Talk:Bagha Jatin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] BAGHA JATIN (Jatindranath Mukherjee)

22 February 2006 As the much despised author of the old article, not knowing where to insert my congratulations for the author of this new version, I take this opportunity to thank him/ her for the remarkable presentation. I must insist upon the withdrawal of the reference to the most mediocre Italic textBanglapediaItalic text article (I can produce excerpts from other specialists' opinion) which fails to portray the man we speak of. By the way, if you so wish, I can supply a few photos as illustration. Dr Prithwindra Mukherjee

[edit] Revert

I returned to this article to find that it had been returned to a version of the original incredible mess, full of extremely NPoV language and claims, messy formatting, obscure English, etc. I started trying to copyedit it, but gave up, as the job was huge. I'll go back to rewriting and expanding the article now, as it could clearly be fuller (if not as full as some anonymous editors believe). --Phronima 12:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REJOINDER

A SCHIZOPHRENIC PHRONIMA LIKE A DOG IN THE MANGER HAS BEEN TOYING WITH THIS TOPIC LIKE ITS OWN PIECE OF BONE AND THROWING CAREFREE GRATUITOUS PERSONAL SLUR. HAD I PRODUCED VARIOUS COMPLIMENTS ABOUT THE Italic textEXCELLENCEItalic text OF MY ENGLISH USAGE, THE SELF-SAME ORACLE WOULD STOP BARKING. SEVERAL GOOGLE SITES AMPLY SHOW SOME OF MY ACHIEVEMENTS WHICH OUR UNFORTUNATE AND FRUSTRATED CRITIC WILL NEVER ACCOMPLISH.

SOMEONE CAME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ARTICLE AND PROPOSED A VERY SATISFACTORY TEXT. THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THIS SICK USER.

Dr Prithwindra Mukherjee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 February 2006.

We have rules against this sort of personal abuse. May I suggest that, before you attack me, and defend your version, you take a moment to look at Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

While I appreciate that User:Dwaipayanc is trying to help, he too seems to be unaware of what a neutral point of view is. He has also reinserted a huge number of mistakes of grammar, punctuation, Wikipedia formatting, etc. Dr Mukherjee may well be an authority (though in my experience, genuine authorities are less boastful of their status, and don't appeal to "Google sites(?) to back up their claims); that's irrelevant to Wikipedia, though. --Phronima 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is good to hear about the Commandments delivered from the pulpit. We presume remarks like "purple prose" are on the top of the list of wikipedian courtesy. At least, uttered by a motherly voice, they are pregnant with an urge to imitate and idolise, distribute unqualified and hasty judgments as evident by one of the users, sermoning on this article, which "can be said to be somewhat politically and to some extent ethnically Good Gracious! biased. Besides, it has still got some purple prose [[Italic textSIC!Italic text]],as the divine ?, why not! Phronima ponted out." It incites other votaries to become Bold textruthlessBold text quite in keeping with the Italic textjihadItalic text decreed by saintly promoters of Bold textfatwaBold text. Guardian of grammar, style and spelling, the Oracle may utilise "corectly" [Italic textSIC!] if HM so chooses, provided no un-Oxfordian dares challenge it. P. Mukherjee 6:50, 6 March 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs).

Dear anon, I hope you would refrain from making ad hominem attacks on other editors. This is against wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks. You already made a lot of defamatory comments, and any further violations will result in blocking. Thanks. --Ragib 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

Dear User:Phronima and Dr.Mukherjee and others,I have marked the article as disputed to grab the attention of other wikipedians.There are portions in this article that need to be corroborated with sources.However,the article is not in a position that cannot be recovered , so far as the grammatical flaws and typos are concerned.And regarding NPoV,according to my short experience as a Wikipedian,this article can be said to be somewhat politically and to some extent ethnically biased.Besides, it has still got some purple prose,as Phronima ponted out.Still,I can tell with certainty that these problems can be sorted out with a bit of patience and some proper citations rather than changing the whole article ruthelessly.This article contains invaluable information which would otherwise be unavailable in the Wikipedia.Thank You.--Dwaipayanc 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Phronima here. The article that you are trying to reintroduce is pretty well unsalvageable. Ruthlessness is the only option. I shouldn't even know where to begin editing it. It's written in a melodramatic style, full of errors, and riddled with PoV language. It doesn't just have some purple prose — it's purple from beginning to end. It would never be accepted by a respectable academic journal, and I don't see how you can think that it should be accepted here.

When I came across the dispute I thought at first that some compromise was possible, but a closer look convinced me that it wasn't; the long article just isn't salvageable. Moreover, you seem to be saying that the right approach is to leave in place something that's long and poor, and edit it gradually to make it better, while rejecting the idea that we should leave in place something that's short and good, and gradually edit it to make it fuller. The latter is surely the more sensible approach. Remember that the article is public from the moment that it's created.

If you want to improve the article, I suggest that you work with what's there now, but slowly — and from what I've seen here and in the article, deferring to Phronima on matters of English style, punctuation, etc. Please don't replace the current article with the old version again. I see that it's been copied to a temp page, so if you really think that you can prove that it can be turned into a decent article, why not experiment on that version? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've placed the intermediate version here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've been involved in this in a sort of policing way. My feeling is that the article as it is now (and as it's being expanded) is in a very good state; the alternative versions at Bagha Jatin/Old article and Bagha Jatin/Temp2 (the latter of which has seen a lot of activity, but isn't getting any better) offer no advantages, and are full of problems (of grammar, punctuation, style, PoVness, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I placed the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and I should have started a section here. Obviously I agree with Mel Etitis; it would be great if other editors joined in with this article, but not by deluging it with edits, most of which just insert the kinds of problem that I have been trying to exclude (syntax and very PoV language and style). Phronima 22:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's ok that we should take time to re-create the article.However, the portion that is already there,why should the references relating to that portion be deleted?The references given are mostly from printed material and not from the Web.But one cannot help it if those are not on the web for easy verification.--Dwaipayanc 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article while the RfC is active. It's not that editing is against Wikipedia rules, but by introducing poorly formatted and written material, you (and the anon) are simply muddying the water, making the difference between the two versions less clear. Phronima has been working slowly, introducing material after making it clearer, and removing the mistakes; you seem insistent upon inserting it quickly, retaining the unclarities and infelicities. In fact, in your last revert, you reverted my corrections too. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We did not have an RfC problem betwwen Bagha Jatin and Bagha Jatin/Temp2.It was decided that Bagha Jatin/Temp2 cannot be retained.I propose Wikipedians to see this version , which I have put as Bagha Jatin/Temp3.Let's compare on this version with the present version.My points are as follows:

1)At the start of Revolutionary activities the present version suddenly jumps to the collaboration between Bagha Jatin and Barin Ghosh, while in the proposed version , the activities prior to this collaboration has been discussed.

2)activities during Alipore bomb case have been detailed in the competing version, with activities in Sundarban being highlited.

3)The death and preceeding sequence has been brought under a separate heading in the competing version.~~And the present version says Jatin died on the spot~~,while the truth ,as has been described in the competing version is jatin was wounded in the gunfight and died the next day.

4)The number of refernces are more in the propsed version.I admit the refernces may not be beatifully arranged,but that is a technical problem which can be bettered.Please point out the NPoV languages in the proposed version which the Wikipedians should be able to modify.

Sorry for unknowingly editing an article under RfC.Thank you.--Dwaipayanc 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc sems to have misunderstood what's going on. I'm trying, slowly and carefully, to expand the article by using material from various sources, including his temporary version, ironing out grammatical and punctuation problems, and making it NPoV. His complaint seems to be that it isn't finished, and that therefore we have to use a poorly written, PoV version.
The source that I used said that he died in the gun battle; your sources say that he didn't. That's why, pending my rewriting and expansion of that section, I commented out your addition (after correcting its grammar, punctuation, and style).
Again, regarding the references, I've started carrying them over, but first, they were often very confusingly prsented, and I had to work out what was being referred to, and secondly, they needed formatting properly. That's why I was doing the work slowly.
Mel Etitis, thanks for your help, but I have one question; you changed my Unicode dashes to HTML dashes. Aren't the Unicode ones acceptable? --Phronima 12:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry — in the editing screen there's no (perceptible) difference between a hyphen and a dash; that's why I changed your dashes, and why I prefer the HTML variety. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Phronima for helping. I really misunderstood to some extent. I thought since you put the article in RfC, I had to defend the other version.Thank you for gradual modification.Thank you.The death sequence has been dealt with nicely.Just points 1 and 2 in my previous post are to be re-written.Thanks for your excellent work.--Dwaipayanc 12:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see Bagha Jatin/Temp3

Please see Bagha Jatin/Temp3 and compare that with the present article and comment.Bagha Jatin/Temp2 is not the proposed version. i already told the same thing under RfC.I again tell it just in case someone misses the point and instead end up comparing Bagha Jatin/Temp2.Thank you for helping out the dispute.--Dwaipayanc 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; apart from the fact that you've used some of my version, which is flattering, I suppose, this version contains quite a lot of grammatical errors (though less than before), and is actually less full than my version. You seem to have created it specially for the RfC, which isn't the point; the dispute wasn't about this version, but about the one on which you've been working for some time. --Phronima 12:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That Bagha Jatin/Temp2 was not going to be retained was decided.That's whay I proposed another version.And I told Mel Etitis that the version I am proposing had major work done by you.Anyway, since the article is taking a good shape , I hope soon it will be done in a nice way.Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 12:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Rfc??

Hi, could some one provide the link to the rfc here so that the interested editors can have a look. It is not present at the extension "..../Bagha Jatin." TIA, --Gurubrahma 12:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A layman's comment

I have next to no knowledge of official wikipedia standards, but Bagha Jatin/Temp3 seems to idolise bagha jatin. i support the old version, though the "final battle" could be included. WoodElf 15:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] useful examples

Hi - I see that Mel Ettis, Dwaipayanc and Phournima are making progress in reforming this article. I'd like to suggest that you model this article after WP:MOS and some better examples of biographies like Purushottam Das Tandon, Madan Lal Dhingra, Maulana Azad and Chandrasekhar Azad. Even so, this article is already better becoz of its citations and references. Rama's Arrow 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I looked into the 3 versions, and following are my comments:

Bagha_Jatin/Old_article is totally unusable. In fact, it looks like a children's story rather than an encyclopedic article. So, that's out of the picture.
Bagha_Jatin/Temp2 has too many small sections, with questionable titles (e.g. A Pilgrimage for Revolution)
Bagha Jatin/Temp3 looks the more mature of all three versions.

What do you think of the third tempversion in comparison with the article as it stands? --Phronima 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some factual corrections I made in the main page Bagha Jatin. One of them is that Jatin was born in Jhenaidah rather the Kushtia proper. I know people from Jhenaidah, who consider their home region to be totally different from Kushtia.

Can we use the picture from Banglapedia? That should be a PD-old use, because the picture is at least 100 years old, and under Indian and Bangladeshi copyright laws, all copyright expire after 60 years.

Also, should we make Bagha Jatin a redirect and move the page to "Jatindranath Mukhopadhyay" ("Jatindranath Mukherjee" being another redirect)? Because "Bagha Jatin" is not his formal name, and Mukhopadyay is a complete and formal form of Mukherjee.

Thanks. --Ragib 15:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think making Bagha Jatin a redirect and moving the page to Jatindranath Mukhopadhyay would be a good idea.I think it is the usual norm.Like,Netaji is a redirect that gets one to Subhash Chandra Bose. However, whether Mukherjee and Mukhopadhyay should be selected is a question.I think, it is not the question which one is formal, what we should look for is what the person in question officially used.Any sugestion/source? --Dwaipayanc 16:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The usual Wikipedia approach is to use the most commonly used name for the article, with redirects from the others.--Phronima 17:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case,(Phronima's reasoning) the article should be in its present name.At present Jatindranath Mukherjee redirects to Bagha Jatin.An article Jatindranath Mukhopadhyay should be created with redirect to Bagha Jatin.--Dwaipayanc 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Phronima 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

Hi!So far as the contents of Bagha Jatin and Bagha Jatin/Temp3 are concerned , the main difference lies in Jatin's activities prior to collaboration with Barin Ghosh and the activities during the Alipore bomb trial - as I already pointed out.Since Phronima is working gradually on these sections, we hope even these differences will be dealt with nicely.In that case, the perhaps only difference that will be there is the section Jatin's idealism. I think, this section could be retained - as there is references to every comments made in this section.There is no stray comments from the user.Please see and comment.Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Facts

The place of birth is Koyagram, which was in Kushtia.He was born in his maternal uncle's home.However, soon after birth the infant was taken back to Jhenaidah where is actual home was.Ragib , can you throw some light?--Dwaipayanc 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting small changes with the hope that able wikipedians will give them a convenient wikipedian editing. Thanks. P. Mukherjee (22 March, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Suggestions

I would thus modify the opening sentence : Bagha Jatin, born Jatindranath (also written Jotin and Jyotin) Mukherjee, (7 December 1879–10 September 1915) was a Bengali Indian revolutionary activist against British rule. One of the founders of the Calcutta Anushilan Samiti, he created out of it the Jugantar (or Yugantar) party that was the major association of revolutionaries in Bengal. He masterminded the Indo-German Plot during World War I.

I borrow the verb "masterminded" from several sources (viz: the article DADA by Bhupati Majumdar, Jatindranath's associate and Minister for several terms in West Bengal Cabinet after 1947, published in the Italic textSainikItalic text, 15 August 1948, pp13-15). Several Secret Police Reports (i.e. Dally's and Nixon's) confirm that Jatindranath was among the founders of the Calcutta Anushilan. Historians like Dr Jadu Gopal (Italic textBiplabi jibaner smritiItalic text, A.C. Guha (Italic textFirst Spark of RevolutionItalic text), Bimanbihari Majumdar (Italic textMilitant Nationalism in IndiaItalic text admit that Jatindranath was the creator of a Bold textmovementBold text which came to be known as the Jugantar (or Yugantar) epitomised by the Viceroy Minto as the "New Spirit", on the morrow of Samsul Alam's assassination in January 1910 (cf:Italic textIndia Under Morley and MintoItalic textby M.N. Das, p122): it was a loose confederation of decentralised secret branches united by like-minded regional organisers following the revolutionary scheme of Jatindranath.--~~PritNaMu~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 March 2006

This seems to start in the middle of a longer comment; to what does the "thus" refer?
Please sign your comments, and use correct formatting; you've been inserting material like "Italic textMilitant Nationalism in IndiaItalic text" for weeks. The correct formatting is "Militant Nationalism in India".
1. and 2. make it difficult to assess your suggestion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"I borrow the verb "masterminded" from several sources (viz: the article DADA by Bhupati Majumdar, Jatindranath's associate and Minister for several terms in West Bengal Cabinet after 1947, published in the Sainik, 15 August 1948, pp13-15). Several Secret Police Reports (i.e. Dally's and Nixon's) confirm that Jatindranath was among the founders of the Calcutta Anushilan. Historians like Dr Jadu Gopal (Biplabi jibaner smriti, A.C. Guha (First Spark of Revolution), Bimanbihari Majumdar (Militant Nationalism in India admit that Jatindranath was the creator of a movement which came to be known as the Jugantar (or Yugantar) epitomised by the Viceroy Minto as the "New Spirit", on the morrow of Samsul Alam's assassination in January 1910 (cf:India Under Morley and Mintoby M.N. Das, p122): it was a loose confederation of decentralised secret branches united by like-minded regional organisers following the revolutionary scheme of Jatindranath." (cleaned-up version provided by Dwaipayanc 11:24, 30 March 2006)

In reply to Mel Etitis, I remind that in current English THUS also means IN THIS MANNER; thanks for the key to formatting into italics. For the rest, I have nothing to add. (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 31 March 2006)

Actually, that sort of use of "thus" is very old-fashioned, and even then isn't used correctly in the passage above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New Edition Webster's Dictionary (Original title: Chamber's Etymological English Dictionary) supplies "In this or that manner"; The Penguin English Dictionary gives "In this manner". Thanks to Dwaipayanc for providing the cleaned-up version. (~~PritNaMu~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 March 2006)

Dictionaries tell you meanings; they're not so good at telling you usage. "I would thus modify the opening sentence" would be taken by native speakers to follow from a previous explanation; the meaning of "thus" you want to use would involve a different word order: "I would modify the opening sentence thus". That would be correct, though sounding rather old-fashioned. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely the word order, that I had in mind. When someone writes "Me this unchartered freedom tires", evidently he knows the usual syntax, but deliberately insists on beginning the sentence with 'Me'. Thus displacing 'Thus'I meant to stress on the verb 'masterminded' as a contrast to the 'instrumental' side of the evaluation. I am glad to guess that you will notice it. (~~PritNaMu~~—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.102.35 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 April, 2006)

I'm a little perplexed that you're arguing with a native speaker about what clearly isn't your first language. Still, to answer your points: the first example you give is poetic, and would sound absurd in any other context, and the word-order of your sentence with "thus" doesn't do what you intended — it merely makes it look as though some earlier explanation is missing. By the way, one can lay stress on something, or stress something, but not stress on something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It was interesting to note the pattern of usage of "thus". However, what about the object of "thus"? I mean the proposed change? With proper reference, that is not unwelcome I guess. Please be bold and edit as you wish, however, at instances, with reference. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the advantge of the new version, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that situating Bagha Jatin in the role of a mastermind would come probably closer to the facts available in history, than the so-called status of his being instrumental in ? For supplementary details, please consult the article on Bhupendra Kumar Datta.--BobClive 08:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. anyhow, his date of birth has to be rectified as 7 December 1879.--BobClive 08:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mastermind" has a purple-prose feel; "instrumental in" has the advantage of being more formal, and thus appropriate to an encyclopædia article. It's true that "instrumental in" is more general than "mastermind"; "ws responsible for" or "devised" are other possibilities. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large-scale edits

I'm afraid that I've reverted a series of large-scale edits, in which material was added some of which was not rerribly relevant to Jatin, some was sourced only by a vague reference to notes, much was oddly written or wrongly coded, etc. I've tried to retain the useful edits, especially additions of Wikilinks. I've replaced "instrumental in" with "responsible for"; is that OK? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF ?

In the good old days when India was under HM’s rule, it seems the prestige of a political agitator depended on the number of informers that was appointed to dog him. Sir Charles Tegart, the future Commissioner of Calcutta Police, is said to have begun his career by getting sometimes caught by Bagha Jatin or Jatindra Nath Mukherjee who, out of pity, employed the young spy as a lackey. It is believed that had Mukherjee lived longer, by dint of following him, a growing admiration would turn J.C. Nixon the Civil Servant into the former’s follower in the figurative sense. Even some of Mukherjee’s emissaries enjoyed this status. On reaching Vancouver, in 1907, Tarak Nath Das discovered that one William Hopkinson of Calcutta Police was sent to follow him. WH did even better; on recruiting pro-British Sikh informers, till his assassination by a Sikh in 1914, WH kept on undoing the little that Das and his colleagues could afford to materialise in the name of dignity. Whenever I have tried to add anything about these pioneers in North America and Canada, the data disappeared.

I have the impression that the ghost of Sir Charles is hovering over this Wikipedia article in order not to throw too much light on the little-known and underestimated personality of Bagha Jatin. Under the pretext of correcting English, this ominous shadow is keeping on gnawing all information leading to the knowledge of the anxiety and despair caused by Bagha Jatin and his colleagues to the great Empire. Whatever I quoted from the two succeeding Viceroys (Minto and Hardinge) with more than adequate documentary support, has been mercilessly obliterated.

As for the spirit of correcting, some kind of a zealous obscurantism seems to claim that even Tom, Dick or Harry (be they sweepers, bus-conductors or watchmen), by the fact of being born Englishmen, can join us as authorities on English and look down upon others who are not born Englishmen, whatever be their qualifications. What are they to think of the English written by foreigners like Rabindranath Tagore, Sri Aurobindo or, nearer to us, V.S. Naipaul ? It is at times possible, of course, to better anglicise anything penned by someone who is not born English, but does it require a megaphone pealing with a particular complex ?

Sorry for this frank question.--BobClive 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the melodrama, the assumptions of bad faith, the pointless politicising of the issue, the snide insults, etc., the fact is this: you've made a series of edits for which you've offered no explanations, not even edit summaries, and which for the most part either are apparently false or turn good to worse English. For example:

What is the reason for turning "born Jatindranath Mukherjee" to "alias Jatindranath Mukherjee"? You don't say, you merely insist on it.
"Different similar sources mention..." is awkward at best, and offers no improvement of meaning over "Several similar sources mention...", which it replaces. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

if "purple prose" and "melodrama" were unknown to snide insults, one could have taken them to be movingly flattering since, I suppose, the origin of "melodrama" comes from the use of words spoken against a musical background (what a music!) and the life these persons led was rather of a romantic "purple" instead of our logically correct grey. In certain traditions, some people suffer from a "green-phobia".
"alias" was expected to redirect the article to "Jatindranath Mukherjee" as well.
"Different" was utilised as a synonym to replace "several" in order to avoid repeating the word too often.
taking for granted (for the time being) your cherished monopoly of correct English, I request you to prove any single detail of my edits to be false (amended by "apparently" or not). Can you present any decent REASON for deleting the quotations from Minto and Hardinge ? Was it, perhaps, to avoid "pointless politicising" in the context of a movement which intended and did manage to shake the imperial stronghold ?----BobClive 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 08:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Elegant variation is not a stylistic virtue in English, and is especially undesirable when it leads to awkwardness.
I don't have a monopoly on correct English, any more than you have a monopoly on incorrect English. One's birth name, however, is not an alias; that edit was straightforwardly false. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wise Man when informed about the content of the Alexandria Library, did find it irrelevant and got it demolished.
If your omniscience permits, I may translate it into Bengali.
I hope you have read Ruskin before passing tall verdicts on awkwardness.
Mind you. People will be too happy to learn from you that I have no monopoly on incorrect English.
Average history books mention that the real name of Bagha Jatin was Jyotindranath Mukhopadhyay; it is through Police Reports that the present Jatindranath Mukherjee (with its variants) emerged in common use. Now, 10 Downing Street has to inform everybody that His Honour has decided it otherwise. You prove how straightforwardly false your argument is !--BobClive 05:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In this connection, I feel like posing another question: what is your competence in correcting the spelling of Bengali names and impose spellings like Jateendra? And twist well-known facts such as the Damodar flood ? If you persist on such obstinate revertments, I am afraid, you will invite well-wishers to turn to your own contributions, and thus "improve" them leisurely.--BobClive 05:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I understand almost nothing of the above, so responding is impossible. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

Just a small clarification:

"alias" was expected to redirect the article to "Jatindranath Mukherjee" as well. probably the user was not aware that no further redirect was necessary, as Jatindranath Mukherjee is an article that redirects to Bagha Jatin. So, in the body of the article Bagha Jatin , it is not necessary to link Jatindranath Mukherjee. I understand that it was due to a misunderstanding of the wiki software. So we can leave that point. However, I do not have any idea regarding "alias", "Different" issuses, as I am not that well versed in English grammer. I propose to create another redirect page Jyotindranath Mukhopadhyay. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a small problem with Jyotindranath Mukhopadhyay. The thing is, this is the transliteration of the name জ্যোতিন্দ্রনাথ মুখোপাধ্যায়, while Jatindranath Mukhopadhyay is the transliteration of যতীন্দ্রনাথ মুখোপাধ্যায়. (If you don't have a Bengali unicode font: jyoti and jati are two different words in Bengali). So, the redirect Jyotindranath Mukhopadhyay is perhaps mis-transliterated. Just another clarification ... :) --Ragib 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Both Dwaipayanc and Ragib are right in their reading of the problem; for clarity's sake and to avoid confusing readers, I think Bagha Jatin can simply be redirected to Jatindranath Mukherjee. Here I have noticed one detail. While Taraknath Das was the current spelling (in two words), at times it has been split into Tarak Nath Das (three words, as we do usually with Bengali names). If we search for the first spelling, we learn that there is no such article, whereas the article exists with the second spelling. Similarly one has to look for Anushilan Samiti; simple Anushilan is not recognised. Do you have any brain waves to solve this ? Hearty thanks for your attention. --BobClive 10:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Taraknath Das has been redirected to Tarak Nath Das. This is a problem with some Indian names. All variations should be there, and redirected to, may be, the most acceptable form. Now what is acceptable is again a debatable issue. So let's not debate on that. As long as typing all the variations lead the user to the same article, it's ok I guess. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Most honourable proposal. Cheers.--BobClive 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)