Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::::::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. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 13:39, 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. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 13:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}{{ping|Havsjö|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." [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
{{od}}{{ping|Havsjö|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." [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Fowler&fowler}}{{ping|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 with a description of his role. But I guess well have to wait for more users to find a better consensus now? --[[User:Havsjö|Havsjö]] ([[User talk:Havsjö|talk]]) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Fowler&fowler}}{{ping|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? --[[User:Havsjö|Havsjö]] ([[User talk:Havsjö|talk]]) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:20, 18 December 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Havsjö makes a good point about the clutter. The convention is to collapse serial positions into one position so we should collapse the two congress president terms into one. About the provisonal government: the current state is cluttered but, I think, a note clarifying the nature of "free india" is necessary since it wasn't a real entity (afaik). Perhaps the simpler Havsjö text with a small footnote? --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: I will go along with that but if it mentions " January 28 1938 - June whatever 1939 (resigned)" in contrast to what @Havsjö: is saying. The resignation was an important part of his career and of modern Indian history. It is the subject of a sentence or two in the lead stated with nuance. What would be the point of that nuance, if in the infobox it appears he was just an officeholder, changing one office for another, matter-of-factly and unruffled? The tendency on this page has been to fudge the details so that his Congress presidency and that of the Forward Bloc (which was then a wing of the Congress), separated in time by a few weeks, are indistinguishable? It is the same with the Head of State bit. It ended with his death. I believe it is important to mention that in the dates of his term in "office," why else are we using the date of his death, controverted by many, to be that of the end of his term? I mean where is the document that states his term had ended. For the INA had already surrendered in Singapore a week before his death and was to formally surrender, also in Singapore, only a few weeks after his death, and the British, in the person of Mountbatten, had never recognized his government anyway. I am happy to go along with the footnote idea and was toying with it myself. The problem here is that Bose is such a hero for so many people that we get the inevitable hagiographic tinkering in the infobox (per WP:Lead fixation) which is easy to do, the lead and the rest of the article then get forgotten. There is a reason why infoboxes attract such drive-by attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- And Havsjö, the examples you have given are of heads of puppet governments established in some lands by a conquering power. These head of "state," were walking, talking, and governing, to the extent they were, on those lands. Here we have a virtual puppet government in self-proclaimed exile. Our imperative, charge, or allegiance on Wikipedia is to encyclopedicity, i.e. WP:DUE as exhibited in tertiary sources, including well-worn encyclopedias and textbooks. Britannica, as I have already demonstrated, says nothing about any government, only about Bose's leading an Indian national (not "military") force from abroad. Precedence is useful on Wikipedia for suggesting possibilities, but arguments are settled or should be settled, by appeals to reliable sources and tertiary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: "He resigned" and "he died" should not be part of the tenure entries as that is not a date, which is what is supposed to be in this area. That (you think) it is an important note that he resigned is not relevant to this question. Write about this in the article, but its not supposed to be put in that place in the entry as that is the section where the dates for his tenure are listed. This is the same as on all other politicians articles on Wikipedia... You can read in different chapters on Bill Clintons article about things he did in his first and second term as President, but the infobox will, as its supposed to, just give a quick overview of the dates of his tenure and not have
- The reason his tenure in Azad Hind ended with his death is because you are dead when you die... This is the same for (I dare say) all other leaders listed on wikipedia who have died in office... Finally, the Azad Hind may have been a failed puppet government, but it was declared and did receive recognition from a few countries so its not entirely "non-existent". In any case, the suggested footnote on the Azad-Hind entry would easily explain its "status" anyway, so its not really that big of a deal... --Havsjö (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: and @Havsjö:, (sorry to be pinging repeatedly; please reply if you want at your convenience.) And, as for precedence that demonstrates possibility, how about Charles de Gaulle as a useful one. During his years in exile in London, the infobox says simply, "Leader of Free France" with a footnote which says, "President of the French National Committee between 24 September 1941 and 3 June 1943 and President of the French Committee of National Liberation between 3 June 1943 and 3 June 1944." So, how about "Leader of the Indian National Army" for Bose, with footnote, "Head of State, Prime Minister, Minister of War, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Provisional Government of Free India, based in Japanese-occupied Singapore, with jurisdiction, but without sovereignty of Japanese-occupied Andaman Islands.<with citation here to Gordon etc>"? It would make it even less cluttered. I'll come up with something in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think thats a bit wrong way around. His "position" as "leader of the INA" is due to his position as Head of State etc of the government? It was supposed to be the new nation/country, not just a military unit. Free France wasnt really a government before they formed and actual rival government: the Provisional Government (which I guess actually is pretty similar to Azad Hind lol, even though its seen quite differently due to who won I guess >:) ) Anyway, imo the best solution is to list "Head of state (and minster of XYZ) of Azad Hind[1]. Straightforward, accurate, clear, and not giving Azad Hind "too much credit" --Havsjö (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
- ^ Azad Hind was a puppet government in Singapore which Japan supported in WW2 and which tried to attack British India //Gordon