User talk:Jyotinda

I would request you to please explain why you keep deleting tutelage details from the page on Arnab Chakrabarty. Please keep in mind that persistent deletion of incontrovertible facts of this nature is taken very seriously by Wikipedia editors. Abhikmajumdar (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must again request you not to delete facts from the page on Arnab Chakrabarty. Is there anything on the page you disagree with, or feel is factually incorrect? If so, do please let me know by adding a note to my talk page. Cheers :) AbhikMajumdar (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a good hard look at the contentions you had stated in my talk page. On the one hand, Pt Dasgupta's site does not purport to be exhaustive of his disciples. Several individuals, including Matt Rosen for instance, are not mentioned. At the same time, your point cannot be dismissed out of hand. So I have effected a compromise. While mentioning his tutelage under Pt Dasgupta, I have also stated that there exists some dispute about this, as the latter's site does not mention his name. I hope this arrangement will be satisfactory to you. If not, please inform me what your further objections are before you revert my changes; I shall effect a due compromise that balances your viewpoint with the demands of historical accuracy. Cheers :) AbhikMajumdar (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me more about the sources of your investigation, and provide reliable third-party citations? From what I heard, Chakravarty and Pt Dasgupta had a falling-out, due to which the former is not mentioned in the website. In any case, given the controversial nature of the issue, I think it's best if both versions are mentioned. AbhikMajumdar (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: By reliable evidence, I mean something more than the non-mention of Chakrabarty's name in the website. This is what is called 'negative evidence' in law; it does not by itself affirm any facts. Moreover, the sources I have cited are of reputed newspapers such as the Hindu and the Telegraph. If, as per your version, Chakravarty had indeed nothing to do with Pt Dasgupta and yet made claims of discipleship in such widely circulated public forums, then at least there should be some public disclaimer made by Pt Dasgupta, at the very least a letter to the editor. The article will be enriched if you cite evidence of this nature.AbhikMajumdar (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]