Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 10

the pic on the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

when I paste the link in a facebook page on Al Jazzeer I get the shrine pic instead of the face of Ghandi[his picture] The idea that he is dead might satisfy some of the criminals and influence the fence sitters the wrong way. I'd rather have a pic of a man. But alas I'll defer to your judgement. Perhaps I have the wrong idea. Anyways thanks for protecting the page. kingofallclergy Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofallclergy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not very clear? Please elaborate on what you want and why. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

The move is dead, soon it will be cremated and the ashes scattered in the Ganga. The whole thing began badly. Well if some one says oh the name isn't right move it here, ohhh there no no no out there. It is bound to be confusion. And the long (I tried to read the sandbox too)explanation it may as well have been in Welsh. My bad? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant part of the sandbox begins with the header "Principal naming criteria". The rest was just a digested version of the table on this page. I don't know if that helps... :/ -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Closing admin:(1)I got your page at the end of a long day, my bad. (2)From what I remember I wish to ask you one question: Did Ivan love being called terrible? (Gandhi hated being called Mahatma?)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that played a role in my decision. I thought I was clear that, whether or not we consider the argument from respect, we come to the same conclusion. That was an extra-policy argument, which I included in the analysis because otherwise I would be accused of ignoring it. Gandhi's feelings about the title "Mahatma" made no difference in this decision. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You mentioned the like thing, now you are clarifying that it played no role. On consensus I am happy with your decision, as I'm sure you see things better than I do, moreover, Scolaire has made the statements, it is for him react to your answer further.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Scolaire: Remarkable argument below. Great work. Keep it up. Wonder how closing admin will react to that?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'll just note what consensus means, and point out that Fowler wasn't the only opposition. Nothing complicated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no beef with the result. GTBacchus put a lot of work into closing the RM, and all credit to him for that. But there is one sentence (actually two sentences) in the summary that bothers me a lot: "I look over this discussion, which is very long. This is not what consensus looks like." The discussion is very long because a single participant took it upon himself to argue every single point with every other participant. There were seven opposes out of 33 votes, and six of those seven took no further part in the discussion. By 15 July Fowler&fowler had posted 30 times when there were fewer than 30 votes and no formal discussion! He admitted editing tendentiously, and agreed that it was "off-putting"; he did it, he said, "to wheedle out the perfunctory vote." Those who supported the move were "novices who didn't understand distinctions", "careless when surfing the web", guilty of "lame humor, and neglecting to read guidelines", etc. He even handed out polite but firm warnings! He didn't even consistently argue the same thing: he was opposed to any change from the long name, then he decided the "Karamchand" could easily be dropped, then he was arguing for plain old Gandhi. A move was wrong for purely encyclopaedic reasons, then for cultural and historical reasons, then for political reasons. To me, this is very close to disruptive behaviour. And to me, it is rewarding such behaviour to say it shows a lack of consensus. In that case, there will never be a consensus for anything if one single dissident makes enough noise. That is not a good precedent to be setting on Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If your beef, Scolaire, with me, no use posting here. Take it to ANI, but be warned that I likely know more about this topic than most people, so you are not about to win a content argument with me there. As for tendentious editing, I never admitted to that at all; all I said was that I had to repeatedly pose questions to draw out the perfunctory support votes. That is par for the course in most votes, though usually it is the "oppose" votes that are countered so. Of course, my point of view changed as a result of the give and take, as did those of others who truly engaged me, as user:Smitty1337, the very first one to vote, and user:Kotniski, for example, did. I went from being a supporter of MKG, to being a supporter of plain "Gandhi," to discovering half way through that "Mohandas Gandhi" was also one of the popular appellations for the man, and finally changing my vote to a set of preferences in which "Mahatma Gandhi" was the last. You have misunderstood what I was saying in a number of places. For example, I never said that those who oppose me are novices, but rather that all of us, whether supporters or opposers, make many of our arguments from the point of view of a novice. We already know the man's name are unlikely to be hampered in any Wikipedia endeavor involving Gandhi; it is the novice, we worry about. Yes, I did say in reply to a user that they should be more careful when surfing the web, because they had suggested that MGK called himself "Mahatma Gandhi," when nothing could be further from the truth. That is not saying that I thought the user was careless. Those two are not the same things; I was implying that the user should have looked at books published in Gandhi's lifetime when he had control over what the book's title page looked like rather than later editions of his books published by admirers who had changed the authors name from "M. K. Gandhi" to "Mahatma Gandhi." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

<Comments here retracted by Fowler&fowler>

If you're going to talk about other editors, calling their actions "hypocritical" and such, then it would be best to do it somewhere else. This page is not for talking about each other; it's for talking about improvements to the Gandhi article. Let's discuss content, not contributors, okay? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, retracted. Apologies to you and to Yogesh Khandke and Wikireader41. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Scolare, hi. If you think that the discussion over this request is what consensus looks like, then I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of that word. I'm sorry that you see fit to count !votes here; I didn't do that. I read and weighed the arguments, and I saw good, smart, reasonable arguments on both sides. That is not what consensus looks like. Fowler was not the only person opposing the move, and I'm sure all the others who opposed it wouldn't like being reduced to zero importance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're being fair. I said that "the discussion, which is very long", was only a single contributor - F&f - arguing the toss. Far from "reducing the others to zero importance", I was stressing that they were sensible enough to !vote and then walk away. If F&f could have done that, there would have been no "long discussion". It seems twisted to me to say that that scenario is "not what consensus looks like". If you see it differently, that's fair enough, but please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that there weren't good arguments on both sides, and I didn't say that a !vote-count should have determined it. In fact, I think you'll see that I said I had no problem with your decision or your reasoning. Scolaire (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I was puzzled by what you said. On the one hand, you had no problem with my action, but at the same time, you had a problem with my saying "this is not what consensus looks like". Even without Fowler's replies to all supporters of the move, the discussion remains: Not what consensus looks like. Consensus does not look like a bunch of people disagreeing with each other, Fowler or no Fowler. Does that make sense?

It didn't fail to be consensus because it was long; it failed ot be consensus because there was no consensus. I can see that my words could be taken to imply the former.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth; that was not my intention. I don't always understand everything right the first time, and I don't always express myself in the most ideal way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Scolaire (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What I can make of this is that one should be tendentious during moves otherwise reasons on one side will look very prominent. Also be very alert when pages are suddenly moved from Ganga to Ganges or Mahatma Gandhi to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in the first place, otherwise it will be damn haggling with tendentious editors good at pointing out 'no consensus' after quick moves. As far as this move goes, the ones for 'Mahatma Gandhi' title should have been quicker to alert the admin about pages like Ivan the Terrible, and may be there are more such pages to put some some weight otherwise comparison could be made against such a move, for Mahatma who is otherwise peerless. I guess 'Mahatma Gandhi' title also did not do well in consistency department for there are still more people calling him 'Gandhi' or 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi' like how it was 65 years ago(unlike Teresa, Pope, Paul, etc. which might be called uncivilized in America). Guess a lot of water does have flowed under the bridge since 1920. Also better to focus on topic on discussion than just laugh out utterly baseless ignorant accusations, by those who are known to edit a lot on Indian History pages, against entire nations, religions, editors, and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that knowing about pages such as "Ivan the Terrible" would have made some difference? Do you think I didn't know about Ivan the Terrible? What point are you getting at here, seriously? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am just suggesting that those who are for title 'Mahatma Gandhi' should have been better & quicker at presenting points from their side(If not Evan the Terrible than someone else, like Alexander the Great or better if not this too). Presented arguments do affect outcome if substantiated well. If Mahatma Gandhi is peerless and the page is unique, it does become puzzling that comparisons to standards/other-pedias/examples and consistency( elsewhere, of recognizing/ignoring the uniqueness) could subjectively tilt balance either way according to me. Anyways, the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of controversial move request? clarifies that too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussing how the previous move went, nor strategies for how to complete move requests. Please limit discussion here to improvements to the article. Thank you. Cliff (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about the move. It is a general topic to discuss that people can learn a lot from the move, especially this page since it is about move of this page. Looks more relevant to me than anywhere else. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested review

I've begun a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of controversial move request?. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

bramacharya

Milindnam (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)india is advanced & developing country gandhi ji the milestone of our culture. gandhi ji is forefather of country we not give permition to any body to express his lower or sexual tought on an open & social network.in this section some ugly thougts of a business writer it is also looking dirty because not given in any indian language.wiki should remove quickly these elements.

We don't permission Wiki is not censored. And of course its not in any indian language, this is the English wiki. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Formatting Error?

In the first line of the article, why unnecessary <ref> tag, which is actually hiding some information? Is it a formatting error? I am confused! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Answer is at Note2, which is "Gujarati: મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી; (Devnagari मोहनदास करमचंद गांधी), pronounced [moːɦənəd̪aːsə kərəmətɕənd̪ə ɡaːnd̪ʱi] ^ⓘ". — Bill william compton^Talk 15:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, but should not it be in the main article body? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IMO and as per WPINDIA convention of writing name in native language of the subject. But I won't do any commentation here, because it's a contentious article and there is a probability that it's an outcome of some consensus. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

“ because it's a contentious article and there is a probability that it's an outcome of some consensus. ”

Yes, that's why I did not made any change in the article and preferred to ask it here first. All the other references in "Notes" section are like ABC book, page XY, DBC Book, page mn etc. But notes number 2 is information, not reference. I think, not all article visitors will check this section. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. It was done in this edit without explanation. --regentspark (comment) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay!Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Racism?

This section claimed to be disputed and to check the talk page for the discussion. But there seems to be nothing here about it, despite the citation being from September 2011. Should we remove the citation, or change it to a more specific sort? Im not sure what the protocol is in this situation. If its in the archives, that should definetly be made clear. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited and maintained by thousands of editors like you and me. See WP:Wikipedians. Few people have felt that the neutrality of this section of the article is disputed. See WP:NPOV. Talk page is the place where you can suggest changes, make entry about your edits. So, there will not be any discussion in talk page uinless a Wikipedian (like you or me or someone else) starts it.

You can edit the portion if you want. You can sign up for a Wikipedia account i.e. Wikipedia:Register (though according to Wikipedia it is optional, but, I think it helps. You may also need Wikipedia:Getting_started. You can suggest changes here in talk page too, if you are unsure how to do it. If you have any question or comment, post below. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute here? Im not clear and the reasons for it are not explained in the talk page. I think the citation should be removed, unless somehow can explain how what the controversy is.... for it to be a dispute, there has to be someone opposing it Ottawakismet (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It seems well cited to reliable sources and fairly neutrally written. If anyone wants to add it back, they should (please) explain why on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nehruwithgandhi1942.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lelyveld biography

Could someone with edit rights fix this? The section on the Lelyveld biography, at the end, includes in quotation mmarks a series of pejorative phrases, such as "sexual weirdo." But looking at the reference, those words are used by a reviewer in the Wall Street Journal, not by the Lelyveld book itself. Perhaps the phrase, "in the words of a reviewer," could clarify.04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Last dividend (talk • contribs)

Rewritten. Thanks for spotting this. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Asiatic Registration Act

It appears that this act was actually the Asiatic Registration Act (1906) as specified in History of South Africa. The article Mahatma gandhi also states that the act was brought in 1906 - although the rest of the sentence seems to be copied from here (or vice versa). The bigger issue is that the following statement is that Gandhi adopted the Satyagrah methodology in the same year. So is it 1906 or 1908? Perhaps the disagreement is because the Act may originally have been introduced in 1906 but promulgated only in 1908. This requires clarity.

Edit: Ouch. I meant this to be in Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in South Africa where the act is mentioned explicitly and is stated to have been promulgated in 1908, not 1906.

Edit: Found this timeline resource from the Gandhi Research Foundation. It says that in 1906, the Transvaal Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance was promulgated and it was against this that the protest in Johannesburg took place. The Asiatic Registration Act itself was passed in 1907, sometime in March.

122.162.27.211 (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brahmacharya, sexuality and related accusations

What is the dispute here? Please stop undoing others changes (without any regard for the credibility of their edits), just stating that it is disputed, when nobody is disputing it with any credible arguments!

I've given reputed evidences including "The Independent" and to be honest, I've really toned down the title and have not mentioned anything derogatory or explicit as given in these references! One of those referenecs goes as far as calling Gandhi a sex maniac, I'm trying to be neutral and have just mentioned here that "there are allegations against Gandhi;s sexuality". whats the dispute? --Praveen chandar (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The present title suffices and includes the accusations in scope. Three different editors have reversed you on this till now - AnsumanG, MaterialScientist & self. Shows that the consensus is against the renaming. However, instead of being combative, make out a case here, let people comment. If its accepted widely then the change can be instituted. This reversion does not help considering we are trying to bring it GA status as a community collaboration. AshLin (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the defensive argument posted above. While I agree that the consensus was against renaming the title, my vexation was out of the fact that nobody )including AshLin had put forward any reason as to why they did the revert (until Ashlin's response above in this talk page - that the present title's scope covers it as well). Anyways, I still believe adding "accusations" to the tile more reflects the content, but if the consensus is against it, I can live with it :)

--Praveen chandar (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No issues. All in good faith. Perhaps you can follow some of our logic for development of this article on the threads prefixed "Master Class GA - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" etc on wikimedia-in-en archives. This article needs careful development to tackle principally those issues which will lead to/hamper GA. Do consider signing on to Wikimedia-in-en. We need all the help we can get. AshLin (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Civil disobedience movement (1930-31)

The Dandi march (salt satyagraha) marked the start of the Civil disobedience movement. The article misses details about this movement. Moreover, the section Salt Satyagraha (Salt March) should summarise the main article on Salt Satyagraha. Instead, the section has more information that the main article, such as the campaigning of B. R. Ambedkar, or Gandhi's fast or attempts on his life. These could be spun-off into another section. What do you think? Tinpisa (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Will examine while rewriting. Currently involved in ref cleanup. AshLin (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Images of indian rupee

Would it be appropriate to add File:500 INR Rev LR.png depicting the Salt satyagraha on a 500 rupee note? Also would it be OK to have File:Indian rupees.png showing Gandhi on all bank notes? Tinpisa (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, non-free rationale prevents wide-spread use of the images especially since only completely free images are permitted in GA?FA. AshLin (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Mahatma Gandhi Series (banknotes) and the image File:Lord Pethic-Lawrence and Gandhi.jpg could be used. --Tinpisa (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is Collboration of the Month for WikiProject India

There has been an omission on my part. I forgot to mention here that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is the GA Collaboration of the Month of January 2012 for WikiProject India. That means, all the actions for this collaboration are meant to help develop the article as a Good Article.

The main comments for this article are at GA review page, while previous comments on becoming and being dropped from being a Featured Article can be seen in the talk page header.

The improvement efforts include a Master Class on GA process on Wikimedia-in-en which can be seen on the archives.

At present, the reference cleanup is underway.

Since the principle defect of this article is that it is too long, well-meaning editors interested in developing sections/subsections are advised to develop the articles on which sections are derived from instead as most sections will get thinned in a copyedit post-improvement of references.

AshLin (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This article wins the award for most biased article.

• "Gandhi inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world."
• What about the caste system?
• What about the Dalits of India?
• What about the Zulus?
• What about the Boers?
• What about the Kaffirs?

Claiming he favored civil rights and freedom across the world is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention sleeping with a 15 year old female relative because he wanted to challenge "his temptations" while his opinions of the Holocaust are buried 23 paragraphs into his section on Nonviolence amongst an assortment of quotes. I also like how that one paragraph doesn't bother to quote what comments Gandhi made, but will spend those 3 lines discussing one person's criticism of those comments. I used to hold this article as a standard of showing how even the most positive historical figures have a dark side that should be noted in history, but yet this article has become another whitewash case like every article on a present or past historical figures on Wikipedia.Waxsin (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Referencing format

Uniform referencing is essential for articles undergoing GA/FA. I request all editors to please use cite templates and also to place surname, firstname, sequence in naming.

AshLin (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 7 plagiarized

Much of section 7 on Principles was copied verbatim from the introduction to an edition of the Autobiography for examples. So I condensed it, rewrote it, and added new material and better RS. More needs to be done here. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Blockquoate fix

In the "Partition of India" section need to fix the blockquote citing. 46.35.206.137 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Images

One too many and haphazard. Iv removed/rearranged a few but it still needs work to comply with MoS. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Under non cooperation the caption says 'spinning an yarn' 91.135.10.170 (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done AshLin (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Gandhi and Singh, contreversies about gandhi

This article is a piece of propaganda.

There are countless historical reports about arsh oppositions within indian movement. In the end, gandhi came out as a mediatic consensual figure in the west but people like singh,who came to advocate direct action and was hanged, seem to be as important to Indians.

There are also many accounts that Gandhi repeatedly disapproved social movements when they gained true momentum because they were not non violent, that he worked intensively with the british authorities and was used by them, was for obedience to the law and passivism even in the most dramatic sitiuations (criticizing soldiers refusing to shoot at rioters), was racist against black and not very friendly to muslim and a dangerous ideologist that consistently claimed that jewish could resist pacifically german genocide.

Gandhi is repeatedly used as an iconic figure in todays politic to advocate a consensual universal critic of violence in all forms (against material artefacts as well as people). This is the pacifist myth, claiming that everything can be solved via symbolic actions.

The role of an encyclopedia is not to narrate the myth but to detail all of the main historical facts and contreversies. If Gandhis method was so efficient, it would not have taken so many years and a world war to weaken the british grip. This does not appear in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kervennic (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

the Indians tried violence in 1857. The issue in the 20th century was not "efficiency" (sounds like a British concept) but morality. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Referencing Gandhi (moved here from User Talk:Rjensen)

Thanks for your many edits to the text. While you are dealing with that important aspect, I am slowly going around the references cleaning up them for GA & later FA. A few issues regarding references:

• Vide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Books, urls are given only when a preview is available. Google books which are in snippet or no preview are not provided as urls. So I'll be reverting a few changes you made.
• In most cases Google automatically retargets its domains based on ip so the change of ip domain from .co.in to .com is, as far I know, not important.
• Vide Cite_book#Description_of_parameters the field "accessdate" needs to be given accurately with day & month also. Accessdates are dates when the url was accessed and are not "expired dates".

If you have any points, I'd be happy to discuss & happier to take action on them. Without meaning any disrespect to your good faith edits, its easier for me to address your points than correct issues. AshLin (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your premises but I think they don't all apply here. The dates I erased were not accessdates but old day-of-first publication and not useful. The Google links I put in are to previews and not to snippets. I first double checked on that. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just use this - Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{cite book}} formatMoxy (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! that certainly helps. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ignore the snippets/preview issue and simply link if the book is available at GBooks. This is because Google does not display the same content throughout the world. For example, people in the US can often see full views or previews that are only visible as snippets in the UK ... and as nothing in China. Therefore, that particular rule is almost impossible to apply consistently. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert, thanks for your reply.

• I use the reftags application for my Google Books references too. However, since you are new to reftags, I would like to mention that this application automatically loads today's date in the accessdate field (this gives a clear idea of when the link was active and how dated the reference is).
• I will check out your particular date changes again for their being expiry dates. But I have never come across this term or detail before.
• Thanks to Sitush for new information, I was not aware that Google changes preview conditions for each country. In that case, you may like to please check again and re-add the links to the reference. Or if you indicate that all the previews you added (which I reverted) are live in the USA, I can re-add those. The ones you added are dead in India, i.e. no preview is provided here, hence I reverted them.
• Sitush, Wikipedia MOS specifically states that links not providing preview or full view should not be added. I have no opinion but would be constrained to consider MOS for GA. I shall ask for a clarification on the talk page of WP:FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline, not a policy. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. However, the Indian Community has agreed that Gandhi has to be improved to GA and hopefully to FA. I'm being cautious in sticking to MOS to the best of my ability for this reason. AshLin (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ask at the GA or FA talk pages but I have never bothered with that particular guideline and do have a few stars at the top of my user page. Obviously, you do not use snippet views to make or support a statement, but if someone else can see the full view etc then they can do the necessary. BTW, I rather think that the tool you mention above is going to land you in trouble if you are aiming for FA - see the citation style note at WP:Featured article criteria. Sorry for taking over your talk page, Rj!- Sitush (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Moved to this page after above posts)

This article provides some info re: GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to use Harv templates (and this article currently contains a real mixture of citation styles, which will need to be fixed) then I would suggest that someone uses the script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. There are errors being thrown, per that script. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sitush, thanks for your advice. That was helpful. I am aware that FA does not require full citation templates but I feel that they bring in a uniformity that I cannot get with the existing format, so I have taken the trouble to add them. I am now planning to remove the few bits and pieces of Harvard referencing out and convert complete to meta:cite format.

As regards the books, after the cleaning of individual refs, I plan to move all the books & journal articles to the References using shortened footnotes and leave only the web sites in the Notes. I have seen people do this in some articles. Any advice? AshLin (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone is asking for my advice rather than attacking me? I am glad that I am sat down! <g> Nowadays, I put websites in the References section also if the article is heading for GA/FA and sfn etc is being used. I have no idea if this is required or not: my rationale is that of consistency. Obviously, you will find it easier to stick an "in use" template on the article while you make a shedload of tweaks such as these. As far as general comments go, I find that it is really, really important not to rely on the GBooks info for publication date and publisher: that metadata is often screwed up. Furthermore, if the source is an old one then see if it is available at www.archive.org or in full view at www.hathitrust.org, since both of those websites seem to render a more consistent view around the world than GBooks does. The former of those also allows people to select their preferred viewing format, so I link to the book but not to the specific page - let the reader choose. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont know why you should get that impression :). Any one who spends time on WikiProject India (including trolls) is a valuable resource, and you are doing a great job in caste-related articles. I do agree with a lot of what you are saying about caste. Though my personal view is to bother a little less as I feel there other things to do. Thanks for the tips, keep em coming. AshLin (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do other things also - they keep me sane. BTW, I have sometimes used a proxy in order to view stuff on the US Gbooks that otherwise I can only see in snippets etc. Alas, my favourite one has recently disappeared and I am desperate to find another that allows the PDFs to pass through for download. Such things are handy for original sourcing as well as ref checking. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Gyan Publishing

We do not usually use books published by Gyan, ISHA or Kalpaz because of issues relating primarily to their persistent copyright violations and their mirroring of Wikipedia. Can a replacement source be found for M G Agrawal. Freedom Fighters of India (in Four Volumes). Gyan Publishing House. p. 162. ISBN 978-81-8205-468-4. Retrieved 17 January 2012. ? - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

good point. I replaced it with a scholarly book. Rjensen (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

Grammar correction. Change "who employed Gandhi as a lawyers" to "who employed Gandhi as a lawyer".

97.117.34.249 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done By User:RegentsPark. Dru of Id (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, various images say Gandhi, M.K. Gandhi, and Mahatma PeterBennettfriedpies (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mother's Maiden Name

Gandhi's Mother's Maiden Name It is not revealed and hardto find in the net... Anyonw knows?Undead Herle King (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Puthlibai (1841-1891) descendent of Prannath, 17th Century founder of Satpranami sect. (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=XULM7GR6GKoC&pg=PA298&dq=Gandhi+Putlibai&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qbA_T8H3EcesrAfEufGtBw&ved=0CEEQuwUwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Gandhi%20Putlibai&f=true). AshLin (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

He was the great leader of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.8.209 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC) he was the great leader of India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.8.209 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Women in North and Central India often didn't use surnames and consequently didn't have maiden names, and often don't even today. They were called X Kumari before marriage and X Devi after. If you want to know that surname of Gandhi's maternal grandfather, that is a different story .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-Assassination

In the section on assassination, the last paragraph refers to Yasmin Khan's book and states, "Khan argues that Gandhi's death and funeral helped consolidate the authority of the new Indian state. With Nehru in charge, the government made sure everyone knew the guilty party was not a Muslim. Congress tightly controlled the epic public displays of grief over a two-week period—the funeral, mortuary rituals and distribution of the martyr's ashes—as millions participated and hundreds of millions watched. The goal was to assert the power of the government and legitimize the Congress Party's control. This move built upon the massive outpouring of Hindu expressions of grief. The government suppressed the RSS, the Muslim National Guards, and the Khaksars, with some 200,000 arrests. Gandhi's death and funeral linked the distant state with the Indian people and made more understand the need to suppress religious parties during the transition to independence for the Indian people." I'd like to suggest a deletion of this paragraph - or at least a comprehensive editing out of what I read as biased comments by a particular person. Hisham (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"biased comments by a particular person" --well no. First of all it's a scholarly article in a leading journal published by Cambridge U.P. It's based on Dr Khan's book published by Yale University Press. She is a professor at the Uni. of London and her analysis has been endorsed in print by Judith Brown among others--the book won both the Orwell Award for political writing and the Gladstone Prize from the Royal Historical Society. Kahn's scholarship certainly qualifies as a reliable source (RS). (see her profile at U London website If Hisham has an equally good RS that provide a different interpretation, then by all means he should say so and add it--Wiki's POV rules say that an editor should ADD it not erase new information that does not fit with his personal point of view. What Hisham has not told us is why he thinks the analysis is mistaken???? Does he reject the idea that the government used Gandhi's martyrdom to strengthen its position? Does he think the Nehru government did not try to suppress the religious parties because of the assassination? please explain the problem Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(I'm traveling and without my books.) I've read Yasmin Khan's Partition book. Although I don't think it is a particularly ground-breaking work, nor always accurate, the assertion we are discussing here does ring true. In addition, Nehru may have also strengthened his own position within the Congress, especially relative to Patel, who was the Congress leader most sympathetic to the Hindu nationalists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Hard to believe though that Yasmin Khan has said anything here that has not been said before. I'm sure other, older historians can be cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to make disjointed posts, but I just read that paragraph (quoting Khan above). The Congress never had the kind of control over the funeral as the paragraph seems to be stating. The ban on the RSS lasted some 18 months. Neither was there the kind of unity in the Congress after the assassination as the paragraph seems to be implying. Here is a page from Shankar Ghose's biography of Nehru, which gives a flavor of the many splendored confusion that the Congress itself was in. I'm leaning towards giving a great deal less weight to Khan in that paragraph. In other words, her contribution is one very small, and in my view unremarkable, addition to a vast body of knowledge, many of whose earlier contributors will also need to be acknowledged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I read Khan's cited article from 2011. She includes new material, based on the archives and publications, as well as a serious discussion of how funerals and death of major figures were handled in Indian history--that material is not in her book and not in the few paragraphs in the Ghose biography. Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like an interesting article, but, in my view, it is too recent for inclusion (with such weight) in a major Wikipedia biography. One sentence should be enough. The sentence, moreover, should state clearly: Yasmin Khan in a 2011 journal article suggests .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Errors

I skimmed through the first section and noticed some errors. a) Porbandar was not a part of the Bombay Presidency (It was the capital of a small princely state (of the same name) within the Kathiawar Agency, which did come under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Bombay (its suzerain) b) The Kirti Mandir (according to its own page) is not the ancestral home, but a memorial built adjacent to the ancestral home. c) "In the process, he lost a year" makes it sound inevitable, when in fact it is a paraphrase of Gandhi's own recollection in his autobiography: "I have already said that I was learning at the high school when I was married. We three brothers were learning at the same school. The eldest brother was in a much higher class, and the brother who was married at the same time as I was, only one class ahead of me. Marriage resulted in both of us wasting a year. Indeed the result was oven worse for my brother, for he gave up studies altogether. Heaven knows how many youths are in the same plight as he. Only in our present Hindu society do studies and marriage go thus hand in hand." Better to quote Gandhi. (Also, I don't know if an autobiography originally written in 1927 and later translated into English is reliable source.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

When was he first called Bapu or Mahatma.

The assertion that "the people began to call Gandhi as "Bapu" and "Mahatma" in the Kheda (Kaira) agitation" is unproven and disputed. A reference which shows the usage predating 1918 considerably is given below:

• Sheean, Vincent (June 2005). Lead, Kindly Light: Gandhi and the Way to Peace. Kessinger Publishing. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-4179-9383-3. Retrieved 25 February 2012.

AshLin (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems to suggest that the common attribution (of the term "Mahatma") to Tagore (1915) too is incorrect. I've always had my doubts about that. It should be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is majority view seem to suggest that the common attribution of the term "Mahatma" is given by Tagore?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lead

Some stuff off the top of my head:

• Hindi: मोहनदास करमचंद गांधी,
  • Why is the Hindi script there? Gandhi died before Hindi had any official status (with the framing of India's Constitution in 1950).
• pronounced: [moːˈɦənd̪aːs kəˈrəmtʃənd̪ ˈɡaːnd̪ʱi] ^ⓘ;
  • The IPA pronunciation is wrong. The stresses in his first and middle names are on the first syllables. They should be: ˈmoːɦənd̪aːs ˈkərəmtʃənd
  • The pronunciation in the sound file is even more incorrect.
• was the political and ideological leader of India during the Indian independence movement.
  • what does "leader of India (linked to British Raj) mean"? It could mean a leader of the British Raj.
  • what is the difference between political and ideological? (It used to be "political and spiritual" which too is fraught with problems.)
  • the Indian Independence movement (according to its own page) lasted from 1857 to 1947. Most historians would assign the more likely dates of 1885 to 1947 for Indian nationalism. Gandhi became the preeminent leader only after 1921.
  • the term "Indian independence movement" itself is problematical, even though Wikipedia has that page. Independence didn't become an explicit goal until 1929. "Indian nationalist movement" or "Indian nationalism" is more accurate. (I'm sure, Britannica, for example, has that).
• "Pioneering the use of non-violent resistance to tyrannical colonial rule through mass civil disobedience, saying, "I shall resist organized tyranny to the uttermost."
  • What is tyrannical colonial rule? As opposed to benevolent, paternalistic, benign, ... colonial rule?
  • The letter is written to Claude Hill, then a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council, with request to forward it to the Viceroy. As such, it is a primary source, unworthy, in my view, of mention in a lead. Where in the secondary literature is that quote given top billing? If it is, then a predominance of secondary source views should be provided.
• "he developed a model to fight for civil rights and freedom that he called satyagraha. He founded his doctrine of nonviolent protest to achieve political and social progress based upon ahimsa, or total nonviolence for which he is internationally renowned.
  • Again, the same problem, the collected works of Gandhi are primary sources. There is too much repetition here. A lead needs to be succinct. More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Gandhi led India to its independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.
  • There is some repetition here too. Its the second time the "Indian independence movement" wikilink has been provided.
• Gandhi is often referred to as Mahatma (or "Great Soul," an honorific first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore).
  • The Tagore attribution is incorrect. He was being called "Mahatma" before he left South Africa for India. Tagore was merely mouthing what others had been saying for a year or two. See, for example, Gandhi, Rajmohan (2006), Gandhi: the man, his people, and the empire, University of California Press, p. 172, ISBN 978-0-520-25570-8, retrieved 23 March 2012 Quote: "In different South African towns (Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, and the Natal cities of Durban and Verulam), the struggle's martyrs were honoured and the Gandhis bade farewell. Addresses in Durban and Verulam referred to Gandhi as a 'Mahatma', 'great soul'. He was seen as a great soul because he had taken up the poor's cause. The whites too said good things about Gandhi, who predicted a future for the Empire if it respected justice. (p 172)"
  • Even in India, after Gandhi's arrival there (1915), Tagore was by no means the first. Quote (ibid, p 180): "A lot of travelling (and observing), much of it by train in third-class carriages, marked the months that followed. Gandhi went to Poona to talk with Gokhale (who assured funds for any base that Gandhi might set up); to Kathiawar to meet friends and relatives, including the widow of Laxmidas, and Kathiawaris who wished to honour him (some addressed him as 'Mahatma' Gandhi); to Bolpur near Calcutta to join his sons and the rest of the Phoenix party in Santiniketan (where Tagore too used the 'Mahatma' prefix); to Rangoon to meet Pranjivan Mehra, who had set up a jewellery business there; to Kangri in the ..."

• After earning a degree in law in 1891 from the University College London, Gandhi settled in South Africa to practice law, following some unsuccessful attempts to establish practice in India.
  • Don't know who put in the "University College London" bit, but it is garbage; if a source can be found, then that is garbage too. Throw it out. Gandhi enrolled at the Inner Temple. I've read a few books on Gandhi in my time and I've never heard of his time at the UCL. Quote (ibid, p. 29): "The Inner Temple, where Gandhi had enrolled, was one of four Inns of Court ..."
  • The above sentence is all wonky (chronologically, that is). It should be "After earning a law degree at the Inner Temple, and following a few futile attempts at establishing practice in India, Gandhi ..."
  • Gandhi didn't exactly "settle" in South Africa. He moved there for what he thought was a short time to provide legal help to an Indian businessman.

• Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948, by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist who felt Gandhi was sympathetic to Muslims. January 30 is hence observed as Martyrs' Day in India.
  • "who felt" is rather mild for someone who successfully planned a shooting in a crowded prayer meeting. Perhaps, "a Hindu nationalist incensed/chagrined/angry/... at what he perceived was Gandhi's sympathy for India's Muslims."
  • "Hindu nationalist" should be linked to Hindu nationalism
  • "hence?" There is nothing inevitable about the name "martyr" being applied. Better to remove "hence." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

I have restored portions of this article from 2007 edits on the topic of the partition of Palestine and put it all in one section. We can move the entire section to a different part of the article but it needs for remain in the article since references to this tend to appear in the article but in order to maintain NPOV on the topic, there needs to be a developed section - his arguments ran parallel to the ongoing debates over the partition of India. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am technically on break but try to check in once a day.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a statesman, Gandhi gave views on several world issues. Do we really need to dedicate such a large section to his views on one world topic? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair question. We do need to address the issue because inevitably quotes on the topic are inserted into the article without context. It was a significant issue at the time. I understand the article is undergoing review (I have reviewed this article in the past as well) and thus your concern. We could create a larger section on world issues and include this topic on a reduced level. However, we need to address it in context in some form to prevent disruptive edits. I just added an article from "The Hindu" on the topic and will look for more refs. I'll also format the references at a later point. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, autocorrect changed my edit summary - "rmv. bad link" is incorrect.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added two references, including an article from the St. Petersburg Times that groups together the partition of India and the partition of Palestine "Gandhi Praises British Decision" - signing off for today.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19470506&id=ZTtPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1k4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2178,1923241

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gandhi as the 1938 quote shows told Jews to stay in Europe where they belong. Partition in Palestine was not an issue before 1945. For a serious issue you need more than a newspaper story, and there is too much OR based on primary sources. In any case this is too much attention--major biographers like Brown (p 321) and R Gandhi (p 543) give the Palestine issue only one sentence. Leonard A. Gordon, "Indian Nationalist Ideas about Palestine and Israel" Jewish Social Studies, (1975) Vol. 37 Issue 3/4, pp 221-234 shows Gandhi and all the Congress leaders had the same position -- Jews were intruders in the Arab homeland and Jewish actionin Palestine resembled British imperialism in India. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Rjensen. While it is useful for a biography in the Wikipedia to explore (in this case the numerous) biographies on a subject, the only guidelines for a Wikipedian to follow lie in WP:RS (which includes newspaper articles). As for the content, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is perhaps the most important guideline. When I re-read this article a few days ago (after being away for awhile) this is how the topic appeared in the "Nonviolence" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&oldid=485754511#Nonviolence Little context is created for what was essentially WP:OR. It is also evidence of a phenomenon that I have witnessed with this article dating back to about 2006 - which indicates that whether or not we insert discussion of the topic, other editors will (a tour through the archives only proves my point). The topic is fair game for the article. There is nothing in the guidelines, however, that determines its length - though as I stated above, what we have can certainly go through a rewrite and be condensed. It can also be merged into another section on a similar topic. Footnotes 127, 128, 129, 130, and 131 are all secondary sources which discuss a part of Gandhi's life that does find its way into some biographies (Lelyyeld's for example which is #127) - his desire to discuss Palestine through the lens of Satyagraha. He did not support any kind of activity that would promote violence which is why he offered a solution which entailed staying in Europe over going to Palestine to establish Israel (a topic which did appear in his writings prior to 1945). His position was heavily criticized and led to a famous argument on the topic with Buber (detailed in footnote #130) - all of which increases the notability and therefore inclusion of the topic. As I said here and above, I am not disagreeing with the need to shorten or summarize but Wikipedia guidelines allow the topic. I will work on a rewrite and perhaps we can work on a way to better integrate the topic into the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten and reduced the section and placed it for now as a subsection of Non-Violence though I'm open to suggestions for another place to put it in the article. I will check in tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

About the title Mahatma

Hello,

The lede says that

"Gandhi is commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit: mahāt̪mā or "Great Soul", an honourific first applied to him in South Africa in 1914[3]";

the source mentions that

"Gandhi, Rajmohan (2006), Gandhi: the man, his people, and the empire, University of California Press, p. 172, ISBN 978-0-520-25570-8, retrieved 23 March 2012 Quote: "In different South African towns (Pretoria, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Johannesburg, and the Natal cities of Durban and Verulam), the struggle's martyrs were honoured and the Gandhis bade farewell. Addresses in Durban and Verulam referred to Gandhi as a 'Mahatma', 'great soul'. He was seen as a great soul because he had taken up the poor's cause. The whites too said good things about Gandhi, who predicted a future for the Empire if it respected justice. (p 172)""

The source does not mention that he was given title Mahatma in South Africa.

However there are many sources that mention that the title Mahatma was given by Rabindranath Tagore.

Sources with quotes:

1. [| My Two Most Important Role Models That Influence me On Tolerance] from mkgandhi.org,

The great poet Rabindranath Tagore gave Gandhi the great title, "Mahatma", which means "Great Soul".

2. [| A Tribute to Gandhi Ji] from india.gov.in,

The word Mahatma is taken from the Sanskrit words maha (Great) and atma (Soul). Rabindranath Tagore is said to have accorded the title Mahatma to Gandhiji.

3. [| Rabindranath Tagore and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi] from www.mkgandhi.org,

Tagore first called Gandhi a Mahatma or a great soul. He said at “Gandhiji’s call India blossomed forth to new greatness, just as once before, in earlier times, when Buddha proclaimed the truth, of fellow feeling and compassion among all living creatures”. Gandhiji called him the Great Sentinel or Gurudev”.

4. [| Guiding Souls] by A P J Abdul Kalam, Arun K Tiwari, page 66,

Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore had bestowed the Mahatma title upon Gandhi

The lede talks about title Mahatma, instead the link points to what looks like information about where he was called 'great soul' first and by whom. The lede needs to be corrected for title information.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011

For this edits [| edits] by user:Fowler&fowler, is the lede for Mahatma as a title (for which I have already provided sources) or is it about what people in South Africa used refer as Great Soul or Mahatma. My understanding is that in lede one should mention about the title as Mahatma. The details may be apt in an article such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in South Africa.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 11:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This section is dubious slander and has no credible proof whatsoever:

Celibacy A core Gandhian value that came in for much bantering and ribald criticism in the west was his celebacy and his experiments in "brahmacharya" or the elimination of all desire. In 1906 Gandhi, although married and a father, vowed to abstain from sexual relations. In the 1940s, in his mid-seventies, he brought his grandniece Manubehn to sleep naked in his bed as part of a spiritual experiment in which Gandhi could test himself as a "brahmachari." Two other women also sometimes shared his bed. Gandhi discussed his experiment with friends and relations, and the experiment ceased in 1947.[104]

59.176.116.129 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph seems to be sourced and reasonably neutrally written. If you can suggest a specific rewrite, possibly with other sources, or if you can show that the source is dubious and/or biased, that would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

the statement is fully sourced and appears in the major biographies. See especially Gandhi (1990) pp 572-78 and Vinay Lal, "Nakedness, Nonviolence, and Brahmacharya: Gandhi's Experiments in Celibate Sexuality," Journal of the History of Sexuality, (Jan/Apr 2000), Vol. 9 Issue 1/2, pp 105–36. To call it "dubious slander and has no credible proof whatsoever" is totally false. for example the Gandhi (1990) biography says ( p 573) "Pyarel would later write extensively about G's brahmacharya in his biography, and Bose wrote franklyand critically of it." The book says "most of G's associates disagreed" (p 576) Tariq Ali An Indian dynasty (1985) p 36 says the "loincloth became the subjects for numerous music-hall jokes and political insults (Winston Churchill denounced him as a 'half- naked fakir'), but despite the ribaldry...." Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

'In the 1940s, in his mid-seventies, he brought his grandniece Manubehn to sleep naked in his bed as part of a spiritual experiment in which Gandhi could test himself as a "brahmachari." Two other women also sometimes shared his bed. Gandhi discussed his experiment with friends and relations, and the experiment ceased in 1947.[104] ' this is dubious because for a person considered to be one of the most important figures of the 20th centuries there is only 1 text written by vinay lal which has been written in the 1990s(gandhi died in 1947) that supports this claim. I agree that there were a lot of people critically about gandhi's brahmacharya and this statement is probably true: "loincloth became the subjects for numerous music-hall jokes and political insults (Winston Churchill denounced him as a 'half- naked fakir'), but despite the ribaldry...." but there is no proof for the claim i am disputing. I am sure you could come up with a theory about how the holocast was a jewish invention supported by more than a handfull of credible looking texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.176.116.129 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the 1940s, in his mid-seventies, he brought his grandniece Manubehn to sleep naked in his bed as part of a spiritual experiment in which Gandhi could test himself as a "brahmachari." Two other women also sometimes shared his bed. Gandhi discussed his experiment with friends and relations, and the experiment ceased in 1947.[104]

-- This statement is unsupported. The only source of this statement and any article making this claim is vinay lal's biography in 1990 which does not cite any proof for his claim. I could not find any reference by pyarel about gandhi's sex life. Bose was critical of gandhi's view on celibacy but never said any such thing. If this statement has to absolutely be there it should be preceded by 'Vinay lal in his biography claims that'.

In any case, this seems like a much more complicated edit case than can be addressed by a simple {{edit semi-protected}} template. Since others have already addressed and are discussing this, I'm changing the parameter in the template to help clear a backlog. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Early Life

The sentence "Growing up with a devout mother and the Jain traditions of the region" looks confusing when its mentioned in the same para that he was born in a Hindu family, should this be corrected? --sarvajna (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. The statement is sourced to the International Vegetarian Union. It may well be that Gandhi was influenced by Jain traditions, many Hindus are, but we'd need a better source than that. I think it's ok for you to remove the reference to Jain traditions. --regentspark (comment) 16:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

numerous historians make the point. 1) "Gandhi's mother, like many mothers, had enormous influence on Gandhi, particularly in his formative years in India and ... In those days, Kathiawar was an important place for the culture of Jainism in which his mother had complete faith." [Gandhian political economy: principles, practice and policy by B. N. Ghosh - 2007 p 34]; 2) "Growing up in that state with a pious mother, Gandhi was continuously exposed to the Jain philosophy. Although he was not Jain by birth, he was Jain in spirit because of his ideals and philosophy." [Faith & philosophy of Jainism by Arun Kumar Jain - 2009 - Page 287]; 3) "Gandhi got his early conception of non-violence from his Jain mother; for Mohan Das Karam Chand Gandhi was the last child of his father Karam Chand from his fourth marriage to a Jain woman." [Gandhian Alternative (vol. 2 : Nonviolance-In-Action Page 110 by Savita Singh And Bharati Misra - 2005]; 4) "In 1888, his mother's adviser, a member of Gandhi's own sub-caste who had become a Jain monk, helped him overcome her objections to his trip to England by having him take vows not to touch meat, wine, or women." [Denis Sinor]; 5) "Jainism's presence in Gandhi's childhood was a "significant determinant of his ultimate convictions as to the nature of truth" [Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance (2004) p 62 by Michael J. Nojeim]; 6) "Jain ideas and practice powerfully influenced Gandhi, too, particularly through his mother: ascetism in religious and secular life; the importance of vows for religious merit and worldly discipline; and syadvad, the doctrine that all..." [Gandhi, the traditional roots of charisma (1983) p. 17 by Susanne and Lloyd I. Rudolph]. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen you can very well revert my edit and add the sources provided by you, Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

willdo--thanks. Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me but the earlier version was better (succinct, appropriate for the lede). Perhaps we could just restore that version with the better reference? (And discuss the details of Jain influence in the body.)--regentspark (comment) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

agree with RegentsPark, the current version is overdone;Gandhi's mother being touch with Jain leaders is unnecessary --sarvajna (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, I moved the main Jain theme to section "7.1 Influences" and added a cite on his eclecticism. Rjensen (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "in contact with Jain leaders", how about "her monk adviser" plain?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As written now, the article appears to make the claim that his mother belonged to three faith communities simultaneously: Pranami (from what I can surmise, as the Pranami article is a mess, a small Muslim/ Hindu syncretic sect), Vaishnava Hindu, and Jain. The above sources from Rjensen are contradictory; some say she was Jain, others that she was merely influenced by Jainism. Which is it? Armandtanzarian (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful

The following statement is doubtful. "H"e is officially honoured in India as the Father of the Nation;[5]" As per newspaper article - There is no proof available with Government of India that he was officially declared as Father of Nation. However, there are several references to show that he was popularly known as father of nation. The article can be fetched from the following link: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Lucknow/Who-named-Mahatma-Gandhi-father-of-nation-Govt-foxed/Article1-834824.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyugoya (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention in the article as, "He is unofficially know as Father of the Nation" or something kinda? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Added a second reference from Assam Government website, where it is told: . In India he is also called Bapu and officially honored in India as the Father of the Nation. --Tito Dutta ^Message 11:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Assam govt. source is just a mirror content of the Wikipedia's article. So it may not be appropriate to use it. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Really did not expect this in a government website, anyway..! --Tito Dutta ^Message 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Some other sources [| from mkgandhi.org], [| from india.gov.in]. There is no dispute over the status, perhaps on some other topic.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one is a better source. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the india.gov site, but the word "official" is not used there, and mkgandhi.org may be considered a self published source, also the word "official" is not there! --Tito Dutta ^Message 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, thats the reason I added the word unofficial. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Per [| this link] it is official.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(Might be) self published source and and (might be) published by ardent followers of Gandhi. When we are saying "officially honoured" I think we should find something like "In 19XX India/State Government declared M.K.Gandhi as "Father of the nation" or any Government document where it is clearly written "M.K.Gandhi is officially honoured as.."

Karthik, "Unofficial" -- there may be a problem too, who unofficially honours M.K.Gandhi as Father of the nation?--Tito Dutta ^Message 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the references here, it doesn't look like official is the right word to use. It is unlikely that this is in the constitution and the HT article seems to indicate that there is no official pronouncement on the official. How about a simpler: "He is known as the Father of the Nation in India and his birthday, ..." --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Keep it simple He is officially/unofficially honoured in India as the Father of the Nation. --Tito Dutta ^Message 12:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'known in India'. Honored is also fine but I can already see someone adding "how?" and "by whom?" tags to that :) --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Great presence of mind regentspark. That's what experience is all about, keep it up. Thank you -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! --Tito Dutta ^Message 18:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Caste and varna

The article currently says "Gandhi, although born into the Vaishya caste ..." Vaishya is a varna, so surely it should be "Gandhi, although born into a Vaishya caste" ? I have no idea what caste Gandhi actually was born into, and the Early Life section is (probably deliberately) vague on the point. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

1) varna article... Varna refers to the categorization of the Hindu society by four castes, also see the use of "the Vaishya" "the Brahmin" etc.. so, it should be acceptable, which means, he was born into the third cast. 2) And ya, Gandhi was a Vaishya according to tradition, AFAIK, the word Gandhi means "grocer" or "trader" in Gujrati. --Tito Dutta ^Message 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't believe what that article says. It is rubbish. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fatima Gool, Gandhi Son Muslim Girlfriend

The issue of gandhi son and his muslim girlfriend has not found any mention in this long article shocks me, what this article is . Is this site a "GANDHI PROPAGANDA SITE" why the case of fatima gool and gandhi son has been excluded, when gandhi stopped his son from marrying a MUSLIM girl as he thought it will "ERODE HIS MUSLIM MEN SUPPORT BECAUSE OF WELL KNOWN MUSLIM MEN MENTALITY". If this site stands for truth and unbiased facts then the topic MUST be added here are references(from gandhi own grandson)----

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FauJL7LKXmkC&pg=PA284&dq=fatima+gool+gandhi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pR2nT_iXO8yHrAeu0YSDAg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=fatima%20gool%20gandhi&f=false

The case MUST be added with the "CONTENT OF LETTERS" which showed that GANDHI statement that he is "EQUALLY HINDU AND MUSLIM IS JUST A APPEASEMENT TACTICS".

In this letter to his son he asked " what religion will his(manilal) children follow" now what happens to "GANDHI HINDU-MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD"

Gandhi was a "ANTI-HINDU MUSLIM APPEASER" and the exclusion of this topic from WIKI page shows "HOW STRONG IS THE NETWORK OF THESE CONGRESSI AND ANTI HINDU ARE".

If the so called NEUTRAL EDITORS have any respect for truth and reality they must add this section their is no lack of references.

Thank You.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Muslims have completely overtaken this wiki site, their edits are fake, they have intentionally deleted this section which i will add soon.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: As far as I read a couple of books in search for "Fatima Gool", the whole issue is regarding Mahatma Gandhi's brother Manilal Gandhi and not the former one. This, this, and this are the Google Books sources to prove my words. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Manilal is Mohandas Gandhi son and their are many sources i am adding the content.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This shows your knowledge about "MAHATMA GANDHI", Manilal Gandhi was SON of MK GANDHI. And he was engaged to a muslim girl FATIMA GOOL, but your "MAHATMA GANDHI" didnt allow him to marry a muslim girl . Now what happens to SECULARISM.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, correction; Gandhi's son, second to be precise. However, the information you want to add or change, you can do at the appropriate article, i.e Manilal Gandhi. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC) The info has been added by User: Rjensen. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

References 'Gandhi, 1990'

These references in the main article do not open link and are not self explanatory.I can't fix it. What book do they refer to? Letusdo (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

the book is Rajmohan Gandhi (2006). Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire. U. of California Press.-- it's a scholarly biography by the great man's grandson (do not use the isbn) Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 May 2012

Please correct the following spelling errors:

• "And and" should be "and".
• "Thwe" should be "the".

207.61.217.34 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo Secularism

The topic of Pseudo secualrism was deleted without any reason. The content justifies Pseudo Secularism title and i will do it agains, this matter will go to admin board no GANDHI FAN OR GANDHIAN will be allow to DISTORT HISTORY.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will put this on ADMIN BOARD and if YOU GANDHIANS have real ARGUMENTS then plz defeat a TRUE HINDU(ME) in discussion , the title will remain "PSEUDO SECULARISM" as it FULLFILLS the definition.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2012

<!gandhi a man ..........a man....a man......last woman

 Not done, meaningless--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2012

"please add external link www.mkgandhi.org (Mahatma Gandhi information website), having more than 5,000 pages and large information useful for students and researchers and anyone interested in Gandhi. Thank you."

Mkgandhibapu (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While the site's design looks like something from the mid-nineties, I believe it contains more information than the "Gandhi Research Foundation" link and should replace that link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No "in popular culture"?

Really? Someone shoud do that! (at least mention his apperances in the Civilization series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.198.154 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There's no mentions of this in George Washington or Elizabeth I of England either. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Why isn't there a section on criticism of Gandhi? The topic is well-covered in several mainstream sources and is WP:DUE enough to warrant a seperate section, even if it has to be short/concise and written in summary style. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Avoid a separate section for criticism as per WP:Criticism. The policy says, "Rather than create a section dedicated to criticisms, instead try to incorporate negative material into the appropriate topical or thematic section that the negative material relates to." -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one on me, although I'm not a big editor so I'm not familiar with all the rules of course. This rule is broken or bent in a HUGE number of articles, even ones that have been featured on the front page. I actually find such sections extremely useful because of the large number of articles that appear to be slanted towards the subject matter or person (understandable since fanboys are likely to possess and share a lot of information). By going straight to "criticism" you can add some balance. In any case, CTRL+F does much the same thing, but I still think a criticism section is often warranted and useful. 194.144.247.254 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the lead

I just read the lead of the article and found the following issues.

• "Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence..."

Opinion!! There are many who feel that it was NOT Gandhi who led India to independence.

• "Son of a senior government official.."

Ambiguous!!! Firstly, Karamchand Gandhi was not an official of the Indian government, but of the state of Porbandar. Secondly, what post did he hold???

• "Gandhi became famous by fighting for the civil rights of Muslim and Hindu Indians in South Africa..."

Wrong statement. Gandhi also fought for the rights of Parsis and Indian Christians

• "A lifelong opponent of "communalism" (i.e. basing politics on religion) he reached out widely to all religious groups."

Opinion!!! Jinnah and many top leaders of the Pakistan Movement believed that Gandhi had little support among the Muslims. K. R. Malkani in his The Sindh Story echoes a similar view.

• "Gandhi led Indians in protesting the national salt tax ... "

I am not sure about the choice of words. Led Indians??? Of course, Gandhi was an Indian leader. He did head a nationwide movement to protest the salt tax.

• "He was imprisoned for that and for numerous other political offenses over the years."

Poor prose! What are the "other political offenses"? Disambiguation needed.

• "His political enemy Winston Churchill ridiculed him as a "half-naked fakir."

Enemy is a POV term not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Overall, the prose is not good and there is too much puffery. I will give detailed comments on the rest of the article in a few minutes.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 05:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

the complaints are not well formed. 1) " Opinion!! There are many who feel that it was NOT Gandhi who led India to independence." bad writing by Ravi--"there are many" means who?? many poorly informed kids--perhaps yes. many RS--I think not. Let's see if Ravi can name the "many" who agree with him. 2) "Son of a senior government official.." exactly true & appropriate for lede--the later text supplies the details; 3) "Gandhi became famous by fighting for the civil rights of Muslim and Hindu Indians in South Africa..." exactly true; it is FALSE to say with Ravi that he became famous for fighting on behalf of Parsis and Indian Christians; 4) "he reached out widely to all religious groups." -- he certainly did reach out [as Ravi himself admits re point #3]; 5) salt tax--Ravi's complaint is incoherent; 6) "imprisoned for that and for numerous other political offenses" the other offenses are covered in the article--the lede is a summary; 7) "enemy" is not a POV term. eg Wolpert writes: "Since his launching of the Quit India movement, they [British leaders] all viewed him [Gandhi] as their enemy." Churchill wrote of MG as "the little old man who had always been our enemy" and "a bad man and an enemy"...and indeed Gandhi "told journalists that he wanted to meet his enemies, and that he would write to Churchill". Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess this talk page is here to discuss about the quality of the article and not about my command over the English language. There have been several important historians who've claimed that Subhash Chandra Bose might have been equally responsible. Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, in their Freedom at Midnight give a detailed description of the poor economic conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom post-World War II explaining how the United Kingdom, in 1947, could not afford the expenses needed to run India. And then there was the Royal Indian Navy mutiny. There seems to have been a variety of factors and a plethora of leaders who've been responsible. While I agree that most scholars feel that Gandhi lead the movement to independence such a view has been disputed by a fairly good number of scholars, not "poorly informed kids", alone. It is a well known fact that Gandhi had a numbers of Parsees in his entourage during his Satyagrahas in South Africa. He became famous fighting for the rights of Indians in South Africa, none would say "Hindu and Muslim Indians".

As for his "wide reach" with different religious groups in "India", K. R. Malkani, in his The Sindh Story says

Gandhiji did not help matters when he appealed to the religious sentiments of the Hindus also. His talk of satya (truth) and ahimsa, brahmacharya and Ramarajya struck a responsive note in the Hindu heart, but it left the Muslim cold. Many Congress meetings in Sindh ended with distribution of `Kanah Prasad' from the neighbourhood gurdwara. After the Khilafat movement had petered out, the Congress discovered that it had only one active Muslim worker, Maulvi Mohammed Sadiq of Karachi. Later Comrade Taj Mohammed joined the Congress in Shikarpur. The Congress had only one Muslim MLA Khoso of Jacobabad, an AMU graduate. But the Jacobabad District Congress Committee office had a separate water pot (surahi) for him! No wonder they all felt that ``the Congress is a Hindu movement.

In an interview given to the BBC for a documentary on the Partition of India as a part of their television series commemorating 60 years of Indian independence, Pakistani civil servant Roedad Khan says

Mr. Gandhi did not appeal to the Muslims. He failed to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims of India. The way he used to talk about politics; his language was foreign. It did not appeal to the Muslims

-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a little surprised that this criticism is coming from user:Ravichandar84, who I've always thought of as a balanced historian. One can always cite sources, especially specialist monographs by historians or memoirs by various officials of the British Raj that attribute India's deliverance from British rule in 1947 to various principal agents and circumstances. Some credit Indian revolutionaries (or terrorists, depending on your POV) such as Bhagat Singh; others the Indian National Army; others the Royal Indian Navy mutiny; others the burgeoning working class movement led by students aligned with the Communist Party of India and the Congress Socialist Party; others still the poor economic shape of Great Britain after the second world war, and so forth, but a majority (by far) credit the Indian National Congress led by Gandhi especially during the period 1920 to 1937, when the Congress won the provincial assembly elections, as the predominant agent. In my view, without the communal riots, the poor economy of Britain, the Navy mutiny, the end of the Raj might have come a few years later, but the 37 election victory had sealed its fate. As for Bose, INA, Bhagat Singh, let me be blunt. No one but the nation of Bengal (and some of its deluded historians) seriously thinks that the British, even while fighting a global war, and stretched thin to the point of tearing, were seriously troubled by one mentally unbalanced Indian who managed to round up a handful of Indian prisoners of war, whose default option was imprisonment in Japanese camps. When the British found a moment to breathe, and to call in a few reinforcements, they, in a New York minute, whupped Bose's ass to Kingdom Come (if I'm allowed to mix my metaphors). Same with Bhagat Singh. The Hindu right, miffed that (like the Bengalis) it didn't do diddly squat for India's independence has propped him—a socialist to boot—as its unlikely post-1980s hero. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

PS The Muslim part is a little more complicated. I do believe that Gandhi, especially during the period 1927 to 1937 appealed more to Hindu sensibilites (than Muslim), and that Muslim India may have been lost to the Congress during the same period that Hindu peasant India was won. I think those complexities should be mentioned somewhere, but not in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not much of a fan of Subhash Chandra Bose; as far as Bhagat Singh is concerned, I've not even mentioned him. However, opposition in the Indian Army to the Red Fort Trials of INA officers did create an impact as did the RIN Mutiny. Though I agree that a majority hold the view that Gandhi won India independence I feel that the sentence "Gandhi led India to independence" could very well be altered as not to make it sound like an opinion, inspite of it being held by a majority. (The article on George Washington does not say that he led the United States to independence). As far as the 1937 Congress victory is concerned, there were a variety of factors, the Great Depression being one, atleast in Madras Presidency. Also, there are other issues with the lead - there is no criticism of Gandhi in the lead of the article. Regardless of whether I am balanced in my views or not, it may appear plain that the lead should certainly be a bit more neutral.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were reviewing it for GA. I didn't realize that it had already achieved GA status. Well, I guess I have to agree with you. "Led India to independence" is probably good for a GA, but not for an FA, if that is the ultimate goal. I also agree that there is no criticism of Gandhi in the lead and there ought to be. The criticism, though, must be of his major failings, not of his eccentricities. It might also not be obvious how to prioritize the criticism and reduce it cogently to two or three sentences in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fowler stop using your foul mouth(hand in this case), referring to a freedom fighter as mentally unbalanced Indian and using terms like whupped Bose's ass shows lake of civility on your part. Coming to the discussion, I agree that Gandhi's impact on freedom struggle was far more than that of Bose or Bhagat Singh.--sarvajna (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Fowler: While you are right on most points, you are wrong on others and I would like to take the liberty to correct you. Bose wasn't mentally unbalanced, and neither was Bhagat Singh! On the contrary, they were dignified politically conscious patriots who resorted to measures that they saw fit, as they were sick of seeing their country exploited/dominated by a foreign occupying power. Personally, I do not find the path they took to be any less valid than Congress' path. You grossly underestimate Bose and the INA's impact on the British, and at the same time, overestimate British military ability. The British had always been greatly troubled by Bose and his activities, even more so after he arrived in Singapore and revived the INA.

“ The British had much to fear. Subhas Chandra Bose, their most resolute and resourceful Indian enemy, was on the move. ” —  Quote from, Forgotten Armies: The Fall Of British Asia, 1941–1945, p. 279 (2005) by Christopher Alan Bayly and Timothy Norman Harper

Previously after news of his escape from India broke out, the London head office of the SIS had sent an order to their special operations executives in Istanbul and Cairo to wire up whatever arrangements they could make for Bose's assassination. Also, the number of soldiers who defected were not a handful as you claim, but rather 12,000 out of 45,000 Indian soldiers, compounded by 8,000–10,000 ex-army men and 18,000 civilians of the Indian diaspora in South-east Asia. The INA was supported financially by many among the latter, as the Japanese (who never intended for them to be a serious fighting force in the first place, but rather for showcase propaganda purposes only) deliberately underfunded and under-provided them. In fact, there were a few in Burma who were so emotionally influenced by Bose that they even gave away all or most of their belongings to the INA; to aid them in the cause of throwing the Brits out. The INA lost at the Battle of Imphal, because a communist double-agent and an outsider named Bhagat Ram Talwar (codenamed Silver) leaked info to the British about the upcoming advance at the northeastern front, after receiving information about it from an unsuspecting Bose. That took away the element of surprise. Consequently, when the INA and the much larger Japanese army contingent reached the North-east, the British were waiting for them and the invaders were practically massacred. Would the Japanese and the INA won otherwise? Who knows? But the success cannot be positively attributed to "superior" British tactics, arms and artillery, or military discipline. Lastly, Bose died in a plane crash and Bhagat Singh voluntarily surrendered at the scene of the crime after throwing two bombs into the Central Legislative Assembly. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, forget the specialist monographs (from one of which you have extracted your information). Find me a general history text on modern India, one used in undergraduate or graduate courses around the world, which gives any more space for either Bose or Bhagat Singh than I have. Here, for example, is a list. Bose didn't just die in any plane crash, but one resulting from his trying to escape in a plane that had no fuel left. Sadly, Indian nationalists still maintain that the Battle of Plassey was almost won, until it was lost by treachery; that Tipu Sultan had almost defeated the East India Company with his sophisticated rockets, until the Company engineers took them apart and had a good laugh at their schoolboy designs; that grandiose and disturbed minds like Bose and Bhagat Singh, who had little ideology, except that of seeking martyrdom while fighting the British, won India its independence. India's independence came as a result of a long nationalist movement which began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885 (not in 1857, whose so-called "leaders" were clueless about the notion of a nation) and took a major leap forward with the arrival of Gandhi. The Indian National Congress was a large organization, whose membership increased by many orders of magnitude in the 1920s. That constituted political power, not a bomb thrown by a small coterie of confused 20-something young men or a by a middle-aged, sedentary, man pretending to be the general of a Keystone cops army. Military intelligence is an importance part of any war. That the British had advanced warning of Bose's arrival speaks to their good military intelligence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[Refactored off topic comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)]

Apologies. I was tired and looking to blow off steam. I have refactored my off-topic comments. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies from my side as well! You might have started it, but I continued it and that's no excuse for going off-topic. I have deleted my last two comments. Regards, Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)