This article is written in
Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Jagadish Chandra Bose was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Jagadish Chandra Bose is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject
talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the
history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
I changed two occurrences of 'Sir Bose' to 'Sir Jagadish'. In some English dialects the (improper) use of 'Sir Bose' would convey a slight insult, which I presume was not intended. Even though this occurs within a quotation, unless there is good reason to stick strictly to the original it seems rather more genteel to use the correct form of address.
Davy p00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that a quotation, assuming it is accurate, should be left alone. After all, the convention on the proper usage of "Sir", as documented in
Sir#Formal styling, is also subject to evolving; perhaps the quoted gentleman had his own idea on how that title should be used.
Jerome Potts19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Changes in infobox; please don't revert without discussion
I have made a few changes in the infobox consistent with
Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Also moved the available image inside the infobox. These changes make this article consistent with other articles e.g. featured article on
Rabindranath Tagore. These edits were reverted without any explanation once. So, I request anyone, not agreeing with the changes, to please discuss concerns here.
Please read "Don't Overuse flags" once more . And also from that - "Do not rewrite history
First of all, if your concern is only about flags, then please change the flags only, why are you moving the image down? Isn't the image better placed inside the infobox, right at the beginning of article? For almost all featured biography articles, the best available image has been used inside the infobox. Secondly, Bose was legally a citizen of British India. He was born as a British Indian and he died as such. Claiming him either Indian or Bangladeshi is indeed an attempt to rewrite history. So, I am changing back nationality and image positioning. However, this time I'm not using any flags.
Arman Aziz09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Bharatveer (
talk·contribs) continues to add "Indian" (linking to Republic of India's article) as Bose's nationality. Actually, unless one went back in time and changed history, Republic of India exists only after 1947. Before which, it was "British India", and citizens of the place were called "British Indian"s, which was also printed on their passports.
Of course, if Bharatveer wants to link to "India" (the republic), I will be happy to claim that Bose was a "Bangladeshi" national too, under whatever logic BV has. Otherwise, I'd like to see why a person having "British India"n passport, living in "British India" can't be termed as such. --
Ragib16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Failed GA
This article needs a lot of improvement to reach GA. At the moment, it has prose, referencing and POV/peacock/weasel issues
There are many sentences which have quite major problems: "female students were not accepted in the college then" and "the failure of some of the indigenous ventures of his father had failed" and "repaying the father's debts" should be " repaying the debts of Bose's father" and "She went to Madras in 1882 on Bengal government scholarship". That's a sample from the short marriage paragraph. "In 1887, he was married to Abala" - > "In 1887, he married Abala" Done
Wavelength should be one word Done
Dates are usually wikilinked Done
"close to octaves of visible light" - why is this there? 5mm = 5,000,000 nm. The longest visible light is about 700nm, about 7000 times shorter. 2^13=8192, so it is about 13 octaves away, so the wording "close" does not appear accurate Done
"By the end of 1895, Bose ranked high among Hertz’s successors" - peacock/weasel term. What is this ranking in terms of? Done
Some POVs are not attributed to the commentator, but simply reproduced, as though it was WP's POV "J.C. Bose was at least this much ahead of his time" .The article some times uses "J.C. Bose" and sometimes just Bose. Consistency is required."It appears that Bose's demonstration of remote wireless signalling has priority over Marconi" needs attribution to a commentator Done
Many peacock terms. "dire straits" and "the failure of some of the indigenous ventures of his father" - these need to be spelt out with examples, rather than just asserting and generalising. Done
POV imported directly from books "Nobody expected to be favoured with a research laboratory or research grant. Bose was not a person to quarrel with circumstances but confronted them and dominated over them." - examples of what he did is better than asserting that he overcame a lot. Done
"After his daily grind, which he of course performed with great conscientiousness, he carried out his research far into the night, in a small room in his college." - not attributed Done
"He was also known as an excellent teacher who believed in the use of classroom demonstrations" - source required. Done
"his lofty character" is stated as hard fact
Contractions need to be eliminated Done
Assertion about father of Bengali Sci fi not sourced
In the lead, the view of one Dr. Sen is taken to speak for all scholars
"With remarkable sense of self respect and national pride he decided on a new form of protest." - POv commentary
"The 'CP theory', proposed by Canny in 1995, validates this skepticism" - A theory cannot validate another theory. Only experiments can
Lower half of the article is not sourced
one of hte problems is that a large part of the article, especially the qualitative info, is sourced to the "Ministry of Information" of India which is a PR department and would talk up the achievements. One of the effects is that "patriotic POV" is being imported into the article. This is most evident the paragraphs cited to 7 and 11, which have many sweeping peacock statements praising his character. Bose is very famous and a lot has been written about him from the scientific community worldwide. At the moment the article is dominated by Indian/Bengali lobby group sources and the article is verging into hagiography.
Publications and references need to be cleaned up and formatted consistently.
In the section on his contribution's to radio, the last sentence of the second paragraph states that long waves have a greater penetrative power
He knew that long waves were advantageous because of their great penetrative power but realised their disadvantages for studying the light like-properties of those electric waves.
This directly goes against the common scientific understanding that shorter waves have greater penetrative power, while long waves travel longer distances.
if for some reason my understanding of the penetrating power of waves is incorrect. I would like to see a correction in the langauged used to describe "greater penetrative power" of the "long waves".
I agree to this observation. I believe author intended to refer to the greater carrying power of long wave-length, not their penetrative power. I have removed the questionable statement about long waves having greater penetrative power from the article. Arman(
Talk)05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)reply
J. C. Bose and Gandhi
Hi All,
I have noticed that in the "God Is (Spiritual Message)" delivered by Mahatma Gandhi in London, 1931,
the following sentence appears:
"thanks to the marvelous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life"
With my limited knowledge I couldn't find out what research the line was refering to.
However, I think it could be relevant (as well as extremely interesting!) if someone were able to clarify
this point in this page.
Bose's radio wave works was one year after
Nikola Tesla made the first public demonstration of
radio communication in 1893. See "Nikola Tesla, 1856 - 1943". IEEE History Center, IEEE, 2003. (cf., In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis in [1893] - two years before Marconi's first experiments - Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube.) DO NOT removed this as it is a POV edit to do so. Thank you.
J. D. Redding00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I have reverted a couple of Bangladeshi nationalist changes. Calling Bose "Bangladeshi" is an anachronism; he died long before Bangladesh was founded. At Bose's time he was unquestionably British Indian. On the other hand, his nationality shouldn't be given as "
Indian" either; that links to the modern Republic of India, which is also an anachronism.
In the process, I also reverted the mention of two of his books in the lead. Since we do not mention anything about those books (except their titles) in the article proper, they are not prominent enough for the lead, which should be a summary of the article.
Huon (
talk)
19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)reply
There are still all kinds of strange edits to Bose's "nationality". He's clearly not Bangladeshi because he died long before Bangladesh even existed. He's also not "Indian" if we link to either
India or
Indian people (who that article defines as "citizens of
India") because the India article deals with the Republic of India which also didn't exist in Bose's time. Describing Bose as "Bengali" and linking to
Bengali people seems both correct and uncontroversial to me. The nationality in the infobox should be "British Indian" and link to the article on the
British Raj because that's the state where he was born and lived for most of his life.
Huon (
talk)
17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Nationality
As it can be seen, after a thorough discussion, it was concluded that Jagadish Chandra Bose's nationality should be shown as "British Indian" having linked to
British Raj since he was born before 1947, the year when India became independent. We can't determine Bose's nationality just by going with a book written by Amartya Sen. Please reach a consensus rather than changing the nationality unilaterally. --Zayeem(talk)13:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, those 3 editors are well experienced and have enough knowledge about the policies of WP. Ragib and Arman seems to be on wikibreak, I've left a note on
User:Huon's talk page. The point is quite clear, "India" only refers to the
Republic of India which came into being in 1947. While Bose died in 1937, in the period of British Raj, hence his nationality should be British Indian.--Zayeem(talk)13:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
None of the random websites you mentioned are reliable compared to a Nobel laureate. However I will not revert you more but let other editors comment here.
Solomon796814:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Amartya Sen got his Nobel prize in economics, not sure if the reliability of his book on Indian history could be determined through his Nobel laureation. Anyway here is one more on Bose's Bangladeshi identity:
Śāmasujjāmāna, Ābula Phajala (1992). Who's who in Bangladesh: Art, Culture, Literature, 1901-1991. University of Virginia. p. 98.
The problem with "Indian" nationality is that our
India article is on the modern Republic of India, which postdates Bose. "Bangladeshi" nationality has the same problem, only more so. We should probably turn the "nationality" into "citizenship", which is less ambiguous. Also, we don't have to "blindly" follow sources; we do have some editorial discretion, and to me specifying
which India is the relevant one clearly is within that discretion. If we need a source that explicitly connects Bose to the British Raj, try
Science and the Raj: a study of British India, which discusses Bose and seems much more relevant than a book which only mentions him in passing while discussing someone else's response to his wife's criticism.
Huon (
talk)
14:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Exactly, I guess these things are already quite clearly discussed here. About turning the "nationality" into "citizenship", yeah, it could prevent the future conflicts on this nationality issue.--Zayeem(talk)14:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The first Indian citizen to be elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society was
Ardaseer Cursetjee. .....Regarded as one of the great mathematical prodigies,
Srinivasa Aaiyangar Ramanujan was the Royal Society's second Indian Fellow. .....Raman was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society in 1924, making him the fourth Indian FRS, after Cursetjee, Ramanujan and Sir
Jagdish Chandra Bose.
You didn't get Huon's point, we don't need to blindly follow the sources, as they seem to term him both Bangladeshi and Indian and both of them seems to be problematic. We have some editorial discretion for solving these controversial issues.--Zayeem(talk)15:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Sorry we need to blindly follow the sources. I will open a thread at
WP:RSN if people here disagree that a Pre-eminent science body is more reliable a source than a crackpot website. Frankly I don't see where is the controversy as *every single source refers to him as Indian.
Solomon796816:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The sources I've shown are proper news sites. Anyway, I will stick to my stand, the nationality should be British Indian as discussed here.--Zayeem(talk)16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Solomon7968, as I said above, the problem is that "[[India]]n" would point to the Republic of India, of which Bose clearly was not a citizen. The term "Indian" is ambiguous and is used to refer to both the Republic of India and the British Indian Empire. I don't see what purpose is served by being unnecessarily ambiguous here. Do you claim that "Indian" in this context would refer to anything other than the British Raj?
Huon (
talk)
20:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Huon I request you to see the
Royal Societyreference again. The website is post 2007 and it explicitly uses fourth Indian fellow to identify Bose. So here is a strange double standard, One of the best known institutions in the world uses Indian to identify Bose (read discriminate from the home scientists) and wikipedia uses British Indian to identify him, again discriminate him. If ambiguity exists how comes it does not affects the 2007
Royal Society website? Every single country under the sun has territorial changes somehow. Even the "modern" "India" suffered territorial losses from China in 1962, so do ambiguity exists between pre and post 1962 "modern" "India"? The only thing we can do is to follow what the sources say blindly which overwhelmingly uses Indian.
Solomon796821:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, I have seen that. But I don't understand your point. Are you saying we should conflate the Republic of India with British India? If so, I disagree, and just because sources refer to him as "Indian" doesn't mean they make that conflation. Usually it's clear from the context which meaning of the term "India" is relevant, and here it's not the one Wikipedia considers the primary meaning. Unlike the pre-1962 and post-1962 Republic of India, the Republic of India is not the legal successor of the British Indian Empire, so that's not a good analogy.
Huon (
talk)
23:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
My only point is we should follow the sources. India-related articles are among the worst in wikipedia because nobody follows this point. For the "and just because sources refer to him as" I am afraid that is
original research. Just every academic source in Google Books refer to him as "Indian" and the random websites mentioned above by Kmz are either self published crap or of similar quality. Also see
this document "Indian Fellows of the Royal Society" which lists JC Bose and continues this tradition to the post 1947 India. My guess is since 1887 when Victoria was proclaimed
Empress of India the Indian nationality is well defined. It does not matter whether or not the Republic of India is the legal successor of the British Indian Empire but it does matter to follow the sources which I am afraid we are not doing in the discussion.
Solomon796800:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
They won't become crap, just because you don't like what the sources say, as I said they are proper news sites. The fact is quite clear, Bose can be described as both Bangladeshi and Indian if we blindly follow the sources, it's better to use British Indian.--Zayeem(talk)08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
One thing that many miss is although there was no
Republic of India before 1947, there was India before 1947! That's how the landmass was called. There are many scholarly books that use "India" for pre-1947. Please do a google book search on, say, history of India. Even if you chose authors who are non-Indians (Danielou, Stein and Arnold, Metcalf and Metcalf, and so on), the term used is "India" to refer to this landmass. The term bangladesh, banga, bangadesh have been used also to denote the province of Bengal (approximately present day
West Bengal and
Bangladesh combined), but that is a province/geo-linguistic area.
There is no doubt that there was no Republic of India before 1947. But that does not prevent the history scholars to use the term India, because that was how it was known at that time (before 1947). Wikipedians do not need to be creative authors, we should follow what scholarly authors do.--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
16:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Ok, see this
book, written by Sir
Patrick Geddes, and published in 1920 (before Republic of India came into being), the title is An Indian Pioneer of Science: The Life and Work of Sir Jagadis C. Bose. Need I say more? --
Dwaipayan (
talk)
16:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I've looked through the articles in
WP:INRC and searched for people of his era, this is what I've found:-
Rabindranath Tagore (FA) – has nationality filled in as 'Indian' pipe linked to British India.
I think doing what was done with the Tagore article seems reasonable enough (it seems to be the middle-ground in this discussion) and since it's an obvious fact about the date of the Indian Republic formation, putting sources just for this field in the infobox seems silly. This is not a contested or disputed among the sources, and he is mainly known as a Indian. -
Ugog Nizdast (
talk)
18:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do agree with the Style in Rabindranath Tagore article, piped link to British Raj. In addition, I agree that putting source in the infobox may appear silly. But I did that in this instance just to show the over zealous lot the contemporary (belonging to that era) practice, and so that recurrence of this kind of discussion in future can be avoided (I doubt that though).--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, as discussed before, at present context, the term "India" refers to only the current
Republic of India, hence we can't put that "Indian" tag to each and every person from the British Raj which includes Bangladesh and Pakistan as well. We also can't go with the
Rabindranath Tagore article since Tagore was born in Kolkata which is now part of India, while Jagadish Chandra Bose was born in Bikrampur which is now part of Bangladesh. Similar case is there with
Muhammad Iqbal, who was born in Sialkot which is now part of Pakistan. Going with all the articles of the people from British Raj, it seems "India" has been used as the nationality only for those people who were born in an area which is now part of
Republic of India while for the rest of the people, British Indian has been used. I think we should follow this convention. Also, I'm requesting to everyone not to change the nationality until we reach a consensus. --Zayeem(talk)07:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
@
Kmzayeem Every single commnent by yours is unsupported by any reliable source. You previously branded a official
Royal Society website as "problematic". Don't repeat this type of behaviour again. We go by academic sources and do you think Amartya Sen, Danielou, Stein and Arnold, Metcalf and Metcalf are all "problematic"? To
Ugog Nizdast Articles related to historic Indian personalities are well among the worst in wikipedia. None of them follows what the sources say, it is useless to point to other articles. By default we will go here what the sources brand Jagadish Chandra Bose.
Solomon796807:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, if you don't respect others' opinions, there is nothing to discuss with you, as for reliable sources, I've already shown them at the start of the discussion. Your arguments have already been countered by
User:Huon and me.--Zayeem(talk)07:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
We (wikipedia editors) are editorializing when we are using "British Indian" as nationality. We cannot do editorializing. We should stick to what respectable scholarly articles did at the time the person was alive, and later. So, please tell me Zayeem, why did Sir Patrick Gedess call JC Bose an Indian in 1920?--
Dwaipayan (
talk)
17:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your participation Dwaipayan. Sir Patrick did call him an Indian but can we relate that "Indian" term with present context? A simple example is, we can have a map of the whole sub continent published in the British Raj (suppose published in
The Imperial Gazetteer of India) where quite obviously the entire territory of the sub continent is referred to as "India", now would it be justified if someone uses the map of the entire subcontinent and call it "India" just by referencing it to the
The Imperial Gazetteer of India? Mind you very few sources can be regarded as reliable as The Imperial Gazetteer of India, but would you use this source to claim such thing? The matter of Jagadish Chandra Bose is exactly the same, even though those sources call him an Indian, we really can't tag him as an Indian since the term "India" only refer to the
Republic of India which came into being in 1947, 10 years after Bose's death.--Zayeem(talk)18:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply by points:
Sir Patrick Gedess called JC Bose an Indian in 1920.
"even though those sources call him" is
original research. I say again India is a land of
fringe theorists and articles related to India-Bangladesh are well among the worst in wikipedia. We need to aggressively follow the sources.
The usual sources high quality sources are those published by academic presses e.g. OUP which are Danielou, Stein and Arnold, Metcalf and Metcalf etc., we follow those sources to set the conventions.
Solomon796819:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
For someone who advocates "aggresively following sources" I don't think I've seen you actually present a source that says what you claim they say. Gedess, the Royal Society and whatever else I saw don't actually say that Bose's nationality is Indian. That they refer to a nationality and not, say, to a geographic description is just as much "original research" as pointing out that the relevant meaning of "India" is "British India". If it's all that important to you that we be more ambiguous than necessary I can live with the [[British Raj|Indian]] compromise.
Huon (
talk)
23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I think turning "nationality" into "citizenship" would be the best solution here, would remove the ambiguity as well as the controversy, as
Huon suggested earlier. --Zayeem(talk)05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge, not a venue of new scholarship
The Brittanica, an authoritative source clearly identifies Bose as Indian, and so do a number of reliable sources mentioned by users above. The heading line should mention Indian, with perhaps a link to British India instead of current day Republic of India.
I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (
talk)
23:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Not surprisingly you have failed to notice the sources which describe him as Bangladeshi, yet he can't be termed as a Bangladeshi, neither as an Indian. Intros of biography articles usually starts with the ethnicity. Moreover, there was nothing like "Indian Bengali" during Bose's time.--Zayeem(talk)08:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)reply
A citizen of undivided India is referred to as Indian, just in the same way as Rabindranath Tagore is referred to as "Indian" nobel laureate.
Arguably yes, but the
Indian people article explicitly says it's about the people of "
India", ie the Republic of India, not Undivided India or British India. Claiming that Bose is "Indian" in that sense obviously is an anachronism. Possible solutions are either calling him "
Bengali", which is about the ethnicity, not citizenship, or calling him "
Indian" with an appropriate link target. Personally I prefer the former approach and think the Bengali people article provides more information relevant to Bose than either the British India article or the one on the citizens of the Republic of India.
Huon (
talk)
10:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If that is the apprehension and we have to stick to being politically correct, link it to citizen of British India while at the same time referring to him as Indian. All British newspapers and articles referred to the British India as "India" including the princely states. What would you call someone who was born in one of the princely states? Technically they were not even a part of British India. It has been amply discussed above that wikipedia is not a creator of new knowledge but a repository of existing knowledge. All references to Bose in any credible source, including the Britannica encyclopedic article refer to him as "Indian physicist". Bose himself identified as Indian and spent the major part of his career teaching and working in what is present day India. Also all other articles in wikipedia concerning biographies of people born in British period refer to them as Indians. I don't see any reason why people are hell bent over describing him as "Bengali" here specially in this article. I have now marked him as "Indian" while removing the link to "Indian people" which is the most appropriate thing to do. --
Sabujeinstein (
talk)
05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Unless I am missing something, the plurality of opinion in all the talk sections on "Indian?" is to link
British India, "country where the person was a citizen" per
WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Piping "Indian ---> "British India" runs against
WP:EGG, hidden meaning in the link that is actually trying to be avoided here and "British India" explains the situation to the reader without having to following the link. Edited article accordingly.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (
talk)
17:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The article currently gives Bose's "nationality" as "
British Indian". That article is about "citizens of the United Kingdom whose ancestral roots lie in India", not the right topic for Bose. I'll instead use "citizenship" instead of "nationality" (which is a much more specific term especially in this context where "nation" is difficult) and link to the
British Raj as opposed to
British India which redirects to the
Presidencies and provinces of British India. If someone thinks the province details make a more reasonable target for Bose's citizenship I would disagree but not object too much.
Huon (
talk)
16:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Personal life?
I don't see much about his personal life, only 'early life' as it pertains to scientific education. Would you please add more about his personal life, beliefs, and death? I am interested in seeing the religious beliefs of accomplished individuals. --
Newagelink (
talk)
04:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Done - and corrected the access day as well - see
Googles website
Nationality
When the nationality of Muhamad Ali Jinnah who is also born in British India written as Pakistani, why can't we have Bose's nationality as "Indian". Jinnah and many leaders who are born in so called "British India" are written as Pakistani in history, and Gandhi and many leaders who are born in the same "British India" are called Indians in history, why can't we call Bose an Indian? why is this discrimination shown — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
148.141.31.171 (
talk)
14:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Hyperlinks to Pages That Don't Exist
In the Science Fiction section, these three hyperlinks point to pages that don't exist:
There are many sources that talk about Bose's contributions to plant science, but few bother to mention that none of it seems at all credible. This sentence in the article
"His major contribution in the field of biophysics was the demonstration of the electrical nature of the conduction of various stimuli (e.g., wounds, chemical agents) in plants, which were earlier thought to be of a chemical nature. These claims were later proven experimentally.[27]"
references a Nature paper (Wildon et al.) that doesn't cite or even mention Bose. Wildon et al. is not experimental proof of Bose's claims, this article doesn't even make it clear what Bose's claims precisely were. Any claims I've read from Bose do not seem to align with our basic understanding of plant biology today. Hopefully there is a good review out there that debunks some of Bose's apparent claims; this should be a subsection.
Maneesh (
talk)
22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Jagadish Chandra Bose. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Jagadish Chandra Bose. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
After going through various links and sources I found that Jagadish Chandra Bose did not hypothesize that Plant feel pain or understand affections. These are the words of Cleve Backster.
His work was inspired by Dr Jagdish Chandra Bose as his personal claim.
Its seems fellow wikipedians who added this must have gotten confused by the article cited above.
It uses pronoun "he" and anyone would assume the "he" is Dr Jagadish Chandra Bose rather the "he" is Cleve Backster.
I have read the books of Jagdish Chandra Bose and he makes no such claim or deduce no such theory on his findings. His findings were as mentioned in the rest of the section broadly that plants respond to stimuli. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
103.251.59.61 (
talk)
05:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Ethnically Bengali and Geographically Indian Subcontinent
I think the prevailing lead is fine. I am not sure why you want to change it. British India is mentioned as his country. And, Bengali ethnicity in the course of the lead. Unlike Tagore, Bose's Bengali ethnicity is not central to his notability as a scientist. --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
21:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Kautilya3: Can you check the lead and ib here there has been a Bangladeshi POVPUSH by an IP user for sometime but the lead seems to have changed a bit since the above discussion. Thanks.
Gotitbro (
talk)
20:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Amrita62, can you please go through the numerous discussions where it has been decided to leave out Bose's nationality? Calling him Indian is anachronism as "
Indian" only refers to the citizens of
Republic of India which came into being in 1947, whereas Bose died in 1937. This was also discussed in a dispute resolution attempt between WikiProjects Bangladesh and India. Unilaterally changing this longstanding version without any discussion is disruptive. And can you explain how do you find the mention about the poll
Greatest Bengali of all time a
WP:Puffery and
WP:SOAPBOX? Lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and mentioning his position in the poll summarizes his legacy/honor. --Zayeem(talk)18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kmzayeem: Thanks for correcting me; I saw the discussion about nationality in the talk page. Actually I edited solely on the basis on "Encyclopaedia Britannica" article which state Bose as Indian. Since you are inclined to add BBC poll in the lead its OK. Anyway I'll rv my edit.--
Amrita62 (
talk)
18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for understanding. Also note that Encyclopaedia Britannica may not be a reliable source always as it has started to receive contributions from general public since 2010. The history of Bose's article at Encyclopaedia Britannica reveals it has been edited by non-staff contributors. See
WP:RSP for details. Thanks. --Zayeem(talk)18:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Reorganizing the article similar to 'Albert Einstein' article
Hi
I would like to reorganize the article to make it easier to add new information. For example, an editor may wish to add more information regarding Bose's life during the phase of his plant research, which may or may not be directly related to his research. From this point of view, it would be practical to separate the article into two major sections, the first dealing with his life and the second dealing exclusively with his research. This is what is being done in the article on Albert Einstein. Below are the sections of the proposed reorganization. If anyone has suggestions, please let me know here.
Life and Career
- Early life and education
- Professorship at presidency college (introduction)