It must be added as an "office", an important chapter in Netaji's politics Abcd amureet (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

RegentsPark (talk

You all did a lot of drama There's the talk page, Even say this to your "fowler" friend Camarada internacionalista (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Camarada internacionalista: To clarify, blogs are not accepted as reliable sources. Also, my point was that we can't list every office that Bose held and you should explain on the talk page why this office is important enough to be listed (after finding a reliable source). Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3T2Ph_SmjtoC&pg=PA97&dq=netaji+all+india+trade+union+congress&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWkeD4lZz5AhUjDLcAHVDXDG8Q6AF6BAgFEAM You are talking allienating AITUC was the first trade union and the largest union of that era and Netaji was elected president by the Left. The presidency of the most important trade union, do you understand the meaning? Mind it Netaji was firstly and foremost a leftist trade unionist. If you can't accept it, speaking you in your language; Hipocrisy ki bhi Sima hoti hai. Camarada internacionalista (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Title of S.C.Bose

Indian National Leader Rabindranath Tagore regarded him with title of "Deshnayak". 369Maderana (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Many things are wrongly written

Please don't write the cause of death as plane crash...no solid proof is there and many agencies have worked on that and concluded different things..also several lines written do defame Netaji....like for his greed in power there was discomfort in Congress so upper leaders opposes him when he elected as president of congress...this may be just opposite...the person who sacrificed his life for the country and some people of that era tried to supress his contribution in freedom movement becomes more popular and now some person writing that for Netaji's personal power and greed ...people of upper class opposes...this is a shame ...please correct the information. 47.15.41.112 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS that states that the cause of death is something else? OTherwise, you’re just spreading conspiracy theories. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 04:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So much inaccuracy and bias

This article is a good example of why Wikipedia should not be used for any serious research work. Feels like it was wriiten/edited by people aligning to a certain political ideology for whom spreading their own propaganda is more important than educating common people. The way Netaji's death is unambiguously portrayed to be in a plane crash is nothing but laughable. I suggest the 'authors' spend some time studying the recent research that uncovers the 'best kept secrets' surrounding his death. 49.207.205.206 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used for research in the first place. You need to provide WP:RS to prove that his death really wasn’t a plane crash. Otherwise, you’re just spouting conspiracy theories. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 04:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Allegedly died on 18 August 1945 (aged 48)[4][5]

Army Hospital Nanmon Branch, Taihoku, Japanese Taiwan (present-day Taipei City Hospital Heping Fuyou Branch, Taipei, Taiwan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.34.139 (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Proliferation of notes and lengthy quotes?

Why are there over 55 notes (often just in the form of quotes and a citation), combined with huge amounts of in-citation quotation. I'm not certain that this fulfills the copyright criteria. If no-one has any objections, I might try and slim this a fair whack. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that they look excessive, but are they actually doing harm? They were retained (confession: by me) when I tidied up the referencing and citing some years ago. Apparently they were needed to stop a slow burn edit war. Please be aware that this article is extremely sensitive with opposing feelings running quite highly at times. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I am of course aware of the contentious nature of the topic, but quotes of these length (several are over 150 words long) and number (over 55, plus numerous in-citation quotes) surely violate the WP:NPS guideline? There are so many that two were actually duplicates of others—I have now removed them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've no horse in this race, but will point out that a guideline is a GUIDEline, not a regulation. Pinging Fowler&fowler who is the expert here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As Martin notes, the topic is contentious. It is inordinately contentious. When the detailed notes were not there, daily battles were waged. Death deniers appeared daily to question his death by third-degree burns in the plane crash on August 18, 1945. The Japanese were given short shrift for going the extra mile in caring for the dying Bose, especially at a time of anxiety and confusion about their own futures. This was after their surrender in the Second World War and before they had reached Japan's safer shores.

Thanks very much for removing the duplication.

Detailed notes are essential. They are the norm in highly contentious South Asia articles. Witness: 2020 Delhi riots, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Sanskrit, Bhagat Singh, Indian rebellion of 1857, Shalwar kameez, ... They have survived ARBIPA scrutiny. If you disagree, you are welcome to discuss your misgivings at WT:INDIA. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PS I am not really editing Wikipedia these days, not even skimming it, so please forgive me if I do not reply immediately. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

There is no reasonable evidence about the death of Subhash Chandra Bose. There are conspiracy theories about it and right now a link has been found between his death and so called Gumnami Baba. Many essential of Gumnami Baba has been found which are German and Japanese. Thats why I request you to remove the death information about S.C. Bose. 117.227.50.90 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. Or read the article and the attendant sources Cannolis (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

2405:205:C921:EC4B:F47D:5C04:FAD6:223C (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It is said that sir Bose where not death in a plane clashes as it was to spread rumour he showed his presence in India and ' TASHKENT TREATY '

So i request u to do something with his death date or add text saying not confirm or mysterious death

 Not done: No conspiracy theories please — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Death Controversy

Information given related to Netaji's death is not proven yet and there is no concrete evidence released by the Indian Government. So it should not be published as death. 103.242.199.134 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Buildings named after Bose

@Editorkamran and Reo kwon: this is starting to look a little like an WP:EDITWAR. Please continue the discussion here and reach an agreement first. You might like to consider the essay WP:BRD, it is actually very good advice. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems undue for lead because dozens of things have been named after him. We can't mention all of them on lead. Editorkamran (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran, @Reo kwon: At this point you're violating WP:3RR. The article is back to status quo and don't revert anyone again, or I'll promptly report you both. You both are requested to gain consensus here first. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose

There is no certain proof of Netaji's death and even date of his death. Please delete that death section. 2401:4900:3BDA:C339:EFDF:F926:2B58:8B59 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please tell that to the families of the Japanese general Tsunamasa Shidei, who went out of his way (and in the face of the directive of the Japanese foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu) to make room on an overloaded bomber for Subhas Bose, Colonel Habib ur Rahman and Bose's outsized oaken chest. The general's family marks his death in the same plane crash on August 18, 1945 every year. They do so in the same Renkō-ji temple in Tokyo where Bose's ashes are kept. Rahman—who carried the human inferno the gasoline-soaked Bose had become out of the air craft—had extensive burns on his body, and testified that Bose had died in the hospital room (in which Rahman lay recovering) on the night of August 18, 1945.

I could just as easily tell you to read Death of Subhas Chandra Bose and the very reliable sources therein, but I am attempting to also make the point that when (mainly) Indian or India-POV editors make this kind of post here again and again (and may I say selfishly) they indirectly disparage the many Japanese, Indians and Pakistanis, who went out of their way to help Subhas Bose in his abortive last mission, including losing their own lives in the process, or carrying on their arms for the rest of their days the very visible scars from that inferno. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Information given related to Netaji's death is not proven yet and there is no concrete evidence released by the Indian Government. So it should not be published as death Arghya 1945 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Death conspiracy

Information given related to Netaji's death is not proven yet and there is no concrete evidence released by the Indian Government. So it should not be published as death. This is not solve yet.So please don't make people believe that wrong information. Arghya 1945 (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please read and understand Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

In popular media

@Rsrikanth05: See WP:IPC, which say "Passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be appropriate if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. As well, a brief reference in film or TV dialogue may be appropriate if secondary sources (film critics) write about the significance of this reference to the city.

I don't see any significance in the trivial example you are including.[10] It will only ruin article's quality. Editorkamran (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Require to edit on Subhas Chandra Bose

Kindly remove the Died , Cause of death and Resting place option from the page because it's still a mystery about the death and our respectable current govt yet to declare the same.

We are fans of Shri Subhas Chandra Bose thus please edit the same and add the mystery or yet to declare by govt on the Died option and delete the Cause of death and Resting place option.

Please follow Anuj Dhar link ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA_yI36Tmu4 ) he have all the data.

Kindly do the needfull ASAP. 103.112.47.166 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)  Not done

Please see Death of Subhas Chandra Bose where the issue is described at length. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Namaskar Wikipedia team,

Kindly remove the Died , Cause of death and Resting place option from the page because it's still a mystery about the death and our respectable current govt yet to declare the same.

We are fans of Shri Subhas Chandra Bose thus please edit the same and add the mystery or yet to declare by govt on the Died option and delete the Cause of death and Resting place option. 103.112.47.166 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly as responded to you above:  Not done, please see Death of Subhas Chandra Bose. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Odisha instead of Orissa

References to the modern Odia state should be "Odisha" instead of "Orissa". Please review my edits. User:Khinkida — Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Khinkida: Place names are used according to the name/spelling at that point in history. For example, he is referred to as "Mayor of Calcutta" (name at that point in history), not "Kolkata" (present-day name). Similarly, Orissa, not Odisha. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

This edit was removed but it stayed for months.

The claim that it is "sourced to sub-standard sources" is wrong because Hayes has been also used for backing the statement and he said "First, there was concern that recognition of an Indian government presided by Bose would be perceived as German preference for the 'leftist Forward bloc' faction within the Congress which would antagonise Gandhi and Nehru. The Germans were not prepared to do this merely to gain Bose as an ally. Gandhi was rightly recognised as the key force in Indian politics, regardless of the contempt his pacifist ideology aroused in Berlin."[11]

Another removed sentence includes "Adolf Hitler during his only meeting with Bose in late May 1942 refused to entertain Bose's requests and facilitated him with a submarine voyage to East Asia."

The added sources support the sentence.[12][13] Hitler did not "offer" Bose a submarine but only accepted his request to shift him to Asia. Orientls (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hitler refused to sign the Tripartite Agreement that Bose was keen on.

The Special Bureau on India had prepared a final draft in Feb 1942. It affirmed Germany, Italy, and Japan supporting India's anti-imperialist struggle and providing aid in the indeterminate future. Hitler also shot down Mussolini's idea that Bose take a secret flight. He suggested taking a Japanese submarine failing which he offered to arrange a German one. He charted out the course on a map. Eventually Bose took the German in February 1943, transferring to a Japanese off the Cape of Good Hope. You had employed WP:SYNTHESIS by using a book published by Deep and Deep Publications (now "temporarily closed" says a website, and a book on the Dachau trials that had only incidental mention of Bose in a few lines on one page.

Instead of summarizing a set of complex ideas extensively discussed in a book you cherry-picked a few. Those of us who have maintained the page over time, have not done so every minute of every day. Your edit managed to fly under the radar, mainly by eschewing comprehensive and transparent edit summaries. But the WP:ONUS is yours. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

PS And Hitler was plenty critical of both Gandhi and Nehru in his conversation with Bose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This has been already addressed by Romain Hayes in the already posted quote that "Gandhi was rightly recognised as the key force in Indian politics, regardless of the contempt his pacifist ideology aroused in Berlin."

Another one is: "Woermann recommended the indefinite postponing of any announcement of Bose's presence in Germany and cautioned the Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop that the time had not yet come to recognize Bose's government - in- exile. Woermann specifically feared that any such step would alienate both Gandhi and Nehru, the real leaders of Indian nationalism , and the representatives of the political forces with which Germany would have to deal when her army reached the Khyber Pass."[14]

I don't see why these facts need to be excluded from the lead. The current lead appears to be saying that Germans were on their way to help Bose but the war with USSR changed the scenario. This is wrong. It is necessary to mention that Germans were NOT interested in making official alliance with Subhas Chandra Bose because of crisis over his significance in India. Nehru and Gandhi were considered as the most significant leaders of India, not Bose and this fact influenced decision of Germans.

Bose was upset over lack of help from Germany and wanted to move to East as mentioned in the source. "Bose was quite disillusioned with Germany. He had already written to Ribbentrop asking for travel arrangements to the East."[15]

I don't think we should present it as Hitler's own idea as it currently does with the wording " Adolf Hitler during his only meeting with Bose in late May 1942 offered to arrange a submarine", because it was demand of Bose to move to the East. Editorkamran (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? What do you think I had summarized if not Hayes?

Lack of help from Germany? The Germans gave him a Special Bureau in Berlin; they gave him 3,000 Indian army POWs, some of whom had deep reservations about fighting the Indian army. They gave him a mansion, and a large support staff. They never said a word about Emilie Schenkl. They gave him a radio station to broadcast over. Please read Hayes. I've never heard of Ray. What primary sources did he use? Has the book been reviewed in any academic journal? Has it even been reviewed in The Hindu? Anita Bose Pfaff is not a historian. She was all of two months old when her father abandoned her mother and her in wartime Germany without any economic support. Ray's book is not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and that is the only standard this article is beholden to. So please communicate in summary style, not by quoting from here and there. There has been no controversy about Bose's death, except among the fringe-believers in India many of whom were in Bengal and now in the Hindu Right. People saw the extensive third-degree burn scars Habibur Rahman had when he gave evidence in the post-independence commission.

In sum, what Hitler had refused was what Bose had first asked: Musolini's grandiose idea of the flight to Asia aboard a secret plane (which in turn had been extracted from Mussolini by Bose at the end of the overlong interview) but more importantly Hitler refused the Tripartite Agreement (between Germany, Italy, and Japan) which aimed to say something supportive for the version of nationalism Bose was espousing, but crucially offered economic and military aid to Bose's version of India in the future. Although the draft was prepared by the Special Bureau of India in Berlin, it had all the hallmarks of the flamboyant English prose of Bose, untempered by Kant, Hegel, Schiller, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche, he might have had read at Presidency College, let alone by Adorno, or Rosa Luxemburg that he did not. I've read the scholarship. I've read Hayes. I can quote him at great length. You are welcome to take Ray to WP:RS/N, say there that I requested it, and tell me when you do it. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read Death of Subhas Chandra Bose Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is Hayes. I've woven the timeline with the later text:

• "22 February The Special India Bureau completes the Tripartite Declaration on India." (Bose was very keen on the "Tripartite powers" (Germany, Italy, and Japan) issuing a statement of support for the inalienable right of the Indian people to determine their own future. The declaration (which was to be signed by the heads of the three powers, stated among other things: "In the endeavour to open the gate of freedom to the Indian people also, at this historical moment when the British Empire is beginning to reel under the blows delivered by the armed might of the Tripartite Powers, the German, Italian and Japanese governments hereby solemnly declare that they recognise the inalienable right of the Indian people to independence ... All the promises of self-government made by Britain to India have proved so far to be lies. Fresh promises will be given by Britain simply to mislead the Indian people; they, again will be broken. It will not be the victory of British imperialism that will bring true freedom to the Indian people but solely the victory of the Tripartite Powers. India has never had a more favourable opportunity of attaining freedom; the hour has struck when the Indian people themselves must act to shape their own destiny and self-determination.")

• "11 April 1942 The Japanese government approves the Tripartite declaration on India."
• "17 April 1942 Hitler rejects the Tripartite declaration but approves Bose’s transfer to Southeast Asia "("Referring to himself now as an ‘old revolutionary’ Hitler advised Bose to ‘bank on the Japanese’ and get as close to India as possible. An internal revolt, combined with external pressure would ensure Indian liberation. Hitler was sceptical that Gandhi’s tactics would accomplish anything. He termed ‘Japan’s astonishingly rapid advance’ a major ‘historical event’, while admitting that he did not know what his ally was planning next. (‘They had not mentioned anything positive to Germany’.) Nevertheless, Hitler advised Bose—again as an ‘old revolutionary’—quickly to reach an agreement with the Japanese so that no ‘psychological mistakes’ would be made. He did not elaborate as to what he meant by ‘psychological mistakes’. Although he encouraged Bose to leave for Tokyo, Hitler ruled out going by air—thinly concealing his contempt for the Italians in the process—claiming that he was ‘too important a personality to let his life be endangered by such an experiment’. Instead, Hitler proposed Bose board I-30, a Japanese submarine scheduled to reach German-occupied France that summer. If this was not feasible he proposed placing a German submarine at Bose’s ‘disposal’. With the help of a map, Hitler traced the likely route through the Atlantic Ocean, around the Cape of Good Hope and into the Indian Ocean. Bose only brought up two issues in the course of the meeting. First, the need for Hitler’s views on India to be clarified in the absence of a declaration, particularly as passages of Mein Kampf were still being exploited by the British in India. Secondly, the need for continued German assistance after the war so that India would not depend exclusively on Japan. Hitler was dismissive of his remarks in Mein Kampf suggesting that they belonged to the past. As for the future, he only promised economic assistance as ‘the power of a country could only be exercised within the range of its sword’. Hitler then got up, presented Bose with a precious stone cigar case and wished him the best in his endeavours to liberate India. With that, the meeting ended.")

• "8 February 1943 Bose writes a letter to his brother informing him that he has married and has a daughter before boarding U-180, the German submarine bound for the Indian Ocean"

What you are asking for is WP:UNDUE, especially for the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not undue to mention that Germany was unwilling to make an alliance with Bose because he was not representative of Indians like Gandhi and Nehru were. This fact also diminishes the revisionist nonsensical view that Bose was the most influential Indian leader.

It is also a well-known fact that Bose was "disillusioned" over Germany. This has to be mentioned on the lead because it proves that Bose failed to find what he wanted from Germany. Few sources:-

• "But Berlin was not the answer to all Bose's hopes. Though Bose was eventually received by Hitler, the meeting was a disappointment to Bose, and "he did not like very much to speak about it". An even greater source of disillusion for Bose was the German fiasco at Stalingrad. Bose began to turn elsewhere for help for the cause of Indian independence." From The Indian National Army and Japan by Joyce Lebra.
• "Hitler finally shifted the responsibility for Bose and Indian declaration onto the Japanese by offering him submarine transport to East Asia. Bose was profoundly disillusioned by this final rejection. Having first sought German support for a free India on his arrival at Berlin in April 1941, the intervening fourteen months had brought him only limited success in the establishment of the Free India Center and the Indian Legion. No formal guarantee of Indian independence had been forthcoming from Germany. Bose undoubtedly felt that he wasted his time by going to Germany in the first place." From Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. Orientls (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Who used the honorific "Netaji" first

1. There is no reference. 2. There is no reference that Nazi officers used that term. 2603:8001:B102:14FA:868B:199:8219:517E (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see note [h] and the reference to Leonard Gordon’s biography therein Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nethaji wasn't power crazy

It is mentioned maliciously that Nethaji wanted more power for himself which is false. When Gandhi wanted to fight for saving the British rule during WW II, Nethaji wanted to take up arms against them. He wanted to win freedom by fight not by begging. Please correct it. Moreover, he was opposed to J.Nehru; he never followed Nehru. 86.7.34.194 (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

These are nonsensical views with no relevance to the facts. The statements on the article are properly sourced to reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are there in this version of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remove 18 Aug 1945 from Netaji's Wikipedia page

please remove the date 18 August 1945 from Netaji's page. It is not true and also not declared by Indian Government. It's illegal to mention this. Only people who were close to Netaji know the truth. So please don't give false information. Thank you Shakthimohan (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Current ruling Indian government of BJP has also admitted that Bose died in 1945.[16] The government also investigated and admitted in 2020 that "Gumnami Baba" was not Bose.[17] Orientls (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the Government doesn't pay any homage to Netaji's Statue or Picture on August 18 every year as they do on January 30 for Gandhiji and May 27 for Nehruji or for any other leaders. They only celebrate Netaji Jayanthi on January 23 every year. This means that the date is not exact. So please remove the same. Thank you. 106.211.249.48 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Government of India and its doings don't constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia's tenets.

The family of the Japanese general who out of great generosity gave Subhas Bose and Habibur Rehman refuge in that last flight out of Singapore commemorate their deaths in the Renkoji temple in Tokyo on August 18.

Habibur Rahman who tried to save Bose as best he could had very visible burn marks on his arms and face when he testified in the post-war India enquiry commission.

I recommend that you read the talk page archives instead of making the same tired posts here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. BJP's own cabinet ministers celebrated Bose death anniversary even this year.[18] Orientls (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Category

The category for Indian collaborators with Germany seems justified. Firekong1 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

How many are there in this category? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently there's one, the Indian Legion. Firekong1 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is only one other, then, in my view, this Category is not notable. Better for the article to lie in the more general category. But we can wait for others to respond here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, but I understand. You're welcome. Firekong1 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

The part about Indian National Army not making an impact on the British Raj is incorrect. As per historical dialogues captured, it was the prime reason for the British Raj deciding to leave India. As they did not want any such military uprising once more. Gandhi and his non violent movement was irritating to them but was still manageable for them Banibrotobiswas (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2023 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Undue weightage

> but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism, anti-semitism, and military failure

To put this in the first paragraph of the article would be giving undue weightage for a person known for other reasons. Why anti-semitism? I doubt he actually cared about the plight of non-Indians. 2409:408D:4E0F:7932:9C14:C1A3:A822:1078 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Outside of India, Bose is only known as an Axis-collaborator and a traitor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

Changing of the sentence but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism, anti-semitism, and military failure. is required as current sources like https://www.firstpost.com/india/1946-naval-uprising-how-honouring-netaji-bose-marks-a-paradigm-shift-in-indias-independence-narrative-10386761.html and others state that his efforts didn't lead to a military failure but instead led to an uprising in the naval forces which played a significant role in the end of British rule in British-ruled India Wrenjibrendi (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This was already answered when you asked the first time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)