Talk:Bagha Jatin

message: I've moved the old article (which was an incoherent mass of purple prose out of which it was difficult to make out anything) to Bagha Jatin/Old article; it migth be possible to get some useful information from it.  I'll try to expand the stub; any help would be appreciated. --Phronima 11:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: 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).
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  REJOINDER 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Please see [[Bagha Jatin/Temp3]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to Rfc?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A layman's comment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  useful examples 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Phronima 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: More comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Change of Facts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Large-scale edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Most honourable proposal. Cheers.--BobClive 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: clarification

message: I do not think that opinions of blogger Ross Hedvicek are "a vital question for history of India", as BobClive wrote to my talk page after I removed a sentence from the article. Ross Hedvicek is as far from being an expert on history of India as I am, and the cited source is really strange (Who is the publisher?? Why do you consider it reliable??). I do not know, whether Gandhi would become an important figure in the Indian movement if this episode did not happen (I believe he would, but as I wrote, I am not an expert), but if you want to have this opinion in the article, it has to be cited from a better source. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jatin x Gandhi 

message: In this section in bold, were the 'several outrages were committed on 2 June and 29 November' assassination attempts of the Lt. Gov. of Bengal or was there only 1 attempted assassination on 7 November 1908?  If there was only the 1 attempt, what were the outrages of 2 June and 29 November?  What happened on '27 February, 23 April, 16 August, 24 September and 28 October?  The Prosecutor and Deputy Superintendent of Police should have been determined to arrest and try offenders, that would have been their jobs, but "both these officers had been determined to get all the accused condemned." seems very biased. Also, was Biren Datta-Gupta actually 'outwitted' or did he give Jatin's name through other methods, i.e, through the "3rd Degree" or voluntarily?
The Jatin Mukherjee Spirit
Repressive measures in series were introduced to quench the rising sedition since the agitations against the Partition of Bengal in 1905. Protesting against these repressions and organising the defence of the militants under trial in the Alipore Case, Jatin issued a series of dazzling actions of daring and desperate self-sacrifice in Calcutta and in the districts "to revive the confidence of the people in the movement. These brought him into the limelight of revolutionary leadership although hardly anybody outside the innermost circle ever suspected his connection with those acts. Secrecy was absolute in those days – particularly with Jatin."[23] Almost contemporaneous with the anarchist gang of Bonnot well known in France, Jatin invented and introduced in India bank robbery on automobile taxi-cabs, « a new feature in revolutionary crime. » [24] Several outrages were committed : for instance, in 1908, on 2 June and 29 November; an attempt to assassinate the Lt Governor of Bengal on 7 November 1908; in 1909, on 27 February, 23 April, 16 August, 24 September and 28 October; two assassinations – of the Prosecutor Ashutosh Biswas (on 10 February 1909) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samsul Alam (on 24 January 1910): both these officers had been determined to get all the accused condemned. Arrested, outwitted by the Police, Biren Datta-Gupta, the latter’s assassin, disclosed Jatin’s name as his leader.  Jtyroler (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: The article makes a very serious allegation that Nehru was asked to spy on activities of Bagha Jatin and his party as an informer by the British, and he did give vital clue leading to the final end of this great revolutionary. However no direct evidence is given to corroborate this and neither it is clear if Jawharlal Nehru is the person that is being referred to in this article. This information is in the part where the Balasore fighting is described. Is this information correct? If yes then what is the source? No reference is given. 103.77.46.208 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement of Nehru in catching of Bagha Jatin