text:
Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 1

Misc
IMHO, this is an inaccurate description of Subhash Chandra Bose. He was neither a coward nor a refugee to flee to Germany, for his life. He fought with the British, he struggled for his cause within Indian National Congress, formed Indian National Army. during that course of action, he met with Italians and Germans as well as Bolsheviks. His real intention was to bring an armed struggle against British imerial forces as opposed to pacifist approach of Gandhi. I will try to put my 02 cents here, but forgive me for my (very) limited history knowledge.
 * Sudhir

I reverted an attempt to replace the article with copyright material. A reference to the article is in Extermal Links. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see it made explicit why Bose travelled to Germany. I presume, from the context, that it was to secure German support for Indian Nationalism and to promise the support of his followers for the German War effort in return for that support. Is that the case?

Also, what is the unit's "heroism"? There is no mention in Indian National Army of heroic actions. Just being a successful fighting unit does not make them more heroes than the British or Japanese units. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In what way would be it incorrect or biased to state that India was "cruelly oppressed"? What about the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre or the way the colonial authorities let millions starve in the Bengal famine? Perhaps they don't teach that in US/UK schools? --Soman 22:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying it wasn't. I think it was. But it is a matter of opinion, and we follow a policy of NPOV. Everyking 00:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for putting NPOV. While Germany, Italy, Siam and Japan were internationally recognized states, the same cannot be said for the others on the list. Croatia was recognized only by the member states of the Axis, as was Manchukuo {puppet of Japan}, the puppet Chinese government {also of Japan}, the Philippines {who went from a puppet of the United States to direct rule under Japan, then back to being a puppet state} and Burma {which was run basically as a Japanese colony until the creation of a puppet state there in 1943}. If someone wishes to remove it... --Hikaru79 4:58 August 27th, 2004 {UTC}

Dear 'disputers': You won't change a couple of facts, even if you don't like them. Today, at least in Bharat, Netaji is the most popular politician in Indian history. Croatia is by now an independant state, recognized by all other nations in the world, even by Serbia. And so will be Manchukuo again, as soon as the so-called 'PR of China' will break down, as the Soviet Union did. And I am sure that I shall see it in my days.

Impassioned rhetoric aside, some of the disputes are legitimate. Croatia may be an independent state now, but it was not when it recognized the Free India government. Hence the dispute about the validity of including the recognition of a regime that wasn't recognized itself by any country other than its ruler. For more information, see Ustashe.

Important people met by Bose
Is this section really necessary? utcursch 10:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's pretty frivilous. Alren 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mukherjee Commission
Something ought to be written about it, see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/984440.cms --Soman 11:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rumors of a daughter in germany?
I read an article a long time ago that bose had a daughter with a german woman. Is it true?

Traitor?
The NPOV-tag is ridulous. Who sees Bose as a traitor? (In India that is, he could hardly be accused of having betrayed any other country, say United Kingdom). --Soman 19:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * From a european and an allied view Bose is certainly a traitor. For some in India he is a hero, but I guess not all, as there was a significant number of Indian soldiers fighting with the allied forces during the war. When one looks at the consequences of a victory for Nazi Germany and Japan one also has to ask the question if Bose was betraying the Indian people. Little doubt that they would have been very bad off by a Japanese occupation, to take that possibility.

 * So I believe that there is a very good reason to rewrite the article. That does not mean that Bose only should be described as a collaborator with the Axis, but this is a vital part of the history of him and needs to be mentioned in order for the article to be balanced. You may for examble see whats written of him in answers.com

 * "Bose, Subhas Chandra (shʊbhäsh' chŭn'drə bōs), 1897–1945, Indian nationalist. He began his political career in Calcutta and soon became the leader of the left wing of the Indian National Congress party. He was president of the party in 1938–39 but was forced to resign after a dispute with Mohandas K. Gandhi; he advocated militancy to achieve independence for India and believed in dictatorship to unify the country. Jailed by the British for his Axis sympathies in World War II, he escaped (1941) and fled to Germany. In 1943 he headed in Singapore a Japanese-sponsored “provisional government of India” and organized an “Indian national army.” Although sympathetic to totalitarianism, his collaboration was principally directed toward freeing India from British rule and the establishment of an independent regime. He was killed in an airplane crash.

 * Bibliography

 * See his collected writings and letters, ed. by J. S. Bright (2d ed. 1947); L. Gordon, Brothers Against the Raj (1990)."

 * I do not feel capable to do this rewrite, but I am sure someone else with a knowlegde of the issue can do it, so until she/he emerges I do belive the article is best left with the NPOV tag. Ulflarsen 19:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Bose as a collaborator with the Axis powers
From the article it seems quite clear that Bose was collaborating close with the Axis powers. He cooperated with both the Germans and the Japanese. If the axis powers had won India would probably been worse off than under the British, and so his acts here was against the long term interests of the Indian people as well.

 * eh? How on earth do you conclude that  "his acts here was against the long term interests of the Indian people" ? Are you an Indian? Had you been in India during the British rule? Do you know *anything at all* about British rule in India? Do you read, at all?

 * I am not an Indian, but I can read. There is no doubt that the British supressed India, and had a long list of shameful and tragic acts to answer for, one may for example look at the Bengal famine of 1943. But - if the Axis powers that Bose relied on had won, India would most probably been ruled by the Japanese. If one look at how they ruled the areas they occupied I find it quite easy to say that Bose worked against the long term interests of the Indian people. And interestingly - after the Allied forces crushed the Axis powers, India got its independence in 1947. If the japanese militarists had won, India may well have been a colony or a puppet state of Japan today - and not the strong independent state that it is. Ulflarsen 19:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Parts of the article, like:

"Bose himself claimed he could see little difference between the fundamentally oppressive nature of either British imperialism or Axis's fascism despite having lived in Colonial India, democratic Britain and Fascist Germany."

-shows quite clear how naive he was about Nazi Germany.

 * had you been in the British ruled India, you would've known. Please don't go around making gauche/careless statements when you don't know about the subject.

 * The Amritsar Massacre was a shameful incident. But reading the article you link to one will see that the event was widely discussed and condemned in the west. If you then compare that massacre, and the famine of 1943 with the suffering the Chinese people led under the Japanese war of aggression - you may see a clear difference in cruelty in Japans war on China. That same Japan was the country that aided Bose in establishing an army. I have little doubht that the Japanese would have used him - and deposed of him if they had won over the British and occupied India. That Bose aligned himself with that aggressive country, that still today has not sufficiently excused itself of its wartime misdeeds, needs to be reflected in the article for it to be balanced. Ulflarsen 19:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"A testament to Bose's organizational acumen, the Indian National Army consisted of some 85000 regular troops, a separate women's army unit named after Rani Lakshmi Bai (in a regular army, the women's army unit was the first of its kind in Asia), who gave her life in the First War of Independence in 1857. These were under the aegis of a regular government, with its own currency, court and civil code, named the "Provisional Government of Free India" (or the Arzi Hukumate Azad Hind) and recognised by nine states: Germany, Japan, Italy, Croatia, Nationalist China, Siam, Burma, Manchukuo and the Philippines."

The countries liste above recognising the "Provisional Government of Free India" was all Axis controlled countries.

 * so what? They were *freedom fighters* and they were fighting the *British* (read this ten times). No country aligned with British would've ever recognised/helped them.

 * I have no doubt that they saw themselves as freedom fighters. But to achieve his goal Bose aligned himself with two of the most supressive countries that the modern world has seen. And a list of countries supporting his provisional government that all were defeated by the end of the war says something about the value of that support. Again, this website tries hard to be an encyclopedia - and it is not a place where various political cases should have a place to singlemindedly went their ideas - articles should be NPOV. Currently the article about Bose is not so, and therefore the NPOV tag should stay until someone with knowledge manage to rewrite it in a balanced way. Ulflarsen 19:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten before the NPOV tag can be removed. Ulflarsen 20:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

19:12, 10 May 2005 Ulflarsen (I believe this article is rather biased, not NPOV and should be rewritten, as Bose is seen as a traitor by many)'

 * Who sees Bose as a traitor? you do? History should be taken into account before making such careless statements. It is true that he collaborated with axis powers, but he did that to try and liberate India from the oppressive British. You just don't know what it is to fight one's freedom. Go and do some homework kid, before marking articles blindly as POVs. get around and do some reading.

 * The article is rather biased as I tried to show with the citations above. I suggest you comment on them instead of making comments about my reading. I base my NPOV on the article's content and I belive it is rather easy to see that Bose is seen in a most favourable light.

 * Talking about freedom, and freedom fighting that is also a point I examine. If the Axis powers that Bose aligned himself with had won the war (as Bose certainly hoped), India would have been very bad off today. Witness the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Japan. This is not a defense for the British rule of India which was wrong - but Bose's alternative would have made matters worse for the Indian people.

 * You may also notice that I did not write anything myself about Bose, as I do not have that kind of knowledge that I feel competent to write about him. But reading the current article about him is enough to see that it needs to be written over again, with less bias. Ulflarsen 21:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

My two paise: Bose was a radical, opposed to the British and refused to follow the non-violent path to freedom. The only reason he aligned his organisation with the Axis was under the logic "an enemy's enemy is a friend". He was careful enough not to support their ideology. In a war of such implications, ideology takes a backseat, thus creating some unthinkable alliances. It would be another issue if Bose had ideological sympathies with the Axis, but he didn't, and its ludicrous to brand him a traitor to India's freedom cause. (PS please sign your replies) == 05:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * And in connection with what Nichalp is saying about Realpolitik, let's not forget that even the USSR was for a while allied with Hitler – this is the country that subsequently made by far the greatest sacrifices to bring him down. I have to say, though, that the article as currently written really seems to be bending over backwards to justify Netaji's alignment with the Axis. Can we not find some dissenting voice (with attributions!) to describe as taking an alternate POV? (I'm especially thinking of Nehruji and others who took his approach to the Allied cause... Or perhaps M. N. Roy?) QuartierLatin1968 14:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * As you may see from the various replies I have written above I understand very well that one has to think "Realpolitik" - as Churchill did when he fully supported the USSR after the Nazi invasion 21 June 1941. But it has its consequences - and Churchill was for the rest of his life haunted by how the poles and the balts were sold out during Jalta. And to look at the consequences of Bose seeking support from the Axis one have to look at how they treated the countries they colonized. I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese. As of today, it seems to be little hostility between Britain and India - the same can not be said about Japan and China. I guess that says a bit how hard the japanese occupation was.

 * Again - I am not out to remove that Bose is seen as a hero by many in India - but the other view of him needs to be written in, if the article is to be balanced. Ulflarsen 20:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

 * hello, I don't know what you have against Japan or the "Axis powers". Please vent out your anger on the "Axis powers" elsewhere. But the stand you're taking is clearly a POV and not the article as it is currently. You seem to suggest that we label Subash chandra bose a *traitor* 'cos the other view (your view) is that? Don't mark in POV just 'cos you view it from an opressor's viewpoint.

 * India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese

 * This is ridiculous. We're not juggling with the possibilities and exploring things that could've happened. We're recording things that happened and writing about a freedom fighter. I see no sense in your false 'POVed aticle' stand. Its time to move on. --59.92.226.23 14:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no problem in that some disagree with me in my view on the article. But then they should argue their position. I have tried to extensively show that Bose also could be seen as a collaborator, also by Indians. Labeling my arguments as "ridiculous" does not bring the discussion forward. Whether he was a freedom fighter is also a question of how one look at him. For some he was a freedom fighter - for others a collaborator. The article as it stands paints Bose in a very posivite light, the darker side of his political work should be more clearly pointed out before the NPOV tag can be removed. Ulflarsen 14:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Now, don't be a moron. What more explanation do you need? Didn't you read the words by the other fellow wikipedians? --59.92.226.23 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I believe I have argued the case for a rewrite of the article. Have posted this before, but here is an article from Answers.com regarding Bose:

"Bose, Subhas Chandra (shʊbhäsh' chŭn'drə bōs), 1897–1945, Indian nationalist. He began his political career in Calcutta and soon became the leader of the left wing of the Indian National Congress party. He was president of the party in 1938–39 but was forced to resign after a dispute with Mohandas K. Gandhi; he advocated militancy to achieve independence for India and believed in dictatorship to unify the country. Jailed by the British for his Axis sympathies in World War II, he escaped (1941) and fled to Germany. In 1943 he headed in Singapore a Japanese-sponsored “provisional government of India” and organized an “Indian national army.” Although sympathetic to totalitarianism, his collaboration was principally directed toward freeing India from British rule and the establishment of an independent regime. He was killed in an airplane crash.

Bibliography: See his collected writings and letters, ed. by J. S. Bright (2d ed. 1947); L. Gordon, Brothers Against the Raj (1990)."

As you can see, this short article gives a quite balanced view of Bose, and it also mentions that he fell out with Gandhi. This is not a question of whether Bose was a freedomfighter or not, it is a question of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and therefor should present all relevant information in as balanced a way as possible. Ulflarsen 15:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * My dear fellow, are you sure of what you've been writing here down? You seem to be mincing your own words. First you say the countries in the "axis powers" were forever evil and even seem to suggest that British were better off for India than Japanese. I don't know wether you were justified to go on making such careless comments, but I surely know that you've been changing positions in your stand.
 * First you say label S C Bose as a "Collaborator" and a "traitor". Now you seem to suggest that the article should mention 'he fell out with Gandhi. This is not a question of whether Bose was a freedomfighter or not... which makes me to ask you the inevitable: are you sure you aren't nuts?

P.S: *you, Mr. Ulflarsen said this*: (The hieght of carelessness)
 * I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese

Seen from the Allied side Bose was a collaborator and a traitor. Seems that quite many of his countrymen must have had that position, if not they would not have enlisted in a war against the Axis powers.

 * First off, nobody in India joined hands to fight with allied forces. It was *thrust* upon them. A war was the last thing they needed. Read about the Congress's opposition on India's inclusion in the world war by the ruling British.

Yes - I did write that I "I do believe that it is easy to say that India was better off as a British colony than as a Japanese".

 * It is insane to portray some pre-concieved notion about any event that would happen or would've happened. It is the hieght of your carelessness that you make such gauche statements. I really fail to understand what you've personally got against Japan. But no country is to be termed *forever evil* just 'cos it once participated in a World war against the allied forces.

If you do not agree in that statement, then please argue against it. That is not to say that India and any other country is best off as an independent country.

 * ?? Care to explain? (add it below with another title - "Ulflarsen explains and suggests what was best for India")

But quite often one has to choose between two evils, and the Japanese was clearly the worse in this case.

 * ok, so both are evil, now, for you.

I believe it is very good reasons for rewriting the article, as as you see I have started a new part discussing that. I hope we can discuss a rewrite that gives a more balanced view of Bose, an article that also shows the serious problem in him collaborating with the Axis powers. Ulflarsen 16:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How to solve the problem with the current article
I do not see the point of more reverts, so I will just drop adding NPOV to the article as it is quickly reverted. That however does not change the situation that the article as I see it is NPOV. The rules for resolving differences over articles are listed here.

The first move is to talk to the opposing party. I have listed my reasons for the current article not being NPOV, but little facts has come forward except claiming that Bose was a freedom fighter and that I as not being an indian can not judge on the article.

 * This is wrong. There's been sufficient information provided. The disputant should stop acting blind and patiently read whats been written here and review his own careless statements. --59.92.226.23 16:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I challenge those who defend the article as it is to come forward to defend it, especially its pro-Axis view and the light treatment of Bose's collaboration with the Axis powers.

I hope we can discuss this here and that a revised article can be written that treats the subject in a more balanced way. Ulflarsen 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the article is now more balanced but I have a problem with a sentence which seems odd:
 * ...Azad Hind Fauz (in Hindustani) was an organization devoid of any of the divisive energies of provincialism, casteism, communalism, bigotry, parochialism, religious fundamentalism, orthodoxy due to social obscurantism and social intolerance, which in their wake, have more often than not, caused harm to India's secular and socio-cultural fabric.' Clarifications needed.
 * == 18:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

A Historian's view
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/bose.htm

From the page:

'' Dr. Jyotsna Kamat is a historian living in Bangalore. India's freedom struggle is one of her favorite topics''

She mentions these:

For common Indians, Axis and Allied powers hardly mattered

''Bose wanted to free India from the Eastern front. He had taken care that Japanese interference was not present from any angle''

INA marched through Burma and occupied Coxtown on the Indian Border. (Please note: INA and *not* Japan army)

So, those who would opt to call him a collaborator or traitor should go through a sanity check. --59.92.140.94 06:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * During the war he sided both with Nazi Germany and the Japanese. There is little doubt that he was a collaborator. That ordinary indians did not care is not that strange, as they never lived through Japanese occupation. If they had done so they would have taken a different view of Bose.

 * That does not mean that Bose was not a freedom fighter, in his own view, just that he was not as wise as his fellow freedomfighter Gandhi, to name one. The Japanese were using INA for their own goals, like they did with other similar movements. Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. The huge mistake Bose did was not to see this and unite with the British during wartime, and then continue fighting them after the Axis had been defeated. Ulflarsen 06:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I am surprised at this line of reasoning. Why on earth do you consider that "Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. "??? Isn't that a little bit too much of Anglo-worship? How can you be sure the British were a lot better than whatever the JApanese would have done? Wasn't Britain's fortune made through exploitation of India? Anyway, history is written by the victors, and thus favors victors with unlimited virtues. And since WHEN is following a different path called "Collaboration"? Finally, Traitor would mean betraying the trust. Why should any indian nationalist leader try utmost not to betray the trust of the British government/empire? With due respect, are you implying the Indians should have been bootlickers of the British forever, never protesting or trying to throw out the 200 year old enemy/occupiers? --Ragib 07:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * To say that clearly first of all - the British should never have colonized India (or other countries for that sake). And when so happened they had full right to resist the British. But the fact was that Britain was the colonial power, had been so, but was slowly starting to see that this had to end. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, on the contrary - had to be crushed to give up their imperial ambitions. That the Japanese were ten times worse (even remembering disasters as the 1943 Bengal famine) is easy to see when one compares the British rule in India with the Japanese in China. During WW2 China lost some 20 million due to the Japanese war and occupation.

 * So, if the one Bose aligned himself with had won, India would have gone from bad to worse. Most Indians must have seen this at that time, if not there would have been large uprisings against the British that would have benefitted the Japanese. One that seems to have started out like Bose was Aung San. He started to collaborate with the Japanese invader, but saw their rule and then went on fighting them together with the Allid forces. Bose showed very bad judgement and was betraying the trust of ordinary Indians, and that I believe should be better stated in the article of him. That he was in idealist and hoped to free his people can not let him escape his disastrous decisions. Luckily for India - and the Allies, he did not succeed. Ulflarsen 11:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Disastrous decisions? Bose was like Aung San? Dude, convince me that you aren't nuts. --59.92.140.216 17:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If you disagre with me you should put forward your arguments. As I have showed earlier more than 2 million ordinary Indians fought with the Allies, their view surely must have some weight. Also, as you may notice - the Chinese still has a huge problem with the Japanese due to their massacres in China during WW2. Last but not least, Aung San saw the true character of the Japanese occupation and changed from supporting them to fighting them - aligning himself with the Allied forces. Ulflarsen 19:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I just want to comment on one thing, "ordinary" Indians didnt not fight, the Indian soldiers did. They would have fought anyone they were ordered to by the British officers. That doesn't mean they "saw the true character", many of the Indian soldiers also fought against the rebel Indians during the Indian rebellion of 1857. That doesn't mean Indians at that time supported the British rule and hated their own people. So your logic that since soldiers fought along with the British, they all supported the British in WW2, is completely wrong. Come up with some other arguments please. --Ragib 21:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * The Indian Army's official website says this "In 1939, the Army had 189,000 in its ranks -rising to 2,644,323 at peak strength in 1945."

 * http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm

 * -and it shows the enormous expansion of the Indian army during the war. Some probably fought for money and that alone, but if the British rule at that time was as Bose stated it is strange that they did so. I do not say that they supported the British rule - but that they aligned themselves with the Allied forces and their fight against the Axis powers (the Japanese, Germans and Italians). And history showed they were right, as India got its independence in 1947. If Bose's allies had won, that is the Japanese and Nazi Germany - that would not had happened, and not seeing that is Bose's dangerous mistake, which would have to be paid by ordinary Indians, as the Indian soldiers he left behind in Germany when he escaped to Japan. I would ask you to check the Indian Army history as presented by its website, it shows clearly who Bose were up against. Very good for ordinary Indians that he and his Indian National Army lost against the Indian Army.

 * This is not to say that Bose was dishonest, he probably believed in his ideas, but he was led astray, possibly by his own hatred of the British colonialists that had occupied his country for centuries. Ulflarsen 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Mr. Norway, I am not saying that you are dishonest, you probably believe in your ideas. but you are probably led astray by your own hatred of the axis powers. What you don't see is the fact that taking help from the Axis power is not the same as believeing in their ideology. So what exactly is your point? His intensions were right but his judgement was flawed, or his intensions were bad too?

128.125.20.196 08:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have presented a list of arguments, that shows the following:

 * Most Indians fought with the British, against the Axis - some 2.6 million, against the INA's 85.000. That is a ratio of roughly 30 to 1. If ordinary Indians had supported Bose the number would possibly be the other way around. The numbers are from the official website of the Indian Army:

http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm

 * There is no point in disputing the numbers and stats you present. However, you have to consider that these were *Soliders* of the regular army. Whatever they think of Nazi or Japanese or whoever really doesn't matter here. They were regular soldiers under the Indian Army, whose superiors were British. So, they would fight *anyone* when ordered. I'm not sure if you would understand the notion, but while the people of an occupied country hate the occupier and colonial rulers, that doesn't mean that some of the people would join the army for a living (paid handsomely during ww2) and do whatever told. Consider the fact that at that time India's (undivided India) total population was 330 million. So if 2 million of them were soldiers, and they were ordered by the British to fight with the Japanese, they would do so, that fact doesn't change any thing, or prove yourn point. All Indian politicians of the time including Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah opposed the British. They didn't have any special love for the British that they'd pull Indians together to fight with them against the "British's enemies". You can easily add tens of millions of people who supported Bose during the war. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Bose collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Some claim that whether the Axis won, or the Allies was of no difference for the ordinary Indians. I have showed, with the Japanese atrocities in China, that there indeed was a difference. If we say that the famine of 1943 claimed 4 million lives, then compare that to the 20 million lost in China during the Japanese occupation. That is a ratio of 5 to 1. Some seem to believe that Bose actually controlled the INA. They should read about Aung San, how he changed side after trying the same as Bose, that is to use the Japanese against the British. I quote from the San article:

"However, his cooperation with the Japanese authorities was to be short-lived. He became skeptical about their promises of true independence, and was displeased with their treatment of Burmese forces".

 * This is indeed, yet another fallacious logic. Did you ever think what would happen if, in any battle of history, the other side won? Whoever wins makes the other side look awefully bad. Just to give you an example, suppose that Bangladesh was defeated in the Bangladesh Liberation War with the West Pakistani rulers. What would the Mukti Bahini (Bengali freedom fighers) be called? Traitors? Definitely! Also, what would history say? Definitely, that people would have been a lot worse off in independent Bangladesh, than in East Pakistan. My point is that if the Japanese, hypotheticlaly, won, we would be reading about British and American atrocities instead o f the Japanese ones in our school textbooks.

 * In the end, the Axis was crushed, and shortly after India, Burma, and other countries got their independence. If the Axis had won, the forces that Bose had allied himself with, India would not have had its freedom for many years. That is not speculation, one can read the history of Imperial Japan and see how they treated other countries they occupied, no reason to believe they would have treated India any better.

 * Wrong again. India won independence because that was inevitable. The nationalist movement was already quite strong, with or without the WW2. Also, that part is sheer speculation, not supported by facts. You CANNOT say what people would have done. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This does not mean I support the British colonial rule of India. It was illegal and the British (or other european powers, like Portugal, Denmark-Norway etc) should not have been there at all. The point about my writing is to try to balance the article about Bose, in line with the [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV policy].

To round this up; I am not a historian, and neither am I an expert on India or its history. I have however read and experienced enough to have my hair raise when I read statements as this:

"Bose himself claimed he could see little difference between the fundamentally oppressive nature of either British imperialism or Axis's fascism despite having lived in Colonial India, democratic Britain and Fascist Germany."

Do note that I have not tried to change or delete that paragraph, but I have added one below listing the opposite view, that it INDEED made a differece if it was Axis or Allies that won the war. Ulflarsen 09:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have started a poll below. Lets see how that turns out. I think you don't know enough about the British rule in India which is why you think Japanese would have been worse. Also you don't know much about Bose either. I think arguing further is fruitless since my convictions are as strong as yours. 128.125.20.196 09:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, I suggest that you and the others argue the case. I have listed a number of my arguments above. I invite both you and others to challenge them. For example, what do you make of that more than 2 million Indian soldier were fighting the Axis, compared to the 85.000 in INA? Or the Japanese atrocities in China? Or the way Aung San changed from collaborating with the Japanese to supporting the Allied forces? Ulflarsen 10:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I think all your arguments have already been refuted several times. 24.126.17.155 10:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I just want to say that the disputed paragraph is based on several speculation 1. Indians supported British Rule/British War 2. Indians fought against Axis because they were against the Axis powers 3. Subhash Bose is a collaborator because he wanted to get rid of the occupiers of his own homeland. Claim 1 is wrong because history shows almost all Indians were against British rule (several rebellions support this), Claim 2 is wrong because PAID indian soldiers of regular army would have fought the French (or write any other nationality) too if the British superiors wanted them to, and finally claim 3 is wrong because that would have made all nationalist people traitors. Would the Americans call Nathan Hale a traitor? I doubt that, and the same applies to Subhash Bose. --Ragib 11:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ulflarsen explains and suggests what was best for India and thereby rewrites the history
This space is for a lunatic who's ready to re-write the history labelling the good - evil and has been acting blind to the fellow wikipedians' comments.

 * I have tried to balance the article about Bose. If you do not agree with me that is just fine, but then you should come forward with your arguments, as I have done myself. Ulflarsen 19:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody cares about what you think. Its what you write here that matters. You hardly have presented any argument here, only a wild speculation which is as good as any other. 128.125.20.196 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * See my comment above. I have presented a list of arguments that you are most welcome to counter, as that is how we can develop a good encyclopedia. The article is in need of improvement and that is what we work towards. Ulflarsen 09:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll on user Ulflarsen's views

 * Strongly disagree. 128.125.20.196 09:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. --Ragib 10:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. 24.126.17.155 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:05, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Stop reverting and start discussing and improving the article
I suggest that we stop this reverting and try to improve the article. As listed above I have a number of arguments that has not been commented on. I hope that one can concentrate on the value of the arguments, as that is the basis on which we can develop Wikipedia as a respected encyclopedia. Ulflarsen 10:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A poll is not a good idea, and listing on Vandalism in progress isn't, either.
It's quite inappropriate to vote on content. Encyclopedic content and reliability aren't proper subjects for a popularity contest. Vandalism in progress is not the right place to list editing disagreements either. Please try instead to broaden the discussion by inviting more editors to take part; this you can do by listing the page on Requests for comments. And please try to keep the discourse civil, I'm sorry to see plenty of personal attacks and name-calling from one side above. Calling other people morons and telling them to go do homework does not help your own cause look good.--Bishonen | talk 10:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule
Incidentally, please everybody go read Three revert rule before I'm forced to block somebody.--Bishonen | talk 11:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have read the policy and if I have violated it I will keep away from doing any changes. There is however a disagreement over content her not easily solved. I have, as you can see from the discussion above tried to engage in finding some solution and arguing my case. I have mostly been met by rude comments and changes to the content I have added.

 * I believe this article is ripe for a third party intervention as there seems to be difficult to reach a middle ground. Hope you can look into it and give further advice and/or possibly involve someone with a balanced view of the issue. Ulflarsen 11:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, Ulf, I don't have the time or the knowledege of the subject to become involved in the editing myself, although I agree that this editing process needs help. Do please list it on WP:RFC as I suggest above: that page exists for exactly such situations as this. I'm willing to assume that nobody working with this page was previouosly aware of the 3RR, but if anybody continues to revert war now, after my warning, I will block them for 24 hours. If people game the rule by reverting as a team, I will protect the article. Incidentally, the reason I noticed the problems was the inappropriate listing of Ulf Larssen as a vandal at Vandalism in progress. Please don't throw around the word "vandal" so lightly. It amounts to a personal attack and seems quite unwarranted here.--Bishonen | talk 11:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the swift feedback. I will try to list it at the RFC page. As I have stated in the discussion above I am an amateur in this issue - but have tried to find data showing that Bose's alignment with the Axis powers was troublesome, especially so for ordinary Indians. Last but not least, I will not make any more edits of this page as I believe someone with more knowledge and a balanced view should take the task to clean in up. Ulflarsen

 * While I have not been a party to any reverts, I would like to point out that the issues raised by Ulflarsen has been discussed, and I have presented my rebuttal of his 3 claims above in this talk page. However, most of the time, Ulflarsen has unilaterally reverted with the edit summary like "points still not disproved, so reverting article" (not exact, but close to that). I do believe in discussion, but I think Ulflarsen's continuous reverting and insistence on adding speculative materials have added to this conflict. It is ok for him to have any views, but I think many of his arguments have correctly refuted in the discussion, and the insistence on them further on is inappropriate. Of course, listing Ulflarsen in the Vandalism page was totally wrong and so was the personal attacks against him. I just hope this issue would be resolved pretty soon through discussion. --Ragib 11:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I have seen your comments in-between mine now, good if you place them after the article. Regarding Indian soldier; the numbers is from the Indian Army official site. If Bose were that celebrated, and the British fight of the Axis despised, one would assume that the Government of India made sure its army website reflected that. It does not. It says: "The Indian Army by the end of the War was thus rated as among the best in the world whose Officers and men displayed the highest levels of motivation and gallantry on the field of battle." The way I read that statement is that the Indian Army and thus the Indian government, and the Indian people - at large, is very proud of the hard fight and the victory against the British, and rightful so.

 * You write: "I am surprised at this line of reasoning. Why on earth do you consider that "Again, India as a colony was much better off under the British than they would have been under the Japanese. "??? Isn't that a little bit too much of Anglo-worship? How can you be sure the British were a lot better than whatever the JApanese would have done? Wasn't Britain's fortune made through exploitation of India? Anyway, history is written by the victors, and thus favors victors with unlimited virtues."

 * I have showed, with numbers, that India indeed was better off under the British than under the Japanese, for the time we talk about (the war years). Again, it does not mean I support British colonialism - I do not. They should not have been there at all. You have not proved me wrong, and not looked into Japanese atrocities in occupied areas. This is vital to the article about Bose as it says that Bose could not see any difference between Axis and Allied forces. Most people could (especially those living under both) and luckily India did not got the experience of an Japanese occupation. About history written about victors - it is true, but with democracy one can always get a wider and more open view. Consder the Bengal famine of 1943, if that had been under Japanese or German occupation, it would probably have been unknown today.

 * The central question is: Was the war irrelevant for India - or was it important who that in the end would win?. Bose and most of the article takes the first view, but for a balanced article to be written the opposite view also needs to be presented. Ulflarsen

Facts of Subash Chandra Bose
I was shocked to read this talk page. I never knew people were so ignorant about Subash. Some facts - On one hand britain was fighting for independence of European nations under Nazi control ,but at the same time it was not granting India independence .This was being hipocritic. Subash wanted to take the advantage of WW2 in creating pressure on Britain to grant india freedom since Britain wouldn't have the resources to foil any independence movement in India as their army was involved in operations in Europe . That doesn't mean Subash was pro-axis. When the Japanese forces attacked North Eastern states of India through Burma, he realised Japanese intensions and ordered INA not collobarate with them. INA was ordered to attack British India instead from Bhutan and Chinese front. It was during this time that his plane crashed and he died. Leaderless INA got disbanded ,the main reason for their defeat.
 * Adolf Hitler contacted Subash and asked him if he was willing to join hands with him to fight against the British . Subash quickly put down the offer because he knew that Hitler saw his own interest rather than that of the Indians . Hitler wanted INA to help aid Axis powers in uprooting British from India, its most valuable colony and chief financer during the war .Subash knew that once British were defeated in India ,Hitler would try to take over it and make India finance his campaign .He was smart to detect that.
 * The only reason why Subash opposed British campaign during the war :
 * Regarding Subash's collaboration with Japan - As everybody knows, Subash formed Azad Hind Fauz (INA) with the help of Indian forces under Japanese control. Japanese decided to support the army financially and politically . He never asked for their help but Japanese knew it was in their interest to do so .
 * Finally, if Subash was pro-Nazi , British rule would have ended in India during WW2 itself . With the Japanese so close to British India , INA could have easily collabarated w/ them and defeated the British . The fact that it didnt proves how much pro-Nazi or pro-Axis Subash really was .This is what I've read in my History Text Books .challenging this is challenging Indian History . We Indians know what exact events took place during our freedom struggle and need not know about it from Europeans .To end , please just don't write anything which comes in your mind . --IncMan 12:35, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest you start with reading what the Indian Army says on its homepage about its history during WW2: http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist.htm - it says a lot about its heroic fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and as far as I can see nothing about Bose. Ulflarsen

 * First of all ,Army of India was a part of British Army . Secondly, INA's main motive was to wage a war against Army of India and not against the Nazi's or Axis Powers . They had no enemity with the Axis . Instead the Axis powers had helped it .Thirdly , just bec INA didnt fight against the Axis or Japan rather , you cant call it a pro-Axis . Fourthly , INA was never a part of the Indian Army , so why should the site mention about it . INA was an independent organisation and banned in India during 1945 by the British Indian Govt.(i'm not sure about the year .)Fifhtly , Indian National Congress had objections regarding Army of India's (and not Indian Army bec the latter refers to post independence army ) involvement during WW2 . Acc. to you , in that case ,even they should be called traitors . --IncMan 13:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I dont think you get my point. That homepage is the official website of the current Indian Army, and thus reflects official Indian policy on the matter. It says nothing about Bose, but a lot of the more than 2 million Indians that fought with the Allied forces. If the Indian government today had any favourable view of Bose that should be reflected on those pages. It is not.

 * As I wrote earlier: "The central question is: Was the war irrelevant for India - or was it important who that in the end would win?. Bose and most of the article takes the first view, but for a balanced article to be written the opposite view also needs to be presented." The current article about Bose mostly takes the view that whoever won the war (the Axis or the Allies) it had no relevance for India. I believe that is wrong, not only wrong in the sense of a Europeans view of it, but wrong in the way that it would have costed tens of millions of Indian lives. I have tried to show this with comparing India under the British with China under the Japanese. This is very much what the discussion is about. If you or anyone can show that it would not matter much if the Japanese occupied India then Bose's collaboration with the Imperial Japanse Army would have been just fine for ordinary Indians, but I find that hard to prove. Ulflarsen
 * As I had said, Indian National Army had nothing to do with the Govt. of India and the Indian Army . It was an INDEPENDENT organisation . Then , Why should the Indian Army mention about its operations.
 * The very fact that people of India call Subash as Netaji and that Subash's potrait is present in the Indian Parliament shows the favourable view pt. Indians have towards him . Even if there is a section of Indian Parliamentarians who have unfavourable views for Subash ,its only bec. he was against the ideology of Indian National Congress, India's present ruling party .( now called as Congress Party ).
 * Regarding the question you raised - Subash ofcourse realised that India was better under the British than Japanese and he commanded INA not to collaborate with them .Many beleive that Subash died bec of the plane crash enroute Taiwan, possibily to discuss the matter w/ the Japanese there . Fighting was already on between the Army of India and Japan in Burma . But as soon as Japan reached Indian borders ,it lost the Battle of Midway forcing it to withdraw its troops from N.E. India to reinforce troops in Pacific . So the entire Japanese matter is of no significance.
 * Had Subash lived on for another year or so, had the japanese won the battle of midway and finally had the INA collaborated with the japanese under Subash's orders, the topic was worth discussing .--IncMan 14:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ulflarsen that the article should represent both views, but at the same time , Inida is thousands of kilometers away from Europe and Pacific rim . Indians didnt know what exactly was going on . For them the main priority was independence . When the axis made an offer to indian freedom fighters in their struggle , it was something which they couldnt have ignored. Put yrself in that scenario . Hence the Q. is of no relevance ,because Indians were not aware of the main intensions of the Nazis . Even the European Allies were suprised by the campaign carried out by Hitler initially (particularly Poland ,France and the Dutch) .Hence for Indians of 1940's the war was of no significance as they knew nothing about it. --IncMan 08:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * That most ordinary Indians did not know I can agree on, but the more important it was that their leaders acted responsibly. Here it seems that Bose and Gandhi parted. Even though not supporting the Allies fight Gandhi at least not seems to have openly aligned himself with the Axis the way Bose did. And regarding the question about the Axis "real nature", it seems that Bose started to realize that Nazi Germany used him. That makes it even stranger and worse, in my view, that he then went on to the work with the Japanese.

 * And then having worked with the Japanese he must have seen their way - like Aung San did. As far as I can see here on this page, no one has commented on him. He was not a european, he was dead against the British and wanted freedom for his people, and he created an army to fight the British, but then... He saw the character of the Japanese Imperialism and made the conclusion that his country would be better off beating the Japanese. How come no one comment on this? Is it because it does not "fit" into the picture? Or is my reasoning dead wrong?

 * Once again "IncMan" - I am not out to defend the British, they should have not been in India at all. But the page as it is mostly covers the fact that this was just not "another war" - but a war that made a difference, a HUGE one. And I am not out to deny people to treat Bose as a hero, but as we try to make an encyclopedia we need to show the relevant facts here, and the article seems to be lacking in that respect. Ulflarsen 19:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me make it clear, Bose was never ever a pro-nazi or pro-axis . All people are trying to do is speculate . The only reason for his association with the Japanese was getting the soldiers of the Army of India freed from Japanese captivity . Thats it . Britain had deployed Indian troops in Singapore to defend the state . When it was captured by Japan , approx. 90,000 Indian troops were taken as POWs whom Bose had freed under an agreement with Imperial Japan . However, INA was never a part of any Japanese operation , be it in Burma or in N.E. India itself.
 * I'm not here to discuss whether British rule in India was justified or not . I don't have much knowledge about Aung San and it is not required also w.r.t. this article . To be frank, INA had not achieved anything because even before it could get into some real action , Bose had died . What was really on in Bose's mind nobody knows ,Firstly because he wasn't carrying out his movement from India and was hence not in much contact with anyother prominent pro-freedom leader in India . Secondly , he never wanted outsiders to know about his plans even if they were freedom fighters . Bose's death came at the most unfortunate time . He was at the brink of executing his plans but it never happened . All what remains now is speculation . But to say that Bose worked with the Japanese  is wrong . He knew that he needed men in his war, and there was no better way of accumalating such a large force. Once again, this doesn't mean that Bose had any favourable views towards the Japanese. He just saw interest of his campaign. Had Bose militarily or even morally supported the Japanese campaign, the speculation was worth discussing. There is no evidence that, Bose favoured the Axis.
 * The British and the French had appeased the Nazis initially. Were they acting responsibly. The British and the French wanted to use the Nazis as a force against Communalism. Even they had seen their own interest. They were very well aware of Nazis intentions years before their rise. If they wanted, Nazis would have never come to power in Germany. I can't see their mention on this talk page. --IncMan 21:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's view
I stumbled across this page more-or-less accidentally. Moreover, I have no particular knowledge or expertise on Bose, and only an educated layperson's historical knowledge of India's independence movement generally. So I'm not arguing "the facts" here.

However, the article and the talk page were interesting to look through. And doing that, I feel strongly that Ulflarsen's agenda here is just plain nutty. The article certainly does not seem to have any valid NPOV dispute. Sure, maybe a some sentences could be improved, but overall it is reasonably NPOV.

Ulflarsen seems to pin his whole POV allegation on a wildly speculative theory about how historical events might have turned out differently, had certain things happened. Roughly: If the Axis had won the war, then Japan would have established imperial control of India, and would have treated Indians even worse than the British had. And continuing Ulflarsen's reasoning: therefore, Bose was wrong in his political decisions, working against India's interest, etc. (and the article should say so).

 * Equivalently, as an argument can be made that a consensus of historians would claim that Japanese imperial control was more oppressive than British control, not a word or an implication should exist suggesting Bose was right in his political decisions. The moment it does, the article loses NPOV. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As much as there is any truth or falsity to historical counterfactuals, Ulflarsen could well be right. Or maybe not. Maybe a victorious Japan that was nonetheless weakened by the war losses would have also granted Indian independence. Maybe the Indian independence movement would have defeated a new imperial power that lacked a local bureaucratic infrastructure. Maybe Japan would have been an imperial controller of India, but not quite as bad as Britian had been.

All of this might well make a good subject for a speculative novel. But it is not a matter of known (or knowable) facts. And the various sins and brutalities of Imperial Japan are not the subject of this article (but they certainly can be discussed in other more relevant articles).

 * I agree to the extent that a bald statement that 'Bose thought that collabaration with the Germans, and, subsequently, the Japanese, was preferable to continued British administration of India' is NPOV. Anything suggesting that this point of view was even slightly correct, or that Bose was not severely biased - or uninformed - in thinking so, would become seriously POV. I think the facts, in this case, speak for themselves, but any evaluation of Bose's thinking underlying his decision will descend into this sort of chaos. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be worth including in the Bose article some actual factual source that showed notable opinions that Bose made wrong decisions. For example, if contemporaries of Bose can be quoted expressing political disagreement to Bose's efforts (based on the alliances Bose formed, specifically), that would be worth mentioning. Or even if Bose can be quoted expressing opinions that seem to misunderstand the nature of Nazism or of Japan, OK, provide the quotes. But all that doesn't make the article POV, just improvable (assuming such quotes actually exist—I do not know whether they do). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:22, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

 * I am a layperson too. Two questions though that I find puzzling and seems to contradict the article as it is today:

 * What about more than 2 million Indians in the Indian Army fighting the Japanese? Bose, with his 85,000 men were actually fighting his countrymen. These figures, as I have shown above, is from the Indian Army's own official website.

 * Huh?! What about them? Apparently Bose disagreed (perhaps only tactically) with those 2 million Indians. Perhaps those 2M were drafted.  I didn't see anything in this article that contradicted the above fact, but I also don't see how it is relevant to this article.

 * There was no draft for the Indian Army during the Second World War. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What about the way Aung San, a strong advocate of Burmese liberation from the British changed his views on the Japanese, from collaborating with them in the same manner as Bose did, to change to fight them? Ulflarsen 21:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Um... so what?! Aung San's shifting alliance sounds worth including in the article on Aung San, but it's hard to see what it has to do with the one on Bose. A WP article isn't a special honor reserved for people we the editors agree with wholeheartedly.  The article should tell us who Bose was and what he did, not spoon-feed us moral judgements about his moral qualities and judgemental savvy (neither pro- nor con-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

 * I think a comparison of two nationalist leaders in similar circumstances is not as irrelevant as you suggest,as well as being value-neutral if written carefully. Hornplease 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * * Bose had never favoured Axis ideology, forget making a pro-nazi statement. Then how can you include one in the article? The fact remains that there is no evidence of Bose being pro-Axis. --IncMan 21:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * If that's a reference to my comment: I meant it in the hypothetical. If he had said something, quote it; but contra Ulflarsen, don't speculate on what Bose allegedly implicitly thought.  I'm not saying Bose did favor Axis ideology (in fact, it seems extremely unlikely), just saying that any such mention must be factual, not speculative. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

 * And regarding bose's operation against his own countrymen : There were Germans who were fighting against the Nazis in WW2. --IncMan 22:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

About contributing to the "Poll on user Ulflarsen's views"
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, while I'm certainly not trying to discourage anybody from contributing in the way they prefer, did you notice my earlier post "A poll is not a good idea, and listing on Vandalism in progress isn't, either"? (I do appreciate that missing posts on this long talk page is becoming pretty much inevitable.) It's contrary to wikipedia policy to vote on content, for many good reasons.--Bishonen | talk 11:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is better to come to a consensus. Look at the discussion. User Ulflarsen's views are not necessarily supported by most people, and also his arguments have been refuted. Therefore, just appeasing a particular user's particular speculative views is not a good idea too. There is no harm if Ulflarsen sticks to facts, but the continuous promotion of speculation is really unfortunate. Why speculate in the first place? Many things could have happened if the world war 2 went the other way, but we don't know them. We can't be sure of a thing that has NOT happened. So, Ulflarsen's continuous speculation and guesses should not be a part of the article. I again ask Ulflarsen to stick to hard facts, and not speculate and judge from a so-called-neutral view, which is more like looking into a crystal ball and imagining how things could have happened. That's not the way to write an encyclopedia. Never should be. Thanks. --Ragib 11:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ragib, are you replying to me..? I meant to address the issue of voting only, not of which views are to prevail. Consensus-building is pretty much the opposite of polling and voting. Consensus is indeed the ideal, thank you for pointing it out! --Bishonen | talk 13:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your comment that "a poll is not a good idea." I'm not sure I disagree either, mind you.  I did see your comment when I read through this long discussion page, but it did not necessarily seem to represent consensus of the editors here (if nothing else, those who expressed a poll opinion presumably feel differently).
 * I entirely agree that "voting on content" is a really bad idea. But I did not perceive the poll that way.  Rather, I felt the poll looked like a way of making Ulflarsen quantitatively aware that he lacked support for the idea an article required inclusion of his historical counterfactual speculation.  In any case, my longer comment on Ulflarsen's views is more illustrative of my take on things than is my one line "disagree". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:39, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Towards a compromise
Hi, I have been requested to help informally mediate this dispute, though due to a pressing scheduale, I may not be the only one, and while I'm scarcely familliar with the material, I'll try to devote to this as much time as I can. I am hopeful we can move this dispute along towards a compromise and a stable resolution. I am concerned that this article is being overly sympathetic to Bose, that it tends to editorialize — that said, I find the compeeting version and some of juxtapositions it makes also problematic. In both cases, most of all I'm concerned about speculative and counter-factual arguments that editors here seem to draw, largely from insufficiently attributed sources. As well, the grammatical and logical coherence and cohesiveness (I'm sure, in part, a product of the edit war) are certainly in need of improvement. Overall, far from an insurmountable feat so long as a clear inter-editorial collaborative direction and standards are consistently adhered to by all parties involved.

So, with this preamble behind us, I want to touch on a not an arbitrary (though far from an isolated) example:  Now, the problem with this sentence (aside from the atrocious grammar) is that it adds very little to the reader's understanding of what this debate is about and what drives it.

 * I quite agree with you killing that sentence. I tried to soften a previous even more POV criticism of Bose by changing a couple words.  But the whole thing is better w/o the sentence at all. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

With that in mind, I what to make clear that I am not, at present, interested in hearing the arguments of editors here about this, rather, I am interested in those arguments which can be propperly attributed. Commentators, journalists, politicians, and esp. those who professionally study this. How about we, therefore, adopt as a standard for each side to present pertinent (esp. historiographical) currents and arguments which relate to this debate and then we can go on from there towards a possible comrpomise, and to any other area of the dispute. The key, though, is one issue, one passage, one section at a time. I am certain that with hard work, this can and will be made explicable.

I am confident we can see this through if we proceed according to these clear steps, which do however demand far more extensive and intensive research on everyone's part. Finally, I insist that a collegial atmosphere be maintained at all times. I'll be back again tommorow to check in on the responses. For now, please direct these to me rather than to the other parties. We'll move on from there. Thanks.

P.S. I am deleting the Important people met by Bose list — it makes little sense and it is in bad form. If any of these meetings are noteworthy, they need to be depicted in the body. There is a reason why no single biographical article has such a section. I trust there are no objections. El_C 07:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Good. That's a silly heading to have. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I am against to any attempt to revert the article on Bose. He was a Patriot of first rate and a balanced and able person to lead India to Independence from British. One can never deny that his motives were as pure as dew. His writings and speches included in the article reveals his firm beleive in india's strength and his endeaviour to chanelise them at that perticular time to get  a mass revolution with the end of british rule. The indian army under british should not be considered the same army which fought for britishers against their rivels, so I am surprised to know the fact that their website talks of pre independence heroism when they were fighting for queen under british commonders, not for there motherland India. The fact is that this loyalty of British Indian Army was more or less intact of any anti-british movement in india by congress or any other and this loyalty was the main log to support british rule in India. It revolted when they find there own friends of INA of Subhas being trailed in red fort. Why they revolted?

Because then they feel and find themselve in the wrong side, against there own men. So one should be very clear that the INA was fighting for Indpendence of their motherland against british indian army who were fighting to defend the queen's rule in India. What had happened if INA came victorious in is a  speculation. If there are fact of Japanese atrocetese then there are enough resions to beleive in Subhas's deplomacy to protect India form any such eventuality. [Unsigned comment by 210.212.60.68 El_C 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC) ]

 * Well, I am afraid, Anonymous editor, that we will have to follow scholarly and otherwise notable consensus outside of Wikipedia. If you have sources that we could employ for these purposes, I encourage you to submitt these here. El_C 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"People met by Bose" how relevant or encyclopedic is that?
My question is what's the significance of this section? In his lifetime, Bose met thousands of people. What's the big deal if Bose met Lord Halifax or Indira Gandhi? As a member of Bengal legislative coucil, he met thousands of others too whom I can name here. But so what? There was a significance of his meeting with, say, Hitler or Mussolini, but other than mention of that fact in other sections, I don't see the merit of keeping this laughingly pathetic section here. Adding this here only makes the article less encyclopedic, and rather somewhat dubious. So, I call for removal of this section. Please add your opinion or arguments for/against that.

Finally,, I deeply appreciate your efforts in making the article better, but before adding back sections like this (discussed and deleted before) please at least leave your arguments in the edit summary. --Ragib 06:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, "met by" is far too nebulous for a section. If some particular context or significance of a particular encounter or relationship can be provided, put that in the main text.  But this conflates people Bose was closely allied with and people he once shook hands with.  Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:28, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Name spelling
I would just like to comment on the English transliteration of Bose's name. In Bengali language, Bose's name is written as Danta-sa—hrassha u—bhha—aa-kar—mudrdhanna-sha. For the benefit of non-Bengali speakers, the last character, murdhanna-shha is pronounced as in Shaw. So, the English transliteration should be Subhash rather than Shubhas. Thanks. --Ragib 00:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Changes: Open for debate
Because of the past skirmishes on this subject, I'm announcing ahead of time a few of the changes I would like to see made to this article, mainly to reinforce NPOV; If anyone has objections, it is suggested that they make them here first before changing the article, so we can avoid revert wars.

1. Bose advocated the 'practical' approach that the political instability in wartime Britain...

Whether or not this approach was practical is POV. Word to be deleted.

2. The INA may or may not have been 'a testament to Bose's organisational acumen'. There is apparently a good case to be made (even in the referenced 'Forgotten Army') that much of the organisation was already in place thanks to Rashbehari Bose.

3. The Provisional Azad Hind Govt was less a 'regular government' than a skeletal placeholder for what Netaji hoped to put in place. The wording should reflect that.

4. Delete the reference to Eamon de Valera. He spent the entire war congratulating everybody, and as such his telegram is not informative.

5. The Bengal Famine reference is fine; except that the wording implies that the refusal to accept help rather than other actions of the administration was the primary action that 'led to the death' of millions. Not supported by the consensus. See Amartya Sen, Famines and Purchasing Power.

6. The sentence, quoted here : "Many of the ideals of Bose have been adopted in independent India like the adoption of Rabindranath Tagore's "Jana Gana Mana", the national song of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind as independent India's National Anthem, the adoption of Hindi as India's national language, the tricolour of India's national flag (inspired partly from the flag of the Azad Hind Fauz)." Will be deleted in its entirety, as all of these except Hindi were primarily associated with the Congress and the national movement generally, and are not Azad Hind-specific.

7. This sentence: "Though his alliance with the Axis has been criticised by some commentators, most consider him a hero for his forceful stance against oppressive British imperialism." is completely unnecessary, and will be deleted. The opinions of "some commentators" and the ambiguous "most" can be discussed in a separate subsection from a discussion of his politics.

8. This paragraph:

In working with the Japanese he was however fighting his own countrymen, who defended India within the unpoliticised British Indian Army against the Japanese invasion. Also the most effective blackout of politically sensitive information by the British ensured that some 2.6 million Indian soldiers fought with the Allies, and thus vastly outnumbering the Indian National Army. The I.N.A. was composed of a few brigades of the previously surrendered (to the Japanese at Singapore) British Indian Army divisions and expatriates in South East Asia. Compared to that, most of the British Indian Army divisions were left intact and unpoliticised."

repeats information that is clearly implied by previous sections of this article or (in the case of the info blackout) contradicted by the discussion of his radio addresses. Will be deleted.

9. "It became eventually clear to Bose that ... was nowhere on the British roadmap." Should be either deleted or rewritten to demonstrate that it was his personal view, not imply that he was right about it.

10. Churchill-bashing, while one of my favourite sports, is not appropriate in this article. Also, the quotes are not correct. The first should read "I have not become the King's First Minister to..." and the second is incorrect as well. References will be deleted.

11. Reference to the heroism of the INA, as noted by an earlier editor, should be deleted or qualified or substantiated, lest the definition of the word be debased by overuse.

12. The entire section on re-evaluation is clearly NPOV and needs to be fixed. In particular, describing all critics of Bose as Western or Western-influenced is neither correct nor appropriate. A paragraph in that section is a repetition of an earlier paragraph, and will be deleted.

Sourcing for the sentence which states that Bose said he could see little difference between Brit imperialism and Axis fascism AFTER living in Nazi Germany. This is inaccurate, IIRC.

Hornplease 05:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected, I'll make these cahnges tonight. Any objections on the talk page first, please. Hornplease 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The additions made just now don't seem to be Neutral. In fact they go out of their way to justify Bose, giving great detail to how he is being re-evaluated, explaining how he didn't agree with racist Nazi policies (but somehow managed to reconcile himself with supporting them). Would someone else like to look and give a second opinion. DJ Clayworth 05:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There was no *New* addition, at least not today. According to this diff, Kelly just reverted a vandalism/blanking. The issues you raise, however, are old, and have been debated deeply here in the talk page. See previous edits. Thanks --Ragib 05:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 1


text:
Kline Iron and Steel

Kline Iron and Steel was a company based in Columbia, South Carolina. Established on February 23, 1923, as Kline Iron and Metal Co., since 1953 was primarily known for the construction of broadcast towers. This includes the world's tallest completed man-made structure, the KVLY-TV mast, surpassed only by the recently completed Burj Khalifa.

History Timeline:
 * 1923- Kline Iron and Metal, Co. founded.
 * 1984- Central Tower founded.
 * 2000- Merger with American Tower Corporation.
 * 2001- Central Tower is acquired by Dielectric Communications.
 * 2004- Dielectric Communications acquires Kline Iron and Metal Co.
 * 2005- Central Tower and Kline Tower merge to form Dielectric Tower Operations.
 * 2006- Dielectric Tower Operations sold to Liberty Industries to form Tower Innovations.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kline Iron and Steel


text:
The Rainmaker (1956 film)

The Rainmaker is a 1956 American western romance film directed by Joseph Anthony and adapted by N. Richard Nash from his 1954 play The Rainmaker. The film tells the story of a middle-aged woman, suffering from unrequited love for the local town sheriff; however, she falls for a con man who comes to town with the promise that he can make it rain. It stars Burt Lancaster, Katharine Hepburn, Wendell Corey, Lloyd Bridges and Earl Holliman. Holliman won a Golden Globe Award for his performance.

The Rainmaker has been remade twice: the first time as a television film of the same name in 1982 directed by John Frankenheimer; the second time in Hindi as Thodasa Roomani Ho Jayen in 1990.

Plot
During the Depression era in the Midwest, con man Bill Starbuck acts as a rainmaker, but is chased out of town after town. One day, he arrives in a drought-ridden rural town in Kansas and shows up at the door of spinsterish Lizzie Curry and the rest of the Curry clan. Lizzie keeps house for her father, H.C., and two brothers on the family cattle ranch. As their farm languishes under the devastating drought, Lizzie's family worries about her marriage prospects more than about their dying cattle. Prior to Starbuck's arrival, Lizzie was expecting Sheriff File, for whom she harbors a secret yen, though he declined the family's invitation to dinner. Starbuck promises to bring rain in exchange for money. Against Lizzie's protests, H.C. goes for the deal out of desperation for rain even though he thinks Starbuck is a con. Starbuck is exposed, but the Curry clan stands up for him, leading to both Starbuck and File finally declaring for Lizzie. In the end, Lizzie gets her man, and of course, it rains.

Cast

 * Burt Lancaster as Bill Starbuck
 * Katharine Hepburn as Lizzie Curry
 * Wendell Corey as Deputy Sheriff J.S. File
 * Lloyd Bridges as Noah Curry
 * Earl Holliman as Jim Curry
 * Cameron Prud'Homme as H.C. Curry
 * Wallace Ford as Sheriff Howard Thomas
 * Yvonne Lime as Snookie Maguire

Academy Awards

 * Nominations

 * Best Actress: Katharine Hepburn
 * Best Music (Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture): Alex North

Golden Globe Awards
Won:

 * Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor: Earl Holliman

Nominations

 * Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama
 * Golden Globe for Best Actor: Burt Lancaster
 * Golden Globe for Best Actress: Katharine Hepburn

title: The Rainmaker (1956 film)


text: Category:Kabarettists

title: Category:Kabarettists


text:
Talk:Church of Ireland

"assuming possession"

 * When the English Parliament declared that the Holy See had no power over the Church in England, the Church in Ireland also conformed, assuming possession of most church property

This seems to me to be an uncomfortable merging of two inconsistent viewpoints. Either the "Church in Ireland" from before the Reformation is the current Church of Ireland, in which case it was already in possession of Church property, or the current Church of Ireland was created at the Reformation, in which case it couldn't have conformed at the time of the declaration (because it was created in conformance). Neither of these viewpoints by itself is NPOV.

I would fix it myself but I don't know enough about Irish history to be sure of phrasing it properly. Marnanel (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends. Clearly members of the CoI view it as a continuation of the Church founded by St Patrick, in which case it was already in possession of Church property. RC members view it differently. As only 4 out of 36 bishops accepted the oath of allegiance to the Crown, it could be said that they remained in possession of their sees and their property. The state, however, had the power to dispossess them, which it did. So from the RC viewpoint, the Church of Ireland was created at the Reformation and assumed possession of most church property. Which viewpoint is "correct"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The Church in Ireland was independent of Rome prior to Henry's invasion in 1155; it didn't pay tithes to the Pope, and Adrian's right to claim it as a Papal fief has been disputed ever since (see Formation).

 * When it broke with Rome in 1536, the argument was it was simply being restored to the position prevailing prior to 1155, which is why the Church subsequently claimed to have the right of Apostolic succession.

 * I think the wording ins confusing, so I've changed it. Hopefully that will make sense. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

From what I've seen looking at the history of both Ireland and the Irish church, I can tell you that the Church Of Ireland became protestant in 1536 it split from the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. The Church of Ireland certainly did exist pre 1536 as a Roman Catholic Church and as an independent church before the 12th century (If we count the Church not paying tithes to Rome etc, but some people do claim that Ireland WAS Roman Catholic pre 12th century, but thats getting off track) Henry the 8th claimed control of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland in 1536 and reformed it as protestant, at this moment is the split between the current Church Of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland. Both churches can trace their origin back to St Patrick. Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How are bishops elected?
The article states that the process for electing an Archbishop of Armagh is different from the process for electing other bishops, but gives no further detail (at least I couldn't find any). Mdrb55 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing
This arcticle is confusing the institution of the Church of Ireland, established in 1536, with the church in Ireland. If Archbishop Usher's confessions comprise Calvinist elements, he seems to have been decidedly Protestant. " 'Occasional conformity' allowed the use of pre-Reformation rites," looks like underground Catholicism, in contrast.--Ulamm (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence? The Banner  talk 14:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow. What “church” in question? Christianity in Ireland? Occasional conformity, in my mind, does not strictly represent “crypto-Catholicism” via underground worship, but something that could be broadly interpreted as someone dropping aspects of conformity to suit their position in relation to who was breathing down their neck at the time. Conformity also varied in level - it is reasonable to say Henry VIII of England was not a Catholic after 1533/1536, but he continued to observe most pre-reformation liturgy etc. Even Elizabeth I had a rosary. SinoDevonian (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is known that the Anglican church is less protestant than other Protestant churches.
 * Nevertheless it is astonishing that it should have been important, within this church, to maintain pre-reformatory liturgy. "Private" search for pre-reformatory schemes rather looks like opposition against innovations in the church.
 * Last not least because of the present day problems between the various denominations and (perhaps much more) their followers in Ireland, this article should distinguish clearly, what was the policy of those, who wanted a new church, and what was the policy of those, who wanted to return to the pope's rule.--Ulamm (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you come with sweeping statements but not with evidence. Do you really expect that both churches were entirely different straight after the split? Please remember that this was a government enforced split to suit the marriage plans of the king, not an ideological split. The Banner  talk 21:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, far away in Kent, a church was built for gratefulness, when a return to Catholocism had been averted, because the young king had left his intention to marry a Spanish princess.--Ulamm (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, Kent was part of England. Not part of (the island of) Ireland. The Banner  talk 20:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kent is in England, of course. But the story shows that a lot of people approved the Reformation as a kind of progress, and for a lot of people a return to Catholicism would have been a horror.

King Henry VIII as Founder of The Church of Ireland
The Church of Ireland's own website says it was founded by St Patrick in the 5th Century. To show the founder as King Henry VIII, actually contradicts their own website.

While Roman Catholics may espouse this, it is not what the Church of Ireland's official website indicates. The founder would be St. Patrick in the 5th Century if we allow them to speak for themselves. 2603:9001:2000:95D:E116:962C:9BB4:BF16 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We follow scholarship, not subjects' positions. And I don’t think there is much doubt that the CoE, CoI, etc., were founded by the English Crown. But please advance any known sources which hold otherwise… SeoR (talk)

Page disputes
Let’s discuss the two disputes here: thanks, SeoR (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * founder - why don’t we show both - St Patrick and Henry VIII ?
 * on the LGBTQ+-related topic, let’s discuss sources

 * 1) Henry VIII did not legally, and never intended to found a new Church. The burden of proof for that claim lies with those who assert the break from Rome constitutes the creation of a new Church as such, rather than reforming the existing one (eg nobody claims Eastern Orthodox were ‘new’ churches, simply existing institutions whose communion with Rome became impaired). No new legal corporations were created, properties were not transferred, the same dioceses and structure remained in situ. The Church of Ireland can claim continuity of episcopal succession with pre-Reformation Church of Patrick, while the RCC had to re-introduce.
 * I look forward to other voices here, but to the best of my knowledge, scholarly opinion does not support the idea that the CoE, CoI and others were not in some sense new bodies, taken over by a national authority, out of the Latin structure. And the apostolic succession point is not so clear, with the substantial majority of bishops, and the overwhelming majority of the general clergy of all other ranks, not conforming to Henry's demands; the RCC claimed its own continuity.  This is a delicate matter, and we should find a good wording to deal with this. SeoR (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think there is a good case for showing two founders, St Patrick as the notional lead for multiple Christian churches in Ireland (recalling that others reached out before him also), and Henry VIII. SeoR (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you cite the scholarly sources that conclude the Church of Ireland was a new body? Or the legal texts creating this new body? Besides polemicists like Duffy, whose work, while certainly scholarly, operates within theological priors, most historians would avoid making a value judgement on which Church is ‘true’ as such. LODU70 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I might also say, before I leave it to other voices, if we are treating this as ‘delicate’ and in need of careful negotiation, the same should be applied to the Catholic Church in Ireland page which lists Patrick as its founder without qualification. LODU70 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Who else would be listed? The Catholic Church was founded, and just went on, for better or worse. So there was just Saint Paddy. The Ch of England, and thus also the Ch of Ireland, were, as any textbook will show, “created” or “established” by the awful Henry. It is not even a debate or disputed. Of course based on a splitting off of St Patrick’s church but in a new foundation. Also, don’t overstate the Celtic Church’s independence. It did not pay Peter’s Pence and had its own local practices, as did operations in China and Mongolia once, or Syria, and as do the Eastern Churches now, but it did answer to the Pope. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s just begging the question by assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the unaltered continuation of the pre-Reformation Church. The counter-Reformation was as radical a shift in dogma as the Reformation, and by the same standard must be seen to have created a new church as well. The Church of Ireland was certainly “established by law” under Henry, but ‘establish’ ≠ ‘create’, it means ‘make firm’, ‘give stability’. LODU70 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. To establish, in most understandings, is to found. That other meaning is secondary or archaic. And also no, no one ever claimed that the Counter-Reformation founded a new church. Come on. It was administrative reform, anti-corruption, and renewal of spirit. The count of people who think the Catholic Church does not go back to near the beginning would be very small indeed. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Sure, and the phrase ‘established by law’ is found in the archaic legal texts of the Tudor period. We can take the archaic understanding. As in, nobody was creating something new, but securing what already existed within the framework of the State.
 * 2) Everyone accepts there was the Latin/Catholic Church before the Reformation. This Church came to be more and more dominated by the bishop of Rome/Pope; a development which was always challenged by some quarters as illegitimate (Eastern Orthodox, Investiture Controversy etc.). We know that the Church of Ireland maintained the same structures, legal corporations, offices etc. but also changed its teachings (rightly or wrongly). If introducing new teachings at the Reformation created a new church, then surely creating new teaching at the counter-Reformation created a new church. Like how Trent dogmatised Transubstantiation for the first time (Session 13, Canon 1). Before then, it was possible to be a Catholic and reject transubstantiation. Afterward, it was anathema. This is a new standard and definition of being Catholic, specifically tied to the novel dogmas of the Roman Church. Same structures, different teaching. If we apply the same standard, the RCC is as new as the Church of Ireland. LODU70 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that every dogma-determining or -altering Ecumenical Council created one or more new Churches? What version would that leave us on now? 80.233.50.45 (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I’m not contending that. Not least because Trent wasn’t a true ecumenical council. Secondly, I’m saying the single pre-Reformation Church was divided into two at the Reformation, both have the claim of continuity. But, if we apply the RC standard that says new teaching = new Church, as you do in the case of the Church of Ireland, then the RCC is a new Church too. LODU70 (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasn’t it more about governance and claims to property than dogma. That came more later, under E I. 80.233.50.45 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For Henry? Governance yes, property not really. LODU70 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But didn’t he grab property all over England and Ireland, turn out clergy and nuns, and give it to dodgy courtiers? The whole thing was about divorce, property and a little bit national interests. Not religion. 80.233.54.145 (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you’re referring to the dissolution of the monasteries? Yes, land was confiscated- cloistered nuns and monks were given state pensions to support their life afterwards. This dissolution was distinct from the Reformation; many monasteries had become sort of shell companies for wealthy families to hoard untaxable wealth. The break with the Papacy was separate- and had to do with Henry seeking an annulment (not divorce) of his marriage, because he felt God was punishing him for marrying his dead brother’s widow (forbidden in Scripture, permitted by the Pope). The Pope regularly granted these annulments to kings and princes, but refused Henry- many assume because at the time, the Pope was prisoner to Charles V (Catherine of Aaragon’s nephew). Henry saw how foreign rulers could weaponise the papacy to hurt him politically. He and others examined this theologically, and concluded the historic and scriptural practice was that secular rulers should be in charge of the Church in their realm (Erastianism). Besides this, Thomas Cranmer was an actual Protestant who pursued wider doctrinal reform. So the political and religious issues are very much intertwined. LODU70 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Great to see a polite and substantive discussion. Let’s keep it focused on article improvement. I have asked for more input from the wider community. SeoR (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 2) On the question of same sex marriage. The sources currently referenced suggest there is an ongoing debate and division in the Church over sexuality. This is not the case. A supermajority of Church members live in the more conservative Northern Ireland. In the South, there have been some overtures to liberalise, but no great push. The most recent pastoral letter from the Bishops admits there is little appetite to discuss these issues any further at the parish level. They have reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on marriage consistently. They have said they cannot proscribe private blessings- but this is not the same as permitting them. https://www.ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/pdf/Synod/2018/HoB-StatementMay2018.PDF
 * As it stands, the article content is a litany of extraneous links and references to individual opinions and small pressure groups. This is an attempt to create the narrative of great division and debate in a small Church, which is actually quite homogenous in its indifference/opposition to changing its teaching on marriage and sexuality. LODU70 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On this one, I agree that there is a good case for scaling down and toning down, indeed (but not taking it out altogether, as there was a long debate, even if, as you say, it has settled to a large extent). This should be debated here with others also, and a suitable wording agreed. SeoR (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see independent sources for this. The Banner  talk 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Independent sources for which bit? What kind of sources would you accept? My claim is largely that this is a non-issue that’s never attracted grassroots activism from the average Church member. I can’t prove a negative. LODU70 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, independent sources. When it was such a big discussion, it should have been picked up by a newspaper, scholar or another non-church source. The Banner  talk 17:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that it was not a very big or divisive discussion. That the Church’s teaching’s didn’t change. It’s therefore your job to prove (by independent sources) that this was the case. LODU70 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me that there are some conflicting stories going around (not your fault, let me be clear) but what I found in a quick search were this article from the Irish Times and this article from the BBC. Maybe we can write a draft first? The Banner  talk 17:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For those two points I’m happy to concede:
 * “Two of the eleven bishops have stated they personally support same-sex civil marriage. One of those has said he also endorses same-sex marriage in the Church. The House of Bishops, as the official entity representing the Church, has only ever reaffirmed the current teaching on marriage and sexuality (most recently 2018 https://www.ireland.anglican.org/cmsfiles/pdf/Synod/2018/HoB-StatementMay2018.PDF ).”
 * “Changing Attitudes Ireland is an organisation which advocates for LGBT representation and same-sex marriage in the Church of Ireland. CAI is not affiliated with the Church of Ireland. Membership figures are not published.” LODU70 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Church of Ireland


text: Category:Geographical technology

title: Category:Geographical technology


text:
User talk:Jewellen 0314

hellow pipol new here............,,,,,,??????????????/?/??? n_n hope im welcome here thaTs all ThaNk u OK ByE........... LuV yaH aLL..........

title: User talk:Jewellen 0314