Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 1

Selected on Template:March 18 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

/summary -This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data but remember that too many details will exhaust and confuse the translation process.--Jondel 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Very surprised to see Mandela cited as having been influenced by Gandhi. Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years for rejecting non-violence, which he clearly admitted to doing, and thus it seems inappropriate to heve him here. --SqueakBox 17:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mandela initially tried to implement Gandhi's methods. After repeatedly failing, and realizing that it would not work in the country, his campaign resorted to violence. --Pranathi 23:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you SqueakBox. You cannot be truly influenced by Gandhi if you advocate violence in any circumstance, even if the cause is a just one. I have replaced Nelson Mandela, who was the leader of the armed Umkhonto we Sizwe, with the nonviolent anti-apartheid activist, Steve Biko. --nirvana2013 14:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mandela is/was a communist (Marxist/Lenist) - Marxism-Leninism is per definition violent. However we can be sure that the ANC/SACP looked at Gandhi for copying mehtods gullible "libarals" would find agreeable. Mandela and his handers also wanted to take-over the whole of South Africa. Something the NP-government would not find even remotely negotiable. There were many opportunities for Blacks to gain selfgovernment.

Ok... so an economic system is violent.. that makes perfect sense. Thats a mighty racist view of yours by the way and I'm interested in seeing these "opportunities" for self government. You sound more like a brainwashed puppet of a racist ideal than an intellectual. Please dont deface the discussion thread with your useless and blatantly incorrect (and biased) lies. Not to mention this article is on Gandhi not Nelson Mandela.

P.S. Learn how to spell, people will then treat you as an informed racist instead of just a plain idiot.

Can people sign there statements? (neither of those above are mine just to clarify). --LeftyG 06:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi's death

people say that he died by killing him self at a suside but others say that he died by a natural death

Why is this a featured article?

To me it seems to be extremely POV. It is very pro-Gandhi and seems to either gloss over or ingore entirely unflatering facts from his life.--Heathcliff 23:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki buddy. Feel free to add relevant information with a neutral point of view. If you have reservations about this being a featured article, you can nominate it at WP:FARC. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of that page for nominating articles to become un-featured. However, I suspect that their are those who feel the article is just fine. I was hoping some of them would make some effort to justify that article as it is. Perhaps, I am wrong about it. But if no one offers any reasons why it should continued to be featured, I probably will nominate it for featured article removal.

As for adding to it myself. I may at some point. But I would have to do a fair amount of research first. I'm not really quaified to make substantial alterations to it otherwise.--Heathcliff 01:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, the article contains a quote that "Gandhi was fully sympathetic with the victims of fascist aggression." And yet Gandhi said (see Wikiquote, for example) in May 1940: "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." Also some would question whether this other Gandhi quote, "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs," was truly "fully sympathetic." The article mentions his abstinence, but not his habit of sleeping with young girls in his 70s. (And Freud's suspicions about it.) Doesn't mention how he fought to prevent the British from giving the Untouchables political representation. The article implies that the British were fully responsible for partition, too.

While the assertions you make seem to be factually correct, what can we make of them? Take the sleeping with young girls. Apparently it is true that he did this to test his vow of celebacy (i.e., they really were sleeping). So what does it prove? Probably not much more than the fact that he was somewhat eccentric in his later years. It doesn't seem like something that should be in an encyclopedia article. Each of these factoids has a context. To re-create the context (thus maintaining an NPOV article) would take a great deal of ink. Not worth it, IMO. Sunray 15:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

That's a very weak rationalization for not dealing with it. Also you only address only one of the points that were made above (the easiest). And how do we know that he only did it to test his vow of celibacy? Because he said so? Is this confirmed somehow? Shouldn't the article simply present the facts and let the readers judge them? If the facts cannot be judged out of context then the context should be provided. If providing both facts and context is to much trouble to bother with then the whole article should just be deleted because no article at all would be prefereble to a biased fluff piece.--Heathcliff 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So, what do you propose? Sunray 05:34, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

My take is always that we present a full picture--if there are critical voices, give them space, put them in perspective. And let's treat him like a real human being. He was a father (and there are strong critiques of that out there), he was a politician (and there are strong critiques of that out there), he was a statesman and a philosopher (who, deservedly or not, has had a very far-reaching impact on the 20th Century and continues to do so) ...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

What did Gandhi feel needed to be changed when he returned to India in 1915?

My comment on the WP:FARC page:

comment - I just feel that the article as it is right now does not do justice either to the Mahatma himself or the status of being a "Featured article". It could be much wider and deeper. The article on Ayn Rand, for example, is richer in content and references.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this information? Sunray 01:41, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

You want a source for my feeling? Huh?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

No. You said: "He was a father (and there are strong critiques of that out there), he was a politician (and there are strong critiques of that out there), he was a statesman and a philosopher (who, deservedly or not, has had a very far-reaching impact on the 20th Century and continues to do so)." Do you have sources for these critiques? Sunray 04:08, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Last edit war

The last war was about Gandhi's (in)famous quote

Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.

I copy it to here from my personal page.

Excuse me, but please give me a credible reference for the "facts" that you've added to Mahatma Gandhi. You've mentioned that Gandhi told Fisher in 1946. Is there a reference source for that? Because, while adding such radically different views, it is best to discuss that first in the talk page. Until then let me revert your changes. I'm not a fan of Gandhi myself, but I want to ensure that we stick to NPOV and No original research principles. -- Sundar 05:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • This is a well-known citation. See the following sources for instance:
    • wikiquote ([1]). (Are you going now to remove it also from wikiquote?)
    • beliefner ([[2]])
    • Here is the source and the analysis from Jewish point of view [[3]]
    • [[4]] - here is a part about Czechs

... there are many other sources, easily found at google. I now tried an extensive search and never found any notion that this is a hoax or urban legend.

This is not an original research at all. Neither it is a POV. I just present what Gandhi told (which is a well-known fact) and there is a well-known explanation for it (Gandhi opposed any violent resistance, and considered mass suicide of Jews or Czechs a heroic and respectable form of non-violent resistance).--62.219.175.34 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it in Wikiquotes. Perhaps someone removed it there because of lack of references. And the other sources don't seem to be disinterested. Any way, please add this discussion to Talk:Mahatma Gandhi and make the changes to the article if you want. I'll wait for other editors to comment upon these "citations". I'll not revert now. -- Sundar 06:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just found it. Search the word cliffs . It in the section "On the west".

OK, then. Go ahead, but move this discussion to Talk:Mahatma Gandhi for the record. -- Sundar 06:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

It's very disgusting to think that this is a featured article. It mentions nothing of Ghandi's racist remarks to native black South Africans, or his extremely offensive remarks toward the Jews. It also doesn't mention that he'd often sleep with many girls. POV tagged. Gold Stur 18:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed here Ghandi racism discussion -- anonymous comment by 168.210.90.180 (talk · contribs)

Please provide your source. --nirvana2013 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. As stated above me, on Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#On_the_West) there is a quote that says "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.", by Ghandi. Also, Penn & Teller's Bullshit! has an episode that deals with Ghandi and his flaws. This site also deals with Ghandi's racism. http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm If you still want more on Ghandi and racism, do a Google search for "Ghandi racism", "Ghandi racism against blacks", etc. And as for him sleeping with women, again, they talk about it in Bullshit!, and you can also look here. Gold Stur 22:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a section regarding Hitler under Principles/Nonviolence. On racism I have added a quote under Life/Civil rights movement in South Africa (1893 - 1914). On lust I have added a few words under Principles/Celibacy. I did not add anything regarding him being unfaithful to his wife. Need proof rather than heresay. --nirvana2013 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. NPOV removed, but I do have one request; could you show me where you got the last part of the quote on Jewish mass suicide, the one about heroism? Gold Stur 22:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jerusalum Post, for example --nirvana2013 13:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Some one should revert this Nirav.maurya guy's edits. They're most annoying. Gold Stur 21:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Watch yourself, my dear Gold Stur. Don't make this personal.

If you wish to defend facts, keep it factual. You're plenty annoying yourself, but we deal with you...

Oh btw, its spelled "G A N D H I," not "Ghandi" - Nirav.maurya

Nirav, could you please explain your deletion of some text under Nirav.maurya's edits. I am open to your viewpoint on the subject. Also just for your information, an easy way to sign your posts on the discussion boards is by inserting four ~'s. --nirvana2013 10:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That link isn't opening for me for some reason. If whatever I edited isn't factually correct, go ahead and revert it. I just like to sign my first name. - Nirav.

It should be mentioned why Gandhi said the Jews should be exterminated. He was not a racist. He was an extreme pacifist. Gandhi said that because he thought eventually Hitler would have stopped and become sympathetic to the Jews, something which I also believe in. He even said that to the Indians, that they should sacrifice their lives in order to make India independant from the British. Gandhi was sympatheitic to everybody, no matter how evil your actions were. Template:DaGizza/Sg 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed "instead using only the highest moral standards" from the introductory paragraph. This phrase doesn't have an NPOV. --CompREM 16:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok... Gandhi was a racist. Thats why Albert Einstein said "generations to come will scarcely believe that one such as this walked the earth in flesh and blood". Please note that he was Jewish. Also lets not forget how African American leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu believed in Gandhi's approach to non-violent resistance. Were they going to follow a racist figure who hated African Americans? Also about the young girls issue, a lot of it is unconfirmed and poorly documented garbage propped up by neo-nazis and other racists. It has little or no factual backing.

Recent additions

Some anon is repeatedly adding stuff which is already there in the principles section, that too in an unencyclopedic tone. He also deleted a section on the title Mahatma without giving any reason. I've reverted him/her. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 11:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Controversiality

Does any know about the truth behind the claims that ghandi denied his wife penicilin letting her die, then later used quinine himself?-Joaaelst

Some of the less favourable details of his life are not often discussed openly, probably because it would damage the saintly image that exists of Ghandi. He has been known to be racist towards blacks during his South African years. In his later years he had numerous sexual encounters with adolescent women, performing bizarre rituals involving enemas. The truth of these claims have been confirmed by his grandson.

What is your source for this? Sunray July 3, 2005 20:20 (UTC)

Why does this article not have anything on the racist comments that Gandhi made? Sundar, why did you revert my addition of a "Criticism" section? -- 198.54.202.18 (talk · contribs)

I'm not a big fan of Gandhi. But, such controversial claims can't be added to the articles without proper citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, everyone'll start adding their own point of view to the articles. Can you please cite some sources for the purported racist remark by Gandhi? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi (1982) the film

• I could not see the link about the film with Ben Kingsley at Mahatma Gandhi#External links. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Eight Himalayan achievements to the credit of the Mahatma

Should this not be reworded? In my opinion, it is not written from a NPOV. --nirvana2013 08:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. --goethean ॐ 16:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Boer War

It mentions in the article on Ladysmith, South Africa, that Gandhi organised a stretcher-bearing corps there. Is this true, and should this be incorporated into this article? (Silverhelm 23:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

• The article already mentions the medical corps that Gandhi formed, it just does not state that he did so in Ladysmith. Indrian 05:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

W & E Pakistan

The article contains this line : This new Muslim homeland was created on 2 different sides of India, marking the first time in history a country had been established on different sides of each other.

What about Alaska ? Tintin 07:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Alaska was acquired by US later. A more pertinent example would be East Prussia. Sentence should be changed. --goethean ॐ 17:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

He did form an indian strecher corps during the Boer war and also a during a later rebellion. During the rebellion his corps were the only ones who treated black casualties - source - his autobiography

Introduction

Amended introduction by Nirav.maurya

Should this not be reworded? Gandhi was far too modest and humble to be elevated to "God-like" status. In my opinion, an article written in these tones about this great man and his principles does not help the reader and may repel them. --nirvana2013 18:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made some minor rewording edits, deleting words such as "God-like" --nirvana2013 15:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Reponse - my dear fellow, The reference to "God-like" status arises from the the fact that over 1 billion people are deep admirers of this man.

Gandhi didn't like being called "Mahatma," or "Bapu"? Shall I do the honors and strike them out as well?

Please provide some evidence showing that 1 billion people think Gandhi is/was God. Mahatma I can understand, but God is pushing it. --nirvana2013 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

accusation of racism by anonymous editor

Gandhi was a racist and this is well documented: http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Kemp184-186.html

Wow — and according to that site, the Holocaust never happened. Thanks for the info! --goethean ॐ 17:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Where does the side say that "The Holocaust never happened" ? Please do not misquote! --anonymous comment by 168.210.90.180 (talk · contribs)

I think goethean was referring to their home page [5]. --nirvana2013 15:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

POV alert

Quoting the article: "The Muslim league wanted a separate homeland for themselves, on the basis that Muslims couldnt live side by side with non Muslims."

I find this statement not just inaccurate and POV, but downright offensive. Whoever wrote this, please cite that "Muslims cannot live side by side with non Muslims", or that any of the leaders of the Muslim league said this was the reason they wanted their own state.

Quoting: "However most Muslims did not want to break up India. The majority of Muslims lived side by side with Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians, & Jews, and were in favor with a united India."

Cite please. This stinks of POV. The second sentence reads like something out of a school composition rather than an encylopedia.

For the sake of the quality of this article, this should be modified to avert a new edit war.

I changed it. --goethean ॐ 15:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

POV: You are wrong in stating that a majority of Muslims backed a united India. If Jinnah didn't enjoy the political support of the majority, all this would have been impossible.

The actions/reactions of Muslims in Punjab, Bengal and Sind during Direct Action Day are sufficient to justify the statement - Nirav.maurya

Gandhi Redirects here?

This may be a bit nitpicky, but is this necessary at the start of the article? I mean, if I were to search for "Gandhi "the words "Redirected from Gandhi" already appears at the top of the page. I removed the line. (I'm not sure if it's wikipedia policy however. If it is I don't think it's a good one.Borisblue 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Nirav.maurya's edits

I'm considering reverting this. Please explain your edit. I also intend to NPOV-ize your other addition. --goethean ॐ 20:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

goethean, I currently agree with reverting the text but it would be good to hear Nirav.maurya's point of view. See NPOV above. --nirvana2013 21:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana and Goethean: this link isn't opening and I don't know what this edit is that you're talking about. If its not factual, go ahead and correct it. - Nirav.maurya

Proposed Edits

Hello All,

There are two very objectionable mentions in this article regarding partition. It is suggested that (1) majority of Muslims supported a united India, and (2) League was a minority party.

(1) is a minor possibility, since there are many Pakistani historians who claim nobody actually had any real conception of Pakistan. But it could simply be nonsense. If Muslims did not openly back the League at different levels of society, there would be no way the Congress would have conceeded anything to Jinnah.

Jinnah's star rose after 1942, but his popularity was real.

(2) The League controlled almost every Muslim electorate seat in the Central Assembly and Provincial Assemblies in the election rounds held in 1947.

The not-so-underlying cause of partition was the threat of direct Hindu-Muslim civil war, which drove Gandhiji to desperation in attempting to stop partition.

I won't be as uncivilized as to strike out the sentences without reasonable time for discussion, but these are clearly, factually invalid statements - Nirav.maurya

Copyvio?

The section The Triumvirate covers a lot about the life of Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. I do not think that Patel deserves so much detail in this article. The section looks more Patel centric than Gandhi centric, with Nehru at the sides. I think it is better to move it to the page about Patel. Apart from this, I might be wrong but it looks like a copyvio to me. The reason is that nothing about Patel was mentioned in the article before, it is a huge chunk of information that has come up suddenly. The style of the writing itself does not feel encyclopedic. I get the feeling I am reading an essay about Patel from a book or website.

example: Both in 1929 and 1946, Patel obeyed the Mahatma. In 1946 especially, it was the greatest sacrifice to forgo becoming India's first Prime Minister. Yet Patel never hesitated to relinquish the honor, and remained very close to Gandhi. Why did Gandhi pick Nehru? Contemporary media often portrays the Gandhi-Nehru relationship as that of a father and son...

On second though, the entire section The Gandhian Generation looks like it has been copied and pasted. Try reading this from Mentors and Proteges

Gandhi's optimistic, sweet nature won him the undying loyalty and reverence of thousands of co-workers, and led them to openly confide with him and ask his guidance upon the most personal issues of the lives of each person.

Rabindranath Tagore wrote a poem for Gandhi, which famously and beautifully asked him to press forward, do the right thing and walk forth, even if it meant walking alone. Luckily, the hundred million followers of Gandhi made sure this encouragement was not necessary.

RESPONSE TO "COPYVIO"

LET ME CLARIFY THAT THE SECTION "THE TRIUMVIRATE" IS TO DISCUSS THE EMOTIONS, RESPECT AND LOYALTY INSPIRED BY GANDHI IN HIS CLOSEST COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS, ESPECIALLY SARDAR PATEL AND NEHRU.

THERE HAS BEEN NO COPY OF ANY PUBLISHED MATERIAL, BUT MY OWN COMPOSITION FROM THE DATA I OBTAINED FROM REFERENCE BOOKS.

I THINK ANY BIO OF GANDHI SHOULD DISCUSS THE PASSION HE AROUSED IN PEOPLE, SO AS TO BECOME THE ICON AND LEADER HE WAS OF MILLIONS OF FREEDOM-FIGHTERS.

AND SO I TAKE THIS CRITICISM AS A compliment to my writing talent! Thank you!

- Nirav Maurya

Hi Nirav.Maurya, do not type in capitals, that is Flaming and is not a part of wikiquette. Gurubrahma 09:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gurubrahma. We can hear you Nirav, no need to shout. --nirvana2013 19:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've received some provocations in recent times and I don't appreciate being called a liar and a cheat by people who have no info or positive contribution to make. - Nirav.

No worries. As a follower of Gandhi, you will know how important it is to keep initial reactions under control when provoked verbally or abused physically. Do good to those who hate you. --nirvana2013 09:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

SARDAR PATEL AND NEHRU IN GANDHI'S BIO

One cannot not choose to discuss Sardar Patel and Nehru in some detail in Gandhi's biography, because Gandhi was primarily responsible for Vallabhbhai Patel joining the Independence Movement and becoming the man he was. And most folks know that Gandhi was Nehru's core mentor and tutor.

I repeat, you HAVE TO explore Gandhi's effect on such powerful characters, to understand Gandhi the leader of men. To do that, you HAVE TO detail how Patel and Nehru felt about Gandhi. The response Gandhi's death evoked in Patel and Nehru should suffice to prove my point.

- Nirav Maurya

While I necessarily do not share your views and believe that "Brevity is the soul of wit," I'd think that even if what you argue may be quite right, you should also keep wikipedia conventions in mind. One such is the article size and your contributions have expanded the already large article. You may want to consider moving triumvirate and mentors and proteges into a new article. Gurubrahma 09:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of incorporating those elements in Gandhism, but then we'd have to provide a direct link to it. - Nirav.

strangeness

found this:

"Gandhi believed that at the core of every religion was Truth (satya), Love/Nonviolence (ahimsa) and the Golden Rule. He was deeply influenced by the Christian teaching of nonresistance and "turning the other cheek", once stating that if Christianity practised the Sermon on the Mount, he would indeed be a Christian. Gandhi felt that one should be aware of worshiping the symbols and idols of the religion and not its teachings, such as worshipping the crucifix whilst ignoring its significance as a symbol for self-sacrifice, for example.

Noooooo!!! stop reading jacob!!!!"

but the last line doesn't show on the edit page, so can't remove it...

Please could you elaborate on why you think this insert is strange. --nirvana2013 10:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've emphasised the point the anon meant to make, hopefully. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar, I understand now. --nirvana2013 09:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

The article says that he even inspired RSS. RSS, though it claims today to have been inspired by Mahtama, the fact remains that it was an organisation that was charged with the assassination of Gandhi. Hence, I am removing that reference. --Gurubrahma 10:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I like edit summaries! El_C 10:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi there. I'm no expert on Gandhi or India/South Asia, but recently edited a section in this article for clarity and WP:NPOV. It seems to me that significant portions of the article are written from a somewhat adulatory position—one not consistent with encyclopedic standards. I thought I'd point out that encyclopedia articles should be written from a detached, neutral, third-person viewpoint; it helps sometimes to imagine you're a complete outsider "looking in" on your subject. For example, imagine you're a Martian who's been asked to compile a report on Gandhi for other Martians to read.

An example of an unsuitable sentence is:

Gandhi knew that as long as Hindu society retained this system of oppression within itself, the nation could never truly be free in spirit and character, which was more important than merely controlling the government. [6]

The author of this sentence clearly has the opinion that being "truly free in spirit and character" is more "important" for a people than the control of their own Government; hence, he accepts that opinion as indisputably factual, and writes that Gandhi knew this. However, as plausible as the sentiment may be, it is in fact an opinion (one that is here ascribed to Gandhi, I'm assuming correctly). It is not a non-disputable fact, as a good argument can be made that a people having control of their own democratically elected Government is more important than their being ""truly free in spirit and character". Thus, when writing from a NPOV, a better sentence may be:

Gandhi thought that as long as Hindu society retained this system of oppression, India would never be truly free in spirit and character, which he viewed as more important for Indians than mere control of their government.

Not only does this sentence avoid casting the opinion as a fact, notice that it is "detached" from the subject: it observes what he thought and it describes his opinion, but it does not co-opt his opinion.

I think that a good rewrite will make this nice article much better. I'll watchlist this and try to help out in the coming weeks/months, unless some good soul has at it in the meantime. Incidentally, I have also observed some unusual edits which appear to me, even as a non-expert, to be patently clear POV pushing; however, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the politics of the time and place to rewrite for content. Regards—encephalon 03:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree there are some sections which are written in an unencyclopediatic tone, even if the content may be accurate. The sections that may need attention, in my opinion, are Do or Die, Vision for India, Influence on Hindu society, the Gandhian generation, Opponents, and Legacy. Should we add some sought of tag under these sections to highlight them or just resolve via the talk page? --nirvana2013 15:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't have a strong preference, although if the clean up/npov is going to take a while, it's probably best to place the tags. They can be removed as the sections are gradually npoved and/or cleaned up. Does anyone know if the FA status of the article will be affected by the addition of tags? encephalon 21:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --goethean ॐ 21:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello there, thanks for the link. I'm quite aware of the requirements of sending up an article for FA status; I'm just wondering if a formal FARC must be tabled if editors begin working on it in a major way, using NPOV tags and the like. There doesn't seem to be any indication that it must, although it would be strange to have an article slapped with both an FA tag as well as a couple of NPOVs and clean-ups. Irrespective of whatever needs to happen in the short term, I do think the article needs a significant clean-up, and this is probably best done by folks with a substantive knowledge of the subject. If the clean up means losing FA status for now, I'm inclined to the view that it would be worth it if WP ends up with an improved article on this very important figure. Ultimately, the decision would have to be made by the editors who contribute(d) regularly to the article. I've taken the liberty of placing the small NPOV section tags in some areas that, it seemed to me, could use a bit of help. Incidentally, I've taken a gander through the history; this is how the article looked like on the day it made the front page as WP:TOFA. encephalon 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, the POV sections such as Vision for India, Influence on Hindu society, the Gandhian generation, Opponents, and Legacy were all added long after the article became a FA. thought I shd inform --Gurubrahma 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's true they were added after this article got FA status. This is how it looked when it made the front page. encephalon 06:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification and Apology

Hello Gurubrahma, Nirvana and the Wikipedia Community,

I apologize for the insertion of biased sections into this article, affecting its integrity and quality. Those sections are: the triumvirate, opponents, Vision for India and couple others

I apologize also for being arrogant and not recognizing my mistakes, and not making an honest effort to understand the rules and mission of Wikipedia. I got into Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons.

I apologize for trying to revert and attack the edits and corrections of other members, using the privileges of the Anon ID.

You guys ought to consider tougher rules about Anon participation, or the ability to change stuff put in by registered Wiki users.

Har Har Mahadev!

Nirav Maurya.

While the intent of writing these articles is in the right direction (in terms of capturing the milieu of Mahatma), the content doesn't seem right. I guess it will improve with time. I'd take this opportunity to commend Nirav for his being bold in creating articles such as Gandhism and Indian Nationalism, though I may not fully subscribe to the content in those. I believe that anon participation shd be allowed as people wd see reason sooner than later; even otherwise, the collectiveness of the community would see the day through. --Gurubrahma 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The triumvirate, proteges and mentors

Dear All,

The India's Triumvirate and Proteges and Mentors sections are not connected with Gandhi as a Leader of Hindu Society.

There is, as some point out, biased info in those sections. I'd suggest y'all clean it up, but the core purpose of those two sections is to explore Gandhi's aura, effect and relationship with his closest colleagues, and his fitting in between old-era Indian leaders and spawning the new generation.

Jai Sri Rama! - Nirav Maurya.

Hi, I do not know if you are Nirav Maurya as you have not signed your edit above. Also, it is logged in as an anon IP.

The capitalisation is inappropriate - I've indicated this on Talk:Indian nationalism as well. e.g. "Triumvirate" instead of "triumvirate" - pl. desist from making such changes.

Also, the same IP around the sametime has called itself "Anon" on Talk:Mohammad Ali Jinnah - adopting multiple identities on a collaborative project such as this is not in good faith. --Gurubrahma 05:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

mollycoddling?

We ought to use a less strange word.

Indira Gandhi

Hi,

Someone has just added a link to a page about Indira Gandhi.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that link belongs on this page.

Regards, Ben Aveling 10:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't. I'll remove it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit too much text

I'm doing a project on Gandhi and it seems I have to finish it all in one day. Could it be possible to compress the article. Gandhi in a nutshell would help. Thx

Hi, this is an encyclopedia for everybody! We can't just shorten for you. You don't have to use the English Wikipedia as your only source. You can go here or try other websites (search with Google). Also what is your project specifically on? Don't plagiarise. But what you really should do is to read the this page about three times, highlight in your head and then write the project. Template:DaGizza/Sg 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is insanely long. I came to this page looking to make some suggestions as to which sections could have their own pages, but I'm not even sure I want to enter this debate. In any case, this article flaunts a number of wikipedia style guidelines aimed at making article more readable, including those concerning length, so maybe you should lay off the anonymous reader. Oh yeah, and it's a joke that this article is featured, informative as it may be. Nothing with this much ongoing NPOV debate should be featured. --djrobgordon 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just doing a very urgent 3 page essay (me slow at typing). I was a bit desperate. But still, heres so much text that it is hard to get an outline of the stuff and you end up getting too much text to read.

Do you have suggestions on how to better summarize or section, organize, etc. the article? Are there any particular areas where you would recommend material be moved to a sub-article? El_C 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The history section is quite large and the sub article is basically a copy and paste. We should first outline the main points then elaborate as that is how I do a lot of things but it is actually quite hard to do so in some areas due to the bulk of text. Transfering it into a microsoft Word document and using the summarise tool might not help either.

Proposed Solution to Fix Length Problem

Dear All,

I have a solution to propose to fix the problem of the huge length of this article.

• We could MOVE ITEMS 6-10, to a new article: The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

• We could UNITE the section concerning Gandhi's principles with Gandhism

This would be a big move, but would protect the RICHNESS and INTEGRITY of the size, content and diverse features of Wikipedia's coverage of Mahatma Gandhi.

Such a move was made about prophet Muhammad of Islam, creating separate articles to discuss specific subjects concerning his life and leadership.

I think this is a very good idea, so I'm putting it up for a debate.

Jai Sri Rama! - Rama's Arrow.

Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

I've created the article that will be the best solution, so you can judge whether it is appropriate or not. I personally think its a great idea and got a bit restless, but we can always delete it if it is felt that its not a good idea.

- Rama's Arrow.

Sub-Article

From the debate before I proposed my solution, it seems there is no objection to a possible sub-article. Previously Gurubrahma and some others hinted to a sub-article as well.

I hope nobody considers this particularly arbitrary, but I will proceed to move sections 6-11 to the article: The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Obviously if a consensus disagree, they may revert the changes. - Rama's Arrow

I agree Rama/Nirav the article was overly long and needed to be split up. I am pleased you have kept the "Principles" section on the main page, as this gives readers a quick insight into his practices and beliefs. Just a word of warning, by pruning the article down this should not mean there is room to add more large sections of text, otherwise we will be back where we started. --nirvana2013 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nirav, what happened to some of the sections? Modern criticism, for example. We don't want to go down the NPOV edit war route again. Also, if there is an article called Non-Cooperation Movement, then there should be little text on the main page, certainly no more than a couple of paragraphs. The text is only there to give readers an introduction to the sub-article. --nirvana2013 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern criticism is in the Leadership article. One can fine-tune the NCM section, but I think we need it proper on this article. - User:Rama's Arrow.

New additions

Hello All,

I'm sorry if my new additions are contrary to the desire to reduce the length of this article. I'm sure that we can re-organize further; a net drop of 10kbs has already been achieved.

I've made the additions because I feel that a clearer picture of Gandhi's personal life and post-Independence activities was necessary. There was an awkward gap between the partition of India and his assassination.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Obscene Text

Hello everyone,

This is my first edit, first contribution, and first discussion, so I hope I did it right. Despite this being a featured article, I noticed some obscene text towards the beginning, so I felt it appropriate to remove it. User:JeremyS779

Oh Come on

'realized not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

I've changed this to

'finally decided not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

btw. this article is POV it is untrue, but I'll content myself with just this minor change 81.110.202.57 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed my mind

"After lengthy deliberations with colleagues in the Congress, he declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied in India herself"

The war was not fought for 'democratic freedom', onstensibly or otherwise, it was fought to resist the murderous forces of Japan and Germany.

Look, I can see why you're embaressed about Gandhi's reaction to WW2, he'd obviously lost it a bit by then, but I can't understand the dishonesty of the left in trying to censor their heroes when they simply got in wrong on a couple of issues. 81.110.202.57 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Its not the left, its just a cult-of-personality phenemenon, a minor deification. You find the same thing with Reagan. Anyways, I agree, Ghandi wasn't perfect, and your first change was a good one. But its not about left vs. right. --Brentt 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Throughout his life?

I'm not sure the following statement in the opening paragraph is accurate:

Throughout his life he opposed any form of terrorism or violence.

I seem to recall that he worked as a recruiter for the British Army in WWI. Albeit for the ambulance corps, but nonetheless he was helping the war effort. --Brentt 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have re-worded that line. --nirvana2013 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana2013's wording simply introduces the wording adult as if Gandhi wasn't an adult till the end of WWI.

Secondly, the statement describes his personal opposition to war, not his views on the British effort in WWI. In his autobiography, he repeatedly talks of the terrible devastation of the war.

He only describes it as his duty to help in defence of the Empire, if he wanted equal citizenship in it.

I don't feel there need be any change. However I will wait before eliminating the word adult.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Name Change

As the article itself states, Gandhiji's name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While it is true that he is commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi what would the community feel about changing the name of the article to Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or the like?

--Mayur 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea and the concept behind it, but I honestly, most sincerely don't think it is necessary. The article and most users editing it have already taken great pains to liberate it from fancruft, but I think this sin is a necessary evil.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think creating a redirect to here from the proposed names may not be a bad idea. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Such re-directs already exist and some of the reasons as to why this is named Mahatma Gandhi are mentioned on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar. --Gurubrahma 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Gurubrahma, I stand corrected. The possibilities (Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, M. K. Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, Gandhiji) are directed to the same page (here). Thanks. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the right place - he is most commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be of consideration though that Gandhiji himself has written as follows regarding the title of Mahatma: ... For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less ... Ref: [7] (Autobiography) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mahatma title

I've read many a place that Rabindranath Tagore conferred the title of Mahatma on Gandhiji while Gandhiji returned the compliment with the title Gurudev. The article mentions someone else giving the title of Mahatma. Can someone please check and make the necessary corrections, if any? --Gurubrahma 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White

While Bourke-White was the last person to photograph Gandhi, it was not the one which shows him at the spinning wheel. There are plenty of references which indicate that this photo was taken in 1946. See [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] etc. I seem to remember that the last one was one that had Manu and Abha as well, but I am not at all sure about that. Tintin Talk 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, according to an NYT article, there is some doubt whether it was Bourke-White who took his last picture. I'll raise that in her article. Tintin Talk 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi and the Jews

I think it should be mentioned that Gandhi hated Jews and it was well-known that he was a raving anti-semite. If this is not mentioned, then this article is obviously written in favor of Gandhi and should be tagged with NPOV. 68.14.84.43 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Hey dude, READ BEFORE YOU TYPE. This has already been discussed here. Gandhi was extreme pacifist not a "raving anti-semite" as you put it!

p.s Even Churchill was known for racist classification of Indians as "Brown savages"! I dont see that its being turned into much of a issue there. Probably thoughts on Jews are a litmus test to a persons "goodness" isnt it? अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that he hated Jews and Israel. EarlCampbell20 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Since it is so well known, you will presumably be able to provide relevant references.treesmill 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah like Israel even existed when he died! So basically according to you, greatness of a man is on the basis of his views on Zionism, isnt it? Gandhi was against the idea of Zionism but why would he hate Jews??? You draw this conclusion only from a vague statement he made in 1945 which can be translated either way! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

EarlCampbell20, I have removed your personal attacks. Please discuss the topic at hand rather than any alleged traits of editors. AMbroodEY, please assume good faith. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi did not "hate" anyone, Jews or Nazis. Truth and love transcend anger and hate. As was pointed out by treesmill please provide references for this "hatred" that Gandhi is alleged to have had. --nirvana2013 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

People, it has been proven multiple times Gandhi was a racist and Jew hater. You are too blinded by popular portrayal of him to see the facts yourselves. This article is biased and I would give it an NPOV tag, but a Gandhi-loving moderator would quickly dispose of it.EarlCampbell20 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Please provide your references and source. How do you know you are not "blinded"? --nirvana2013 11:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of the web finds no obvious such 'proofs' but it easily finds http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm which is an article by Gandhi himself. Quote "My sympathies are all with the Jews.". He goes on to object to the imposition of the Jewish state on the previous inhabitants of Palestine, a perfectly respectable position and one not confined to 'haters of Jews'. Only someone blind to the reality of the history of the Jewish state could see this article of evidence of hate. What it clearly espouses is non-violence on both sides. treesmill 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A further search finds http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#Interview%20to%20The%20Daily%20Herald which gives a considerable amount of material both from the pen of Gandhi and of those who objected to a greater or lesser degree to his advocacy of non-violence in the case of the Jews under Hitler and more broadly to his misunderstanding of the situation in general. Whether one is persuaded or not by either side it is quite clear that none of Gandhi's opponents in the material presented here viewed him as fundamentally opposed to the Jews, let alone as a 'Jew hater'. Rather they believed that his attachment to the most fundamental form of non-violence had blinded him to what they believed to be the powerlessness of his programme in the face of the Nazi machine. treesmill 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks treesmill, I have not seen or read many of those articles by Gandhi. Awaiting your response EarlCampbell20. If no response is received, I assume this matter is closed. --nirvana2013 11:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Faith??

I'm not sure what this has to do with Gandhi's principle of faith. It needs to be changed, added to, or explained: Faith In spite of their deep reverence to each other, Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore got involved in protracted debates more than once. These debates exemplify the philosophical differences between the two most famous Indians at the time. On January 15, 1934, an earthquake hit Bihar and caused extensive damage and loss of life. Gandhi maintained this was because of the sin committed by upper caste Hindus by not letting untouchables in their temples (Gandhi was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna). Tagore vehemently opposed Gandhi's stance, maintaining that an earthquake can only be caused by natural forces, not moral reasons, however repugnant the practice of untouchability may be. TheTruth12 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhiji

At present, the term Gandhiji is once used as a label under a picture. I don't think that name should be used in a caption if it's not explained in the text. As I understand it, the -ji in Gandhiji is some sort of respectful suffix. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/Ghandi.html points out that, since Mahatma is a honorific title too, Mahatma Gandhiji would be honorific overkill. Can someone confirm this? - Adhemar, January 23, 2006

Yes, it is either Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji but never Mahatma Gandhiji. -ji is a commonly used suffix in Hindi language to show respect to elderly. The closest equivalent in English is probably "Sir." --Gurubrahma 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "Gandhiji" is NPOV. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

incident?

Which incident does this line refer to?: "This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria." It's not at all clear, as the previous line mentions recurring incidences.

South Africa changed him dramatically as he faced the humiliation and oppression that was commonly directed at Indians in that country. One day in court in the city of Durban, the magistrate asked him to remove his turban, which he refused to do, and Gandhi stormed out of the courtroom. He was also literally thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg after refusing to move from first class to a third class compartment, normally used by coloured peoples, while travelling on a valid first class ticket. Later, travelling further on by stagecoach, he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the footboard to make room for a European passenger. He suffered other hardships on the journey as well, including being barred from many hotels on account of his race. This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria. This experience led him to more closely examine the hardships his people suffered in South Africa during his time in Pretoria.

i believe it's a confusion due to several editors inserting sentences in between previously existing text: the incident is the one of getting thrown off train: deleting the line "suffered other hardships" or shifting it after the mentioned line wouldn't be ok: also unclear which biography/biographies identifies the incident as turning point. --Pournami 07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)