Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose

Problematic and biased lead sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the sources re: antisemitism by JDiala

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

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

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

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

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

Weinberg (2011) N

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

Shindler (2011), Aafreedi (2021) Y

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

Kumaraswamy (2010) Y

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

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

Cronin (2025) N

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

Summary

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Reality check: JDiala compared the 1st paragraphs of the lead of the articles on Bose and Hitler. The one on Bose has three sentences, one negative and two positive about Bose. The one on Hitler has four negative sentences, accusing him of being (1st) a dictator, (2nd) a Nazi, (3rd) starting the Second World War, (4th) being responsible for the Holocaust and other things. Can you imagine what would happen to me if I rewrote 1st paragraph on Hitler to be 2/3rds positive. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankenberg

The following information was added to the article on Sachsenburg concentration camp on 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC),^[1] and then moved to this article (with attribution) on 06:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC).^[2]

The Spanish author Emilio Calderón claims in his novel "La Bailarina y el Inglés" that in the town of Frankenberg the Nazis had a broadcasting facility that helped Subhas Chandra Bose, the assigned leader of India after the Endsieg, to propagate his ideological views to his countrymen all over the globe (see: La Bailarina y el Inglés by Emilio Calderón, ed. Grupo Planeta, Barcelona 2009). Bose was open to take help of Nazis and Japanese for Indian freedom movement and followed the principle of "Enemy of the Enemy is your Friend". The "Corps Freies Indien" and other Indian pro-independence organizations are supposed to have been centered there.

This is made more precise by the Lexikon der Deutschen Wehrmacht: the authors explain in their respective article that Frankenberg was only the second location of the Indian Legion, as they call it, after it had been founded. Later it was moved to another place near Dresden because Frankenberg was too small a military training ground to host a unit that was meant to grow up to the size of two battalions.

I have applied a citation template to the first source. But there is not enough information about the second source to do this. A novel is only really a source for itself, however accurate (or not). We need more details for the second source (or another source).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2025

There is a quote from the author of the book "Bose in Nazi Germany". The author's name is written as Roman Hayes. The correct name will be Romain Hayes Dangowastaken (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Done.^[3] -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)