Talk:Jagadish Chandra Bose

Untitled
Please discuss here Duplicate_articles, Alren 15:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spellings
The first name should be spelt correctly in the title as "Jagadish" and not "Jagdish". Despite the fact he spells it himself "Jagadis" on his patents? Please explain.
 * Agree and done. Arman (Talk) 06:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/70/459-466/273 is incorrectly referred to as "On Elektromotive [...]" with a 'k' in "Electro-".

"Sir"
Could this "Sir" title prefix be properly wikified, please? Perhaps Sir?, or Knight, or Knight, or British_honours_system? TIA.

Jerome Potts 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * uh... done. Order of the British Empire. Jerome Potts 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 p 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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, is also subject to evolving; perhaps the quoted gentleman had his own idea on how that title should be used. Jerome Potts 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at his 1904 patent he clearly spells his own name Jagadis Chunder Bose. We should consider normalizing the spelling and abandoning the westernized spelling. Patent here: http://www.geocities.com/mumukshu/jcbosepatent.pdf 68.80.51.125 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment of Bose
I believe IEEE published a major reassessment of Bose with the conclusion that his work defintiely was prior to that of Marconi. I will try to get that reference. Meanwhile, here is something related: http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html DaveBorman 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/279/5350/476 DaveBorman 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC) ola tudo bem amor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.41.136 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes in infobox; please don't revert without discussion
I have made a few changes in the infobox consistent with 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
 * Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, ... " -Bharatveer 08:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 Aziz 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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. --Ragib 16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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" ✅
 * Wavelength should be one word ✅
 * Dates are usually wikilinked ✅
 * "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 ✅
 * "By the end of 1895, Bose ranked high among Hertz’s successors" - peacock/weasel term. What is this ranking in terms of? ✅
 * 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✅
 * 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.✅
 * 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.✅
 * "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✅
 * "He was also known as an excellent teacher who believed in the use of classroom demonstrations" - source required.✅
 * "his lofty character" is stated as hard fact
 * Contractions need to be eliminated✅
 * 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.

 Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

This phenomena is used for doctor's x-rays and is stated Ian's Hickson's Electromagnetic Spectrum website http://academia.hixie.ch/bath/em/home.html

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)

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.

Thank you!

Maybe this is what you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose#Study_of_metal_fatigue_and_cell_response — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.45.78 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Are these studies validated by modern methods or by any other means ? Hiperion Gonarch (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla
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. Redding 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Legend of the Nine Unknown Men
Bose is linked to from Nine Unknown Men, an odd piece of Theosophical lore. There are claims made that Bose believed in the legend, but I can't find a reliable source for it. Can anyone confirm or deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangething (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert of nationalism and books
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)


 * 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)

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)
 * There was no "thorough discussion". Only 3 people participated in talk page discussions on nationality issue but none of them referred to any reliable sources. We say what the sources say blindly . If academics have described his nationality as Indian so we will describe him. If you do not think Amartya Sen is a reliable source you are free to open a thread at reliable sources noticeboard for broader input. Solomon7968 13:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I refer you to WP:V again . Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. In wikipedia we say what the reliable sources say blindly . I am afraid that you don't understand that, sorry. Solomon7968 13:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I found enough reliable sources that claim Jagadish Chandra Bose as Bangladeshi,, , , --Zayeem  (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war, reach a consensus otherwise you'll be violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT.--Zayeem  (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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. Solomon7968 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:

--Zayeem  (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Royal Society
"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." Solomon7968 15:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay here is what Royal Society says (emphasis mine):
 * 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)
 * 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. Solomon7968 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Solomon7968, as I said above, the problem is that " Indian " 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)
 * I request you to see the Royal Society reference 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. Solomon7968 21:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. Solomon7968 00:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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.
 * Muhammad Iqbal – has region British India.
 * Vallabhbhai Patel – just 'Indian'.
 * Swami Vivekananda (GA) – has 'Indian' linked to Indian people.
 * Srinivasa Ramanujan (GA) – like Tagore.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

@ 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 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. Solomon7968 07:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * No I don't respect your opinion . Think twice in the future before calling a official Royal Society website or any book published by any academic press as "problematic". Regards. Solomon7968 08:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * don't edit war! I've already told you, you are violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT.--Zayeem  (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 by points:


 * Sir Patrick Gedess called JC Bose an Indian in 1920.
 * Royal Society branded JC Bose an Indian in 2007. reference.
 * "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.
 * As a side note The Imperial Gazetteer of India or any other Raj sources are not considered a reliable source here in enWP from what I know from User talk:Sitush.
 * 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. Solomon7968 19:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 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  Indian  compromise. Huon (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable references that refer to him as Bangladeshi ? I can bring up hundreds of newspaper/magazine article identifying him as Indian. This is Brittanica we are talking about here.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace
Birthplace changed with ref from Britannica per User_talk:Ctg4Rahat/Archive_3 - <font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">Rahat <font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> (Talk * Contributions) 06:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bengali or Indian?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016
He was born in India, not in Bangladesh. As a matter of fact, there is no Bangladesh in 1858. Sumaprasanth (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox and article correctly say "British India (now Bangladesh)". Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016
Last line of "Legacy" section. Should the Birthday be Nov 29 or Nov 30? Birthday ambiguity. I believe it is Nov 30. Jmcnear (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Jmcnear (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - 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)

Hyperlinks to Pages That Don't Exist
In the Science Fiction section, these three hyperlinks point to pages that don't exist: John Clinton Bradley (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Niruddesher Kahini
 * Abyakta
 * Palatak Tuphan

this is interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.207.182.98 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Validity of Biophysics Results
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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905235504/http://strangehorizons.com/2013/20130930/3bose-f.shtml to http://strangehorizons.com/2013/20130930/3bose-f.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017
A link to the Bangla original of Palatak Tufan, e.g. https://bn.wikisource.org/s/e9, should be added for the benefit of the readers. Jyot1.5hompad0k (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is already a Wikisource link in the footer. – Train2104 (t • c) 16:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66u29FUM5?url=http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/JCBOSE.htm to http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/JCBOSE.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905051529/http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITboseframeset.htm to http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITboseframeset.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed "he hypothesized that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc" Its a hypothesis by Cleve Backster not Jagadish Chandra Bose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster#Findings

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)

Ethnically Bengali and Geographically Indian Subcontinent
Jagadish Chandra Bose is Bengali ethnically and geographically from the Indian subcontinent. It is completely neutral point of view. I don't understand your reversal here. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE. Things can be changed. Kindly advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC))
 * As a more experienced user, I will appreciate your input. Based on the talk page, there seems to be no consensus, just back and forth. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , it looks practically the same still. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes in the lead
, 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. --<font style="" color="#848482" face="Lucida Calligraphy">Zayeem  <font style="" color="#483C32">(talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. --<font style="" color="#848482" face="Lucida Calligraphy">Zayeem  <font style="" color="#483C32">(talk) 18:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

- Bose Institute

- Personal Views

Scientific Career

- Microwave Radio Research

- Plant Research

- Study of metal fatigue and cell response

Science fiction

Legacy and Honors

Publications

Notes

References

Further reading

External links RamasSquirrel (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good way to handle it. His biographic details are a bit scattered and now that they are relatively well fleshed out they could use organization. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)