Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Death (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I believe that a more appropriate title would be "Attempts on Mahatma Gandhi's life" or Dr. Sushila Nayyar testified to this effect before the Kapoor Commission and she considered this an attempt at assasination. This incident has also been portrayed in the film Gandhi by Sir Richard Attenborough.

I checked the screenplay of Gandhi for the mention of this incident. The script can indian dragger

Dr. Sushila Nayyar testified at the Kapoor Cmmission Enquiry that Nathuram Godse was stopped and detained by Ashramites as he tried to reach the Mahatma and a dagger was found on his person. The police report of the assault also placed before the Kapoor Commission says that a Jambiya (Indian Curved half Sword) akin to the Machete was confiscated from one of the group consisting of Nathuram Godse, L. G. Thatte and other unnamed protestors arrested while trying to prevent the Mahatma leaving the Ashram. The police report says it wasn’t certain that they meant to harm the Mahatma but they were armed and determined to stop the Mahatma from meeting Jinha at any cost as evident from their recorded statements.`

"Controversy over Hai Ram"[edit]

The section Controversy over Hai Ram doesn't contain the text "Hai Ram", but "Ram Ram". Neither "Hai Ram" nor "Ram Ram" are defined. Tempshill (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The heading is now "Controversy over last words". The reports cited are those from eye-witnesses, which are not in agreement; leaving aside the movie scripts which dramatize the events.Fconaway (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse?[edit]

Was this person really involved in the second, third and fifth assassination attempts as well?

Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catofgrey (talkcontribs) 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with the pretentious use of his middle name?[edit]

Why is Gandhi's middle name used in the title of this article and repeatedly in the text? I mean, is there any confusion about whom we're talking about here? "Assassination of Gandhi" would be just as precise and far less pretentious, but I'd settle for "Assassination of Mohandes Gandhi." But all this use of the Karamchand name, a name more or less totally unknown to history, is just breathless and silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Assassiantion of Gandhi could also mean Indira Gandhi[[1]]or Rajiv Gandhi[[2]]that said,Karamchand is also used in the main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Article should talk more about WHY Gandhi was killed[edit]

This article talks about WHO killed or tried to kill Gandhi; but it doesn't explain WHY so many people wanted to kill him. This article should be expanded to include mention of why people wanted to kill him. --SJK (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I found this weird too. The wiki page for Gandhi touches on it at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@ SJK - Added a section on reasons with citations Notthebestusername (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And I have reverted it because the cites are completely inappropriate -- e.g. Dalvi's play is not a credible source. —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Spaceman - In that case, can you please delete only the Dalvi play reference, and retain the rest (which was taken from the Godse trials proceedings and the books written by his relatives)? Notthebestusername (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
PS - I am referring to Tushar Gandhi's book, Nathuram's court testimony in the trial and Gopal Godse's book in which he ahs added his own comments. The references given for the edits can be seen on the article page. If one, am a great admirer of Gandhi. However, I also feel that it is good to know the other side of the coin Notthebestusername (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with using trial references is that it isn't a secondary source (see WP:RS). I haven't read Tushar Gandhi's book, so I'm not commenting on that. And if we use Gopal Godse's words, then it should be on an attribution basis only. —SpacemanSpiff 15:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@ SpacemanSpiff - I agree - hence I have commenced the section with "according to... and the trial ... "(the trial statements forms a large bulk of Gopal Godse's book too). Tushar Gandhi's book is available to read on the above link, wherein he also focusses on what Nathuram said during the trial. Gopal Godse's book is also available to read on the links in the references section. The Godse family also maintains a website where these have been discussed (I have used the latter with care, as it tends to be over zealous in trying to justify Nathuram's stand. - I think the wiki article should only state his reasons, not try to justify them) Notthebestusername (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Ascton quote[edit]

"Fanatics have been killing Intellectuals since time immemorial. You have Christ, Socrates, Mansoor...but what happened on 30th January was diametrically opposite ! An intellectual killed a fanatic. This is unique in history of mankind : Jonathan Ascton"

This is the first time I've ever been tempted to put a "citation needed" in an article. Just where did this quote come from and what the hell is it about?

Influences of his death on the Indian society?[edit]

Moin moin!/Hello! Could someone add a part/section about the influences of his death on the Indian society?
On the one hand there is a national holiday on his birthday, on the other (hand) …
Thank you very much in advance! Best regards Jens Liebenau (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Matyrs Day is on Jan. 30th, the day of his assasination... is this what you are asking about? Avenzhang (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath section[edit]

The third sentence of the first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "More than 6,000 brahmin set to fire" Originally, it read, "more then 6,000 brahmin set to fire." I changed the grammatical errors, but it's still a fragment and needs some work to complete the thought. I'd do it, but I don't know what the original author was trying to convey. It probably also needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestroud (talkcontribs) 03:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


Could someone please translate the captions of the photos? (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

which photos are you referring to? Notthebestusername (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mercy asked by Gandhi's family[edit]

Hi guys. I'm not any expert on the issue nor English native speaker... but anyway: what about a section here commenting the fact that the family of the Mahatma asked the judges to pardon the assassins (killers) and not the send them to hanging. Once I read about it, you know. I think this also shows the high spiritual level Gandhi was and his friends... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Died immediatly or died later?[edit]

Two sections of this page contradict each other: "Gandhi died almost immediately. Godse himself shouted "police" and surrendered himself." vs. "There has been no explanation of why he was not rushed to the hospital and was instead taken to Birla House, where he later died."

Which is it? Bojo1498 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Writing style[edit]

It looks as though this article was written by a high school student trying to pass a history class their freshman year. I'm sure the article could be revised to look more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reactions?[edit] is The Indian Express report that carried the reactions of other world leaders on Gandhiji's death. How about a news section on that? Any other material / sources too? — Editor5454 (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable websites[edit]

Notthebestusername: I reverted some of your edits as they rely on unreliable sources such as advocacy websites. This is a historic event, described in better quality, peer reviewed HISTRS sources, which is what we must rely on for this wikipedia article per the content policies. Further, some of the content you added repeats what is already in the article sourced from RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Godse's statement on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi[edit]

It is very relevant to the subject of this article and is summarized from WP:RS. The lead needs to be based on WP:RS and WP:LEAD guidelines, and not be about someone's former neighbor. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't perfunctorily repeat Wikipedia banalities. It is not about my neighbor, but about sourced text reported by dozens of sources which I am in the process of adding to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talkcontribs)
Dial down your strange irrelevant "my former neighbor" style edit summaries, please make them more relevant. This talk page is not a private forum, but one that is public and citing wikipedia guidelines is helpful to others in understanding revert/restore actions. I will give you time to edit and add sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:, I am not done, but need to sleep. Have changed to underconstruction. Please do not edit. I will return tomorrow and finish. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Roy Olin Stratton etc seem like eccentric source(s)! Why do you consider them WP:RS? Till tomorrow, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done yet. Will need three or four more days. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── F&f: This is a live article...... what I fixed were gross errors such as an incomplete sentence "Godse and his assassination accomplices were residents of .", harv errors, etc. Nothing major. If you need to, why not copy the whole article and work in your sandbox? Take your time, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Welch: I was trying to fix your bizarre: "were residents of the Deccan." They were residents of Peninsular India as well, as well as residents of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate. (Those are all primarily geographical or geophysical characterizations). Incomplete is better than howlers such as the one you had introduced. That article has a banner up top. People understand there will be mistakes here and there. I gave you plenty time and plenty length of rope when you were mangling, not to mention strangling, the article with nonsense such as Godse offering "civil disobedience" in Hyderabad state. You took a week, or was it two weeks? Did I interfere and edit war? I did not. Please return a small fraction of that same courtesy and back off for a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to ignore your unconstructive remarks. If you object to ""Godse and his assassination accomplices were residents of the Deccan region", the solution isn't to leave the following in a live article: "Godse and his assassination accomplices were residents of ." in a live article! You can improve it with "Godse and most of his assassination accomplices were residents of the region now known as Maharashtra.", or whatever you believe is best supported by multiple RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nandy's comments on anti-statist etc in the lead[edit]

I removed Ashis Nandy's comment "openly anti-statist, anti-Brahmanic, disaggregating, emasculating" from the lead. How is this due and relevant to the subject: assassination of Gandhi? I have replaced it with Godse's comment from Mallot source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I added them, temporarily, to explicate the bit you had already added, "Godse's motivations and courtroom testimony on the assassination has been appraised, states Markovits, in the most contradictory fashion.[10]" to separate to strands of incomplete attribution and to make the point that "contradictory" was implied only in style and approach, not in content, as both examples given by Mallot are critical of Godse: one taking him to be irrational, the other taking him to be deeply, insidiously, and biasedly, rational. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sarah Welch: I gave you plenty time to turn this into a third rate article. Please let me finish improving the article. You've taken on the wrong editor. I have forgotten more about Gandhi than you will ever know. Please back off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Beware of WP:OWN please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources and sourced content[edit]

Fowler&fowler: I have recovered the sources and sourced content. You had all of last week, there is no tags anymore, no evidence that you are working on it. I have not removed your content, re-arranged it per WP:OVERCITE. Please see WP:OWN, and please do not remove sources and sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So? You had two weeks. The tags were taken off by a bot. We were discussing this on the talk page. You should have asked here. That is the Wikipedia way. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't! You did not edit since July 15. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't make any difference. We were discussing this on the talk page. If I didn't edit this since July 15, then I edited it for a mere 4 days, contrasted with your 16. The inuse tag was taken off by a bot. Obviously I will not leave a final version with eight footnotes for one sentence in the lead. It doesn't help to merge the articles out of spite. You can't scrape the bottom of a barrel you know nothing about and add "other" sources. I will obviously remove the fluff and I resume editing the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talkcontribs) 01:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
By a bot? No I took the tags off because you were leaving them contrary to the instructions on the tag. Need I quote it again? I guess I should. "Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited in several hours. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions." Don't leave the template there when you aren't editing. You don't own the article. We are welcome to contribute to it except as to allow you some courtesy when you are actively editing the article and have tagged it as such. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
F&f: Allow me to ignore your false pretensions of knowledge and your bullying. You started editing other articles after July 15. I am happy that you agree WP:OVERCITE is a problem with your edits. There are other issues with your edits, which I will comment on in future. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: Thank you! sorry for the confusion. I misunderstood you to be a bot!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
So? Who says I cannot edit other articles, while I am editing this, under the explicit understanding on the talk page that you will not interfere just as I did not? Anyway enough with the platitudes. Like I said I know a lot more about this than you have given evidence thus far. Please don't interfere further until I have confirmed on the talk page that I am done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I don't see any agreement on her part not to edit the article, just you bullying and six days ago demanding three or four more days. There is no reason other people cannot edit this article while you work on it, certainly in between your editing sessions. It seems like you intentionally and repeatedly left the in use tag there to assert ownership/control of the article between editing sessions contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and to the template's specific instructions. You also seem to be making personal attacks or being uncivil ("I have forgotten more about Gandhi than you will ever know."), been vaguely threatening ("You've taken on the wrong editor.") and indicated a will to edit war ("I will obviously remove the fluff and I resume editing the article."). I don't know why you feel entitled to act like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Really, I "intentionally ... left the inuse tag to assert ownership and control?" Can you establish that? Please use a section below to prove intentionality. The usual modern sources are: Searle, Kripke. Older ones: Gilbert Ryle, Freud, Socrates (before he took the hemlock intentionally). Please intentionally waste enough of my time so that the tag comes off one more time Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You thought a bot was removing it and you kept restoring it and leaving it there between editing sessions even knowing that there was a reason for this repeated removal. You thought that the template would fend off others from editing the article in between your editing sessions. You saw that the "bot" (I) was indicating that the template should be removed between sessions. That does seem to establish intent. I did say you seem to be doing that not that you are. Also you avoided the other issues - that she did not agree not to edit the article, that the time you requested had already passed, and that you were being rude, being threatening and expressing a will to edit war - in favor of belaboring a triviality and demanding that I prove what I said seemed to be. It would be adequate to explain yourself if that was not your intent, rather than being sarcastic and rude and wasting more time. By all means, get back to constructive collaboration. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: I am traveling, editing in brief snatches of time. I obviously did not have awareness of this, I put the tag back on with intention to edit but got sidetracked. If you were seeing this, why did you not just leave a post here or on my talk page, instead of leaving a long paragraph after the fact? The fact is, Sarah Welch is adding garbage. Here is one example: She has added Vincent Sheean's long, rambling account of how he was with Robert Stimson and witness to the assassination.(See here. Let me quote her oh-so-encyclopedic addition (Note: I am quoting her. She is paraphrasing Sheean.):

"Vincent Sheean was another eyewitness and an American reporter who had covered World War II events.[48] He went to India in 1947 and became a disciple of Gandhi. He was with the BBC reporter Bob Stimson. They stood next to each other by the corner of a wall. According to Sheean, the Delhi air was not warm but alight with the promise of spring, as Gandhi walked wrapped in a homespun shawl, leaning lightly "on two of the girls", and two or three others following them. Soon neither Stimson nor he could see Gandhi, because as usual, Gandhi had a small body and was surrounded by a clump of people. Then they heard "four, dull, dark explosions". Sheean asked Stimson, "what's that?" Stimson replied, "I don't know".[48] It was a confusing place, people were weeping and many things happening, wrote Sheean, "a doctor was found, the police took charge; the body of the Mahatma was carried away; the crowd melted, perhaps urged to do so by the police; I saw none of this".[48] Stimson filed a BBC report, then he and Sheean walked up and down the flower bed for a while. Sheean reported that he later met a "young American from the Embassy" who had just arrived from China and never been to a prayer meeting before. Sheean did not take anything the young American said about the scene, but a week later learned that "it was this young man who had captured the assassin, held him for the Indian police" and after turning the assassin over, it was this young American who searched the crowd for a doctor. He experienced a tribal pride, states Sheean, that even though he was paralyzed and helpless on the day of Gandhi's assassination, "one of his breed had been useful".[48]

But the American ambassador to India, Henry F. Grady, has written in his memoir, (Grady, Henry Francis (2009), The Memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady: From the Great War to the Cold War, University of Missouri Press, p. 136, ISBN 978-0-8262-7187-7 ),

Vincent Sheean was at our residence when the assassination occurred. In the months before, he had become deeply attached to Gandhi, and with his sudden death, Sheean almost went to pieces, throwing himself on a bed in our residence and weeping."

There are other accounts, based on Sheean's weepy report that seem to put Sheean there. Others still, place him there after the event. But the point is this is contested information, by no less a person as the first American ambassador to India. How would you feel if when you are editing someone else is stuffing garbage in the article? How does one collaborate with nonsensical edits, that are attempting to turn, in a tit for tat fashion, the article into a collection of trivia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC) PS And they are doing it so fast that they confuse their (so very close) paraphrase for Sheean's very words, making copyvios right and left, mangling the name of Herbert "Tom" Reiner Jr.—a man of great presence of mind and humility, whom I am proud to call a former neighbor, whose brave act of 70 years ago, they are attempting to balance with bizarre quotes from the "Almanac of World Crime?" It is downright shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for taking the time to explain patiently and in detail. You do seem to be well versed in the topic, quite familiar with the sources, and improving the quality of the article. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with the content that Ms Sarah Welch has wanted to add/restore, only that I was concerned about the tone of the interactions with her and the apparent need for other editors to be entirely hands off until you are finished with the changes you have in mind. If the "Under construction" template is appropriate between editing sessions then other editors are welcome to assist. I appreciate that you feel a personal connection to the topic and can definitely understand why you may feel considerable frustration at the restoration of content which you feel is much lower quality. The lack of civility, however, is painful to see. As to whether Sheean's account should be included at all, I'm not sure I am really qualified to discern that. From my reading of the article it would seem interesting to have additional accounts even if they are disputed but I'm not sure how much detail that would merit or how much the account adds to the article even if it is true. Thanks again for your explanation and efforts in refining this article. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: Grady's statement above can be interpreted as "Sheean was staying with them". Please see Grady's other statements on page 126. Grady is not saying that Sheean was in their residence "at the very moment Gandhi was killed". Grady seems to praising Sheean on page 126 with "widely known American journalist". Grady's observations on Sheean are consistent with Sheean own statement in his memoir that he went to pieces, was overwhelmed with sorrow. I have tried to keep the summary from Sheean's book very close to the source. Its reliability and acceptability in this article is no different than those of Reiner, Trumbull and others that F&f has added. I don't mind adding something from Grady, if appropriate. Let us not accept F&f's statement that something is of inferior quality, for we can say the same thing about the sources F&f has added! We need verifiability in published sources that can help establish "X source is inferior or unreliable". BTW, what do you think of Stratton (1950) SACO, the Rice Paddy Navy source in this article? Can you find any secondary or tertiary source that cites Stratton, or any tertiary source that details the Reiner account as done by Fowler&fowler? I too am concerned with bullying and behavioral issues with F&f, as it is not helpful to this article, and not just in this article, or just one editor. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Ah, I see what you mean about the Grady quote! Good point; indeed it may have only meant that Sheean was staying with them, and the context in the quoted book is pretty limited. I don't think that would override a WP:RS citation of what Sheean claimed happened. Looking at the Stratton book I notice some issues: it is not directly a book about the topic of this article, it does not appear cited or referenced in this context, it is described as "filled with profound affection and pride" in one unrelated reference on Google scholar, and its publisher CS Palmer does not appear anywhere online (from what I could see) other than in reference to this book. This indeed is not clearly a RS for this topic. You also make a good point about lack of tertiary sources obviously referencing this account. For example, Google Scholar "herbert+reiner"+gandhi+assassination yields absolutely nothing and a Google search [3] doesn't seem to yield much. That Reiner was the one who seized Godse does appear to be reliably sourced from my cursory examination but I'm not clear how much detail is contained in the versions other than Stratton's. Also concerning is F&f's heart felt personal connection to Reiner and seemingly overall emotional attachment to the content of the article. If his bullying behavior here is more widespread I would agree that it is problematic. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: Notable journalist indeed was Vincent Sheean, and well cited author. Sheean is cited by Makarand Paranjape, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University there in India, in his book The Death and Afterlife of Mahatma Gandhi on this subject. Paranjape writes on page 10, "Despite the cataclysmic dimensions of this [assassination] event, there are not many eye-witness accounts of it. One of the best comes from Vincent Sheean (1899-1975), an American reporter and author, (...)". Paranjape source then pretty much describes Sheean claims. Paranjape is not alone in citing Sheean. The book, Lead Kindly Light: Gandhi and the Way to Peace by Sheean, is cited in many other journal/etc publications. Yes, given F&f's emotional connection (to Reiner, his alleged former neighbor), and outbursts/bullying here, I agree there are valid concerns. Potential WP:COI issues here. I wonder if F&f should be editing this article and related articles at all, as his edits and behavior in this article do not come across as neutral. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm that DIYeditor's search results on F&f sources matches my own, and the search of a university librarian I requested for help. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Just as John Wilkes Booth was at the National Hotel in DC when Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater, and Lee Harvey Oswald was at home when Kennedy was shot. I am sorry, not because I was bullying Sarah Welch (in fact, she was bullying me by constantly replacing my rigorously sourced text with misinterpreted versions of my own sources), but because Vincent Sheean's book, which I read a long time ago, was a sensitively written book. I'm sorry that it has been so inadequately paraphrases, as to constitute an insult to Sheean.
Here is the paraphrase:

According to Sheean, the Delhi air was not warm but alight with the promise of spring, as Gandhi walked wrapped in a homespun shawl, leaning lightly "on two of the girls", and two or three others following them. Soon neither Stimson nor he could see Gandhi, because as usual, Gandhi had a small body and was surrounded by a clump of people. Then they heard "four, dull, dark explosions". Sheean asked Stimson, "what's that?" Stimson replied, "I don't know".[48] It was a confusing place, people were weeping> and many things happening, wrote Sheean, "a doctor was found, the police took charge; the body of the Mahatma was carried away; the crowd melted, perhaps urged to do so by the police; I saw none of this".[48] Stimson filed a BBC report, then he and Sheean walked up and down the flower bed for a while. Sheean reported that he later met a "young American from the Embassy" who had just arrived from China and never been to a prayer meeting before. Sheean ibal pride, states Sheean, that even though he was paralyzed and helpless on the day of Gandhi's assassination, "one of his breed haddid not take anything the young American said about the scene, but a week later learned that "it was this young man who had captured the assassin, held him for the Indian police" and after turning the assassin over, it was this young American who searched the crowd for a doctor. He experienced a tr been useful".[48] (The green highlighting indicates copy-vio.)

Then there are the constant low-grade hostile, but coldly polite, edits such as [4], which misinterpret my well-sourced statement, "According to reports carried on the front pages of newspapers around the world, while the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner Jr, .... <<the entire sentence cited to seven more sources (including the NY Times, BBC ...) with quotes from the sources>> and turn it into "According to newspapers reports such as The Los Angeles Times, while the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner Jr" All this is done with such great speed (in this case 3 minutes later) that no duty is felt to stop to actually read my edit.
It is these edits that constitute bullying. Can you imaging how much time is wasted fixing them. Again this nonstop, coldly polite, low-grade warfare, is bullying. My calling such edits "garbage" is not. As for high quality RS, why are you nipping at the heels of Ray Olin's collection of articles written by the US Operatives working behind the lines in China (SACO)—which includes Reiner's and remains to date the best and the most calmly accurate account of Gandhi's assassination. Reiner had his eyes open. He saw Godse, and he grabbed him. He saw other things with great perspicuity—when you already have a high quality scholarly RS in the form of Darkness Everywhere: The Assassination of Mohandas Gandhi by Matt Doeden Twenty-First Century Books. What is it? It is: Juvenile Nonfiction. Again: it is juvenile nonfiction! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Really, Sheean's is? But by his own admission he passed out at the moment of the assassination and came to some half an an hour later. And then he talked to Reiner. So Reiner exists. That means we now we have the NY Times, BBC, LA Times, Boston Globe, Cambell-Johnson's Mission with Mountbatten (written by Mountbatten ADC), Pronko and Bowles Empirical Foundations of Psychology, Tunzelman's Indian Summe, and five or six other sources, in addition to hundreds of newspapers around the world on the front pages of which there was the story of Reiner's actions. Listen DYI editor, and Sarah Welch too, if you think Reiner did not exist, or was not the man who stopped Godse, why don't you open a thread at ANI, or somewhere else? Good luck. Let me know when that happens. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
PS And DYI, stop patronizing me with the "emotional" nonsense. Neither Reiner was "emotional," nor am I. You have barely made 1000 edits on WP. How many articles have you written? Please examine my list of created articles before you make such silly accusations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Fowler&fowler: If you'll read what I actually wrote, I said "that Reiner was the one who seized Godse does appear to be reliably sourced". And I wouldn't exactly call this cool and impartial: "Herbert "Tom" Reiner Jr.—a man of great presence of mind and humility, whom I am proud to call a former neighbor, whose brave act of 70 years ago..." —DIYeditor (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do take both your assessments to ANI along with Sarah Welch's gripes. In addition to the 8 sources I have stating that Reiner was the guy who subdued Godse, please also add Sheean, and also this:

"People moved or stood as if in a trance. Even the young American from the United States embassy who caught the fleeing assassin did so almost in silence. As he pinioned the hands which still clutched the pistol, policemen rushed up to seize the captive. He did not struggle.Eaton, Jeanette (1950), Gandhi, Fighter Without a Sword, Morrow 

And now I have to go to bed. Good luck and good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what the communication problem is here. I have twice agreed that Reiner is widely documented by multiple sources as being the one who having seized Godse. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC) ; edited 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, mentioning Reiner is fine. See this edit over a week ago. On rest, check the sources (yep, green colored text above is supported). Numerous RS, such as those published by Oxford University Press etc, do present versions without any mention of Reiner. Many of these state that Godse surrendered and called for police (no subduing!). We can't take sides for NPOV, given F&f's sources are WP:Questionable and in some cases more suspect for reasons explained above. Fowler&fowler: are you suggesting that this article's lead and main should emphasize the role of your "former neighbor Reiner" even if tertiary sources / reviews / other RS don't? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Like I said, if you think my sources are not reliable. If you think that garbage written by a JNU English professor (which automatically makes him or her an expert on Indian history), someone who has not read Reiner, doesn't know that his account exists, doesn't know that most Western accounts exist, have only read Sheean's Lead Kindly Light, which was popular and available in India, but whose author became semi-comatose during the crucial half hour of the assassination, and the dozens and dozens of Indian versions, the dramatized hagiographies, is more reliable than my sources, please take it to the WP forum of your choosing. Before you do, though, please look at the pathetic state of the article before I chose to make my intervention. Reiner had originally been mentioned there. But you, Sarah Welch, took him out, replacing him with anonymous "witnesses" or "crowd" from excellent sources such as Almanac of World Crime, with its high quality one paragraph article on Gandhi, with Americanization of Gandhi: Images from ..., or the aforementioned juvenile non-fiction. The green colored text above is what is a copy-vio, copied directly from Sheean, a clear violation of WP policy, and an insult to Sheean. There are other, errors of paraphrasing, made by those who don't know the literature, and are in too much of a hurry to read it carefully. The following doozy takes the cake. Thus spake Sheean:

He passed by us on the other side and turned to ascend the four or five brick steps that led to the terrace, or prayer ground. Here, as usual, there was a clump of people, some of whom were standing and some of whom had gone on their knees or bent low before him. Bob and I turned to watch—we were perhaps ten feet away from the steps—but the cump of people cut off our view of the Mahatma now: he was so small. Then I heard four small, dull, dark explosions."

Thus spake our WP:RS paraphrase:

Soon neither Stimson nor he could see Gandhi, because as usual, Gandhi had a small body and was surrounded by a clump of people. Then they heard "four, dull, dark explosions"

Because, as usual, Gandhi's body had not changed in size since the day before (when Sheean had seen him) and as usual Gandhi was always surrounded by a clump of people. Because as usual we should wonder how Sheean managed to ascertain that Gandhi was present within the clump which had just ascended the steps and not in the clump that Sheean had observed to be present on the raised lawn. What is this except a violation of WP:DO NOT PARAPHRASE SO INACCURATELY AS TO MAKE A LAUGHING STOCK OF WIKIPEDIA AND THE AUTHOR.

Now let us compare, Sheean's solipsistic account, more about himself, than the assassination, with Reiner's clear-headed one. Thus spake Sheean:

Soon neither Stimson nor he could see Gandhi, because as usual, Gandhi had a small body and was surrounded by a clump of people. Then they heard "four, dull, dark explosions" ... What followed must be told just as it happened (to me-me) or there is no truth in it. Inside my own head there occurred a wavelike disturbance which I can only compare to a storm at sea—wind and wave surging tremendously back and forth. I remember all this distinctly; I do not believe that I lost consciousness even for a moment, although there may have been an instant or two of half-consciousness. I recoiled upon the brick wall and leaned against it, bent almost in two. I felt the consciousness of the Mahatma leave me then—I know of no other way of expressing this: he left me. The storm inside my head continued for some little time—minutes, perhaps; I have no way of reckoning. Then I was aware of two things at once: a burning and stinging in the fingers of my right hand and a similar burning and stinging in my eyes. In the eyes it was tears, although of some more add mixture than I had known, and on my fingers I did not know for a while what it was, because I put them in my mouth (like a child) to case the burning. In the wildness and confusion of that moment a young Indian—unknown to me—came to where I was doubled up against the wall and said: 'Is he dead? Is he dead? The young Indian had staring eyes and was as filled with horror as I was, I suppose, although I do not know why he asked me such a question. 'I don't know,' I said, taking my fingers out of my mouth to do so. Then I looked at my fingers. On the third and fourth fingers of my right hand blisters had appeared. They were facing each other, on the sides of those fingers which touch. The blister on the third finger was rather large and was already filled with water. The blister on the fourth or little finger was smaller. They had not been there before I heard the shots. The storm returned inside my head, but briefly, very briefly. I sat on the edge of the wall and looked at my fingers and then put them back into my mouth: they burned far worse than is usual with blisters. What was this? Then flooding into my memory came the visions in Vermont the summer before, the dreams since, the many, many dreams in ..."

Thus spake Reiner:

“This microcosm of the Indian population sat in traditional position on the large blue daris before the khadi covered chauk or platform from which the services were to be conducted. It was a quiet, orderly assembly befitting the occasion with only a small segment of the audience remaining on its feet, and they were to the back of the terrace behind those sitting before the dais on which incongruously stood a combined recording and amplifying microphone bearing the word 'Chicago' on either side. The seventy-nine year old Gandhi, possessor of tremendous physical stamina, appeared to have recovered from the rigors of his recent six-day fast, for he made his way unfalteringly along the garden path toward the pergola. Followed by his male secretaries and resting his arms as usual on his great nieces he approached the steps of the terrace. My mind was busy recalling and reconstructing comments, readings and impressions which I had encountered about this man, who, despite his stooped figure, scrawny neck and thin legs possessed a physical stature which I had not anticipated. He was tall by Indian standards heavy chested, and agile of movement ... It was at this moment that Gandhi passed directly in front of me and that I also noticed a khaki-clad individual advance a step or two from the line of people standing along the path to the dais. Four rapid shots, not loud, not ringing, and not unlike the reports of damp firecrackers, disturbed the quiet of the late afternoon."

There you have it. A clear-headed account of the assassination by an American marine, who noticed all the details. And a dark solipsistic epiphany by a Gandhi fan, Sheean, that is attractive only to English professors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And for Sarah Welch's remarkable assertion,

I can confirm that DIYeditor's search results on F&f sources matches my own, and the search of a university librarian I requested for help

Here, according to the WorldCat Catalog are the libraries which carry Stratton's book, which was reprinted in 2004 (with Reiner's account): 1. Harvard University, Harvard-Yenching Library, 2. Boston Athenaeum. 3. Boston College, Thomas P. O'Neill Library 4 Saint Anselm College Saint Anselm College Geisel Library, Manchester, NH, 5. UNH Durham,Dimond Library, Durham, NH 03824 United States. 6. Naval War College Henry E. Eccles Library, Newport, RI 02841. 7. US Coast Guard Academy, USCGA Library, NEW LONDON, CT 06320 United States. 8.Yale University Library New Haven, CT 06520. 9. New York Public Library System NYPL, New York, NY 10018, ... and so forth, you get the idea. Please, please, do not waste my time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And now it turns out, the much touted "academic" Markand Paranjape, English professor and self-described poet, has the support and backing of the Hindu right-wing organization, RSS the same whose former members, Godse and Apte, murdered Gandhi. According to a news report from, The New Indian Express: RSS backed academician tipped to head Nalanda

NEW DELHI: The Nalanda University, set up to become an international institution of national repute, is likely to get a right tilt as academicians with RSS affiliations are tipped to become chancellor and vice-chancellor (VC) of the varsity. Chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, is the frontrunner to take over the reins of the varsity as its chancellor. The appointment of Rao, a history professor at the Kakatiya University in Telangana, as chairman of ICHR in 2014 invited criticism from professional historians who saw it as the Narendra Modi-led government’s attempt to rewrite history. The university has received 160 applications for the position, and the frontrunners for the post are English and Foreign Language University’s VC Sunaina Singh, art historian and professor of Buddhist Studies at the International Academy of Indian Culture Nirmala Sharma, and Prof Makarand Paranjape of JNU.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There's more on the Professor's pasttimes. According to this Daily News and Analysis story, 16 April 2017

A two-day seminar titled 'Freeing India from the colonial mindset', attended by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, concluded here today. The closed-door seminar was organised by RSS-backed Bharatiya Vichar Manch (BVM) at Prakash High school in the city. In his concluding remarks, Bhagwat urged the invited dignitaries and RSS functionaries to take ahead the agenda discussed during the seminar, a local RSS leader said. RSS ideologue Rakesh Sinha, JNU professor Makarand Paranjape, former Pro Vice Chancellor of JNU Dr Kapil Kapoor and film director and writer Dr Chandraprakash Dwivedi and others shared their views during the seminar.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PS Recall, our article begins with: "Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated on 30 January 1948 in the compound of Birla House (now Gandhi Smriti), a large mansion in central New Delhi. His assassin was Nathuram Vinayak Godse, a Chitpavan brahmin from Pune, Maharashtra, a Hindu nationalist,[1], a member of the political party, the Hindu Mahasabha,[2] as well as a former member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing Hindu paramilitary volunteer organization.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The professor, Markanda Paranjape, whose earlier acquaintance I had not the privilege of making, has truly opened mine eyes by floating the idea:

"These Hindus who lived in this bounded land which originally was not even a part of Asia, it was Jambudvipa, was this floating island, which after the great continental drift, crashed into the mainland of Asia, and these Himalayas which were beneath the surface of the oceans sprang up and became the tallest mountains in the world.

Please correct the WP article Jambudvipa and Plate Tectonics in light of the professor's spectacular highly sourced knowledge which begins at the 4:21 mark in the video Makarand Paranjape Speaks To Hindol Sengupta On Being Hindu. Please also hear the professor redefine the phonetic rendering of "prodigious" to be proDig-you-us, and request the OED and Webster's Unabridged to correct their longstanding errors. (See NL Interviews: Makarand Paranjape On JNU students Blocking path to his office (2 minute mark). Why are you wasting him on a mere mortal such as Gandhi? Please also don't flatter the professor, or yourself, by assuming that I'm making fun of him. I am deadly serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I disagree. DIYeditor is right! as I noted above, and I have had our librarian check the quality of your sourceson Reiner. Many of them are weak / not cited by scholars in last few decades. On rest, allow me once again to ignore your strange opinions filled TEXTWALL. As I said before, if there is wording that worries you, we can revise it, or just quote Sheean or other sources exact. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and I am always open to suggestions to improve a sentence / whatever anyone else or I add. Constructive suggestions are welcome, OR or other nonsense not welcome. Try DRN. Good luck. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vincent Sheean and Markandaya Paranjape[edit]

@DIYeditor:, @Ms Sarah Welch: Markandarya Paranjape, makes the remarkable claim in this book that Vincent Sheean's lead kindly light is the best eyewitness account of Gandhi's assassination. I said above that Paranjape obviously didn't know about all the other available account. Here is a footnote which describes the extent of his very limited researches in digging up these sources. (see here:

Footnote I .Bob Stimpson, who is mentioned by Sheean. also filed a report for the BBC, which is supposedly available on, but the link to the sound file is dead (last access failure on 22 August 2013). The report is also supposedly on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website ( where too it fails to play (last access failure on 22 August 2013). Other eyewitness accounts include Dharam Jit Jigyasu's recollection to his grandson in 2000, originally posted on the CBS website, and available on YouTube (Jaitly 2007); but recorded over 50 years after, this account lacks the imme-diacy of Sheean's account. The written text from the website by the grandson, Muni S. Jaitly, begins with the dramatic claim, 'Mahatma Gandhi died in my grandfather's arms' (Jaitly 2009), which is not strictly true because it was in Abha Gandhi's arms that the fatally wounded Mahatma drew his last breath. In early 2012, a report by Vivek Shukla of the reminiscences of K. D. Madan, another eyewitness, was published in The Pioneer (28 January 2012). However, nonagenarian Madan, who was then an employee of the All India Radio, hardly adds anything new to what we already know about the event.

How did historians access eyewitness accounts before the age of the internet? They wrote the BBC, they went to a British Council library, they traveled to London to access primary sources in the British Library, they harangued the daylights out of everyone to find them. What did the professor do? Tried two links on one day and gave up. Forget graduate students, I have had undergraduate students in the last 30 years who have done more work on a term paper. Did it occur to the professor to read Nicholas Pronko and JW Bowles, Empirical Foundations of Psychology (page 15) (first published in 1952, and reprinted many times, and found in dozens of libraries in India, where Stimpson's account is transcribed in its entirety and Reiner's actions considered a case study of psychological principles?. How did I manage to locate the book in two libraries in Delhi, where I am visiting, where I don't know the lay of the land too well, and these libraries are not even major ones? Did it occur to the professor to write the major newspapers of the world (not to mention the not so major), including the New York Times, which had extended eye-witness accounts, pictures of Reiner, interviews with his parents, .... How did I manage to find so much for a "It would be fun" idea of oldest granddaughter, who is in elementary school, and write up something, Herbert Reiner Jr. around the death anniversary of Gandhi six months ago for Wikipedia DYK and the professor is making such clueless sophomoric remarks, and unashamedly writing it, the academic publishing house, unashamedly publishing it? Let me suggest very bluntly, if your'e going to waste your time with such amateur Googling, you will do nothing but waste time, primarily mine. Thus far you have come up with nothing except flaunting the nonsensical claims of a professor who is being supported by Hindu nationalist organizations in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

F&f: You are doing OR on sources, and analysing the sources/scholars with what appears to be anti-Hindu / anti-whatever screen. Your personal views do not matter. You need to find scholarly sources that criticize Paranjape's views on Gandhi's assassination, and I would welcome a summary of that publication. But not your or any other wikipedia editor's personal views, since that is OR and taking sides (not-NPOV). Your criticism of scholars and sources is strange and unwarranted. Try DRN process. Good luck. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I was pointing out the extent of the researches described in the footnote. They do not support the claim that he had really read any significant eyewitness reports other than Sheean's. I don't need to find academic sources pointing that out. He does it himself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Scholars need not cite all sources they look into, just like we avoid WP:OVERCITE. We can quote Paranjape exact. But we can't analyze and do OR on any source, no matter how much you personally agree and disagree with that source or scholar. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I was obviously not adding that to the article, because your statement above, "Paranjape writes on page 10, "Despite the cataclysmic dimensions of this [assassination] event, there are not many eye-witness accounts of it. One of the best comes from Vincent Sheean (1899-1975), an American reporter and author, (...)". has not been added to the article, as far as I know. If you do add it, I will be forced to also add a paraphrase of his footnote which lays bare for everyone the extent of the reading backing the statement. But I am making all the notes here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Trim the lead[edit]

I suggest we delete the following from the lead, move it into main perhaps, per WP:Lead guidelines:

According to Reiner, "Goodse stood nearly motionless with a small beretta dangling in his right hand and to my knowledge made no attempt to escape or to take his own fire. ... Moving toward Godse I extended my right arm in an attempt to seize his gun but in doing so grasped his right shoulder in a manner that spun him into the hands of Royal Indian Air Force men, also spectators, who disarmed him. I then fastened a firm grasp on his neck and shoulders until other military and police took him into custody".[15]

Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Little chance that it will be removed. It has about 11 or 12 sources supporting different versions of it. Reiner is even a case study in Pronko and Bowles classic, Empirical Foundations of Psychology (originally published in 1952, and printed dozens of times since). However, what I am removing from the article, I am or will be detailing below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── F&f: You inflate but thanks for not claiming that 1,000,000,000 sources in zillion languages and every tertiary source supports exclusively "your former neighbor" storyline.... because no tertiary source does! The psychology book has numerous case studies, all except one case have nothing to do with Gandhi's assassination. Pronko and Bowles quote the story and assume it was true, and then they analyze the story. Not the best source (I am surprised I have explain you this, given how you lecture others such as Kautilya3 about tertiary sources etc). I am, like DIYeditor is, willing to accept your primary and secondary sources, in a spirit of compromise for a stable article. But it is highly inappropriate for you to remove the other versions and many other sources, such as the one by Ashis Nandy, "Final Encounter: The Politics of the Assassination of Gandhi", published by Oxford University Press. This is unusual because you yourself added Nandy as RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The biased, shabby, incomplete citations are being removed for the following reasons[edit]

Here are some references used by Sarah Welch, which are being described as high quality RS, except of course the first, which is about a cherry-picked quote from Wavell's much longer journal entry about Gandhi

Wavell's mangled quote[edit]

  • I have removed this bizarre reference to Lord Wavell's remark after Gandhi's death in the "criticism" section after Gandhi's death:

    Lord Wavell, the Viceroy and Governor-General of British India for three years through February 1947, who had worked with Gandhi and Jinnah to find a common ground, before and after accepting Indian independence in principle, remarked after learning the news of Gandhi's assassination, "I always thought he [Gandhi] had more of malevolence than benevolence in him, but who am I to judge, and how can an Englishman estimate a Hindu?"[1]

I have [removed it in this edit As I say, in the edit summary, it is from his journal. What is worse is that is has been both distorted in the paraphrase and incompletely quoted, to the detriment of both Gandhi and Wavell. What did Wavell say in his journal? Here is the entry from Feb 1, 1948:

The journey out was uneventful and dull. We got to Johannesburg about 7 pm I was greeted with the news of Gandhi's assassination, an unexpected end for a very remarkable man. I never accepted him as having much of the saint in his composition but he was an extremely astute politician. Whether he did more harm or good for India it would be hard to say, but Indians will have no doubt, and he certainly hastened the departure of the British, which was his life's aim. But he wrecked the plan of the Cabinet Mission which might possibly have secured a united India and saved all the massacres. I do not believe that he really worked for an understanding with the Muslims, when his influence might have secured it. He was always the lawyer and the bania who would drive a hard bargain and then find some legal quibble to deprive his opponent of what he had seemed to gain. I always thought he had more of malevolence than benevolence in him, but who am I to judge, and how can an Englishman estimate a Hindu? Our standards are poles apart, and by Hindu standards Gandhi may have been a saint, by any standards he was a very remarkable man." (See here

    • I don't care that Sarah Welch will now respond: the cited source says that and the source is WP:Reliable This, WP:Reliable That, and WP:Reliable Other. This is essentially what happens when people who do not know the material, have no historical intuition for those times to be naturally suspicious of such a quote, attempt to write an article by cherry picking quotes using Google, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ashish Nandy, book: Exiled at Home: Comprising, At the Edge of Psychology, The Intimate Enemy, Creating a Nationality[edit]

The full quote here is:

"On 30 January 1948, Nathuram Godse fired four shots at point blank range as Gandhi was going to his prayer meeting in Delhi. Before firing the shots he bowed down to Gandhi to show his respect for the services the Mahatma had rendered to the country. The killer made no attempt to run away and himself shouted for the police, even though in the stunned silence following the killing he had enough time to at least attempt an escape. As he later said, he had done his duty like Arjuna in Mahabharata whom Krishna advised to kill his own relatives because they were evil. (footnote 63) So, Gandhi died, according to his own scenario, at the hands of one who was apparently a zealot, a religious fanatic, a typical assassin with a typical assassin's background: educated and intelligent, but an under-achiever; relatively young; coming from the middle-class and yet from a group which was a displaced elite; and with a long record of failures. Here was a man fighting a diffused sense of self-definition with the help of a false sense of mission and trying to give though political assassination some meaning to his life. One might even note, for psychologists that there was also in Godse the authoritarian man's fear of sexuality, status seeking, idealization of parents, ideological rigidity, constriction of emotions and even some amount of what Erich Fromm would diagnose as love of death. pp 92-93.

Please note that since Nandy is WP:RS, if he says, "he fired four bullets,' he Godse did fire four bullets. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Book: Representing Gandhian politics in Indian comic books[edit]

  • McLain, Karline (2007). "Who Shot the Mahatma? Representing Gandhian Politics in Indian Comic Books". South Asia Research. SAGE Publications. 27 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1177/026272800602700104.  Quote: "Godse then calmly called for the police and turned himself in";

Here is the abstract of this journal article:

Amar Chitra Katha (‘Immortal Picture Stories’) is the leading Indian comic book series, with 440 mythological and historical titles and sales of over 86 million issues. In 1989, after twenty years of publishing success, the producers of this series decided to release two issues on the world-renowned Indian politician and activist, Mahatma Gandhi. But Gandhi, best known for his technique of non-violent civil resistance, presented a formidable challenge: How to depict the Mahatma, paragon of peace and non-violence, in a visual medium that is notorious for its action and violence? This article examines the relationship between text and image in these comics, and draws upon interviews with authors and artists, to better understand the contested memory of Gandhi in India today as well as the contested concept of non-violence.

Is this a reliable source for an accurate account of the assassination? What does Gandhi's contested memory, and how his assassination may be depicted in a medium that traditionally prefers action and violence i.e. children's comic books, have to do with an accurate reconstruction of the assassination for adults? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Book: Darkness Everywhere: The Assassination of Mohandas Gandhi (Juvenile Non-fiction) by Matt Doeden[edit]

  • Matt Doeden 2013, p. 5, Quote: "Godse did not flee the scene, and he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police"

"Juvenile non-fiction, 8 grade and up" (80 pages):

On the evening of the assassination, Godse went to the grounds of Birla House in New Delhi, where Gandhi held his daily prayer meetings. He approached Gandhi outside the building, bowed, and shot him three times at point-blank range. Gandhi fell to the ground, his handspun white clothing stained red with blood. His followers rushed him inside and called for his doctor. But it was too late. Gandhi was dead at the age of seventy-eight. Godse did not flee the scene. Instead, the gathered crowd seized his gun, and Godse voluntarily surrendered himself to the police.

Book: Famous murder trials: covering more than 75 murder cases in India[edit]

Promod Kumar Das:

Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma, a great soul, had played a prominent role in politics. Hindus affected 'by partition and those who shared universal brotherhood with them' were enraged against him. Police were posted at Birla House to protect him from any possible assault. An explosion occurred near the compound wall of Birla House, New Delhi, the capital of India, on the evening of January 20, 1948. It was of a non-cotton slab. It damaged the wall. The explosion on January 20, 1948 was not aimed at Gandhi. It was almost a hundred and fifty feet away from the dais where he sat. It was however, revealed later, by the police that the explosion was a part of the plan to bump Gandhi off. The police could hardly make any progress in apprehending others within the next ten days. All of a sudden, on January 30, 1948, Gandhi was shot point blank in the evening at 5.00 P.M. by Nathuram Godse while the former was on his way to the dais for the prayer meeting. Gandhi, with almost feeble or faint 'ah', possibly as a reflex action and shock, fell to the ground. He went unconscious instantaneously and breathed his last some twenty minutes later. Nathuram Godse, after firing shots raised his hand with the gun and called for the police. He was apprehended.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Book: The book of assassins[edit]


"On 30 January, 1948, Just after 5 PM, M.K. Gandhi emerged from his quarters in Birla House Delhi, to hold a prayer meeting in the garden with several hundred people who were to pray for Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi, who was being supported by two of his grandnieces as he was weakened by a recent fast, was approached by Godse. Dressed in a bulky khaki tunic, Godse had his hands held in a traditional Hindu greeting. As Gandhi moved closer, Godse bowed slightly, then pulled a Beretta automatic pistol from the tunic and shot the Mahatma once in the abdomen and twice in the chest. Gandhi is supposed to have said "Hai Rama! Hai Rama!" ("My God! My God!") as he fell to the ground; he is also reputed to have looked up at his attacker and made a sign of forgiveness. Gandhi was rushed back to the house, where he died within the hour. Godse who had already decided not to try to flee, stood silently waiting to be arrested, but was not approached at first because he was still armed. At last a member of the Indian air force grabbed him by the wrist, and Godse released his weapon. Police quickly surrounded to prevent the crowd from lynching him."

Book: Alamanac of World Crime[edit]

  • Yet other reports state he was rushed by the crowd, beaten, arrested, and taken to jail.[2]

In the Almanac of World Crime, the JR Nash has described Gandhi's last minutes thus:

Godse had long feared that Gandhi's attempt to unite all of India's millions, Hindu and Moslem alike, would lead to a Moslem takeover of the country. He and six others conspired to kill the great Mahatma in early 1948. At 5:15 P.M. on January 30, 1948, Godse pushed his way through the several hundred spectators awaiting the Hindu leader in the garden of his sanctuary, the Birla House, outside of New Delhi, India. Without a word, he rushed to Gandhi's side and shot him to death. Gandhi's only remarks to the two nieces at his side were: "Hai Rama! Hai Rama!" ("Oh, God! Oh, God!") Godse was set upon by the crowd, beaten, then taken to jail. His trial and that of his fellow conspirators dragged on for months. He and Narayan Apte were condemned, five others given life sentences. Godse told the court that he considered Gandhi, who had, more than any other Indian leader, ended British rule of the country through nonviolent rebel-lion, a "curse to India, a force for evil . . . the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement." Godse died slowly by the rope. Instead of having his neck snapped, Godse strangled to death for fifteen minutes on November 15, 1949.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Book: The Americanization of Gandhi: images of the Mahatma[edit]

The description:

Then, with his arms round the shoulders of his grandnieces Ava and Manu, the knobby brown man shuffled weakly down the red sandstone pathway leading from Birla House to the vine-covered pergola which served as his prayer-meeting place. Slowly he climbed the three steps leading to the pavilion. A stocky young man in grey slacks, a blue pullover and khaki bush jacket stepped forward and knelt at Gandhi's feet. He was Nathur Ram Vinayak Godse, editor of the extremist newspaper Hindu Rashtra, which had denounced Gandhi as an appeaser of Moslems. "You are late today for the prayer," said the murderer. "Yes, I am," said Gandhi. Godse suddenly pulled out a tiny Beretta automatic pistol. He fired three times. One bullet ripped into Gandhi's chest, two into his belly. With hands folded, as if welcoming the blow, in the gesture that is both the Hindu greeting and the Christian attitude of prayer, Gandhi fell backward. He murmured, "Ai Ram, Ai Ram" (0 Rama, 0 Rama), in invocation to the gentle hero of the Hindu pantheon, Gandhi's favorite. A sergeant of the Indian Air Force knocked the gun out of Godse's hands and the yelling crowd bloodied the assassin with blows. The police wrestled him loose and bore him off to jail, where he said: "I am not at all sorry for what I have done. . . " His two male secretaries carried the bleeding Gandhi into Birla House. He never spoke again. As his soul seeped out, his grandniece Ava chanted Gandhi's favorite verses from the Hindu holy book Bhagavad-Gita: "Arjuna asked: 'My Lord, how can we recognize the saint who has attained pure intellect, who has reached this state of bliss, and whose mind is steady? How does he talk, how does he live, and how does he act?' ". . . The sage whose mind is unruffled in suffering, whose desire is not to rouse by enjoyment, who is without attachment to anger or fear—take him to be one who stands at that lofty level. "He, who wherever he goes, is attached to no person and to no place by ties of flesh; who accepts good and evil alike, neither welcoming the one nor shrinking from the other—take him to be one who is merged in the infinite." Soon one of Gandhi's disciples appeared at the door to Birla House, to speak to the crowd. "Bapuji [little father] is finished," he said. Just 28 minutes after he was shot, Gandhi had died. A moan went up from the crowd. By the thousands, his followers began to file by the dead man, who was draped in white khadi (homespun cotton) and sprinkled with rose petals. The crush became so great that the body was finally put on a tilted slab on an outside balcony, and bathed in floodlights so that all might see. At the head burned five lamp wicks representing the five elements—air, light, water, earth and fire.


  1. ^ Dennis Dalton (2012). Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action. Columbia University Press. pp. 64–66. ISBN 978-0-231-53039-2. 
  2. ^ Nash 1981, p. 69.

Comments by others[edit]

  • F&f: Allow me once more to ignore your remarks, the "historical intuition" etc parts! As a compromise I have just added the entire quote by Wavell, along with Dalton source. The article is getting bulky, but perhaps that is the better compromise, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of Obituary / Advertisement?[edit]

@DIYeditor:, @Kautilya3: Is Reiner's obituary a good scholarly source for the claim in the second para of this lead in the article, based on "Reiner seized him and swung him into the hands of the Indian police, an action captured on the front pages of newspapers around the world?" I have looked at "front pages of newspapers around the world" in the days after Gandhi's assassination, and I am unable to verify this. I can't find any tertiary source making such a claim either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that we can really question an obituary from a RS newspaper (LA Times for example) unless it is a paid obit. Looking for contemporary newspaper reports about the assassination this NY Times front page [5] (both the original and transcribed to text) comes up right away. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It reads on my screen:
Herbert Reiner Jr.; Captured Gandhi's Killer
May 26, 2000
(...) His death was reported in Boston area newspapers just this week; Reiner died on Dec. 28, 1999, at his home in Cotuit, Mass.
The last sentence makes me doubt it was a paid obit nearly 5 months after Reiner's death. Regardless, obit columns in newspapers are not the best of sources.
Be careful with newspapers/etc as sources
Ian.thomson saw my comments elsewhere and asked me to chime in here. Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. (...) – Nyttend
I am reminded of the above note by admin Nyttend, about the need for caution with news sources in wikipedia (cutting-pasting from the wall of text where Nyttend originally posted it). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if the obit should be excluded for being labeled an advertisement, the NYT front page from January 30, 1948 has the Reiner account. Whether it is true I don't know but I think the NYT is a RS for that. As to "newspapers around the world" part you may be right that we should not base that claim on an "advertisement". —DIYeditor (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: I am tired of Sarah Welch being deceitful in a manner that leaves enough room for her to claim she is not. As usual she is interlacing her prevarications with casual dropping of names of admins. The advertisement is for a real picture advertisement to the left of the obituary, which sometimes shows up directly below the advertisement sign and sometimes does not. It is not a paid death notice. Those are not referred to by other newspapers. See this reference to the LA Times obituary in Times of India that refers to the LA Times obituary. As for Nyttend, he is trying to sound more authoritative than he is. I have known many journalists, who may not have "scholarly training" in ethno-linguists, but know enough to not prevaricate in their reports. There are hundreds small town American newspapers with stories of Reiner's mother etc. and pictures of him in navy uniform. The Associated Press story with Reiner's picture in navy uniform was carried by hundreds of American newspapers see here There were other stories: here Seriously, a story which is reported on BBC, by Robert Stimpson, who made a phone call to London less than an hour after the assassination, and mentioned Reiner as "a young American," in Stimson, Robert, BBC (January 30, 1948), "India: The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi (audio starts at 3:06, ends at 5:36)", Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News Roundup, retrieved January 27, 2017  is not reported in newspapers around the world? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Herbert Reiner Jr Obit Front Pages.JPG (Top, left) the online obituary of Herbert Reiner Jr at the LA Times web site, which shows the actual picture advertisement to the left of the obituary and below the words "advertisement." (Top, right) a picture of the actual obituary from May 26, 2000 (Middle, left) a report about Reiner from page 7 of the LA times Feb 1, 1948 (Middle, right) Front page report on Reiner, Oakland Tribune, January 31, 1948, (Bottom, left) Front page report on Reiner, Hartford Courant, January 31, 1948, and (Bottom, right) Front page story on Reiner in Plain Speaker, Hazleton, PA.]] ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ms Sarah Welch:,@DIYeditor:, @Kautilya3:, @Bishonen:, @Vanamonde93:, @Sitush:@SpacemanSpiff: @RegentsPark:, I am now adding pictures, of (i) the online obituary of Herbert Reiner Jr at the LA Times web site, which shows the actual picture advertisement to the left of the obituary and below the words "advertisement." (ii) a picture of the actual obituary from May 26, 2000 (iii) a report about Reiner from page 7 of the LA times Feb 1, 1948 (iv) Front page report on Reiner, Oakland Tribune, January 31, 1948, (v) Front page report on Reiner, Hartford Courant, January 31, 1948, and (vi) Front page story on Reiner in Plain Speaker, Hazleton, PA. In addition, I have access to hundreds (and I do mean hundreds of front pages on which Reiner appears between January 30, 1948 and Feb 3, 1948). If someone wants more I can send them by email. I hope Sarah Welch will now back with with her nonstop abuse of both Herbert Reiner Jr. and me. I have again added the reference to Reiner and will remove the garbage she has added that has little to do with the assassination, reasons which I will detail in the section I have created here. This is really shameful, and I am exhausted by this nonstop low grade warring by someone who doesn't have a clue about what the assassination of Gandhi was about. If I sound impatient, I am. Wikipedia is fast becoming a place where someone with little knowledge, but firm bias, with access to obscure sources, with knowledge of Wiki rules and experience in schmoozing on talk pages, can wreak havoc in an article and across articles, and no one does anything. They merely make guarded statements stating Wikipedia rules that everyone knows. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fowler&fowler: You have a WP:COI situation, since you have stated multiple times "Reiner was my former neighbor". We already accepted that American newspapers (the images you include) stated Reiner's role, but "American newspapers =/= newspapers around the world". An obituary of Reiner in a newspaper 5 months after his death is not a tertiary or scholarly peer reviewed source! Whether it wasn't or was a paid obit / an ad, is a valid question that DIYeditor asked and I replied. As I said above, I don't think it was a paid obit, but paid or not, whether it is WP:Questionable is a useful discussion.

On the primary and secondary sources you have provided for Reiner, other than they being questionable, they give several conflicting versions on Reiner's role: Reiner caught Godse who was not trying to escape, Reiner seized Godse who may have otherwise shot his way to escape, Reiner just seized Godse, Reiner seized and pummeled Godse. Those sources are not tertiary sources. American newspapers do mention the American embassy official Reiner's role, but that is not the only version.

In multiple other sources such as one published by the Oxford University Press, which you deleted from the lead, a different version is verifiable and for which I have embedded quotes from. Multiple scholarly sources, including the one published by OUP, are stating, "Godse surrendered on his own and called for the police". This scholarly version needs to be summarized as well, per NPOV guideline, as well as include the newspaper sources on Reiner you brought.

The real issue is your persistence in exclusive, prominent presentation of "Reiner, your former neighbor's role" and suppression of the version of events in multiple scholarly sources such as one published by Oxford University Press, peer reviewed journal article, etc. The second issue with you Fowler&fowler, is the repeated "bullying, personal attacks, threatens, edit warring, misuse of template" as noted in this edit comment by DIYeditor. Your style, misunderstanding or inadvertent misrpresentation of sources as explained above, OR+attacking living scholars and their published WP:RS as evidenced above (e.g. here), suppression and deletion of scholarly sources and hostility is not constructive in improving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please don't try to change the topic by now positing a "real issue." You created the section, titled Reliability of Obituary/Advertisement. You added the Advertisement bit in the title, not DIY. He was responding to the implication of the section title. Only after he had disagreed with you, did you make your more amenable statement. That he was my former neighbor was my privilege for a short time, it is not my obsession. I said it in a moment of exasperation in an edit summary. Getting back to the topic here: Do you agree that the LA Times obit is a legitimate RS, and that its statement about Reiner's name appearing on the front pages of newspapers across the world is accurate? Forget about Nandy. I will deconstruct Nandy's book in the section above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Fowler&fowler: If LA Times obit for Reiner is the only source that claims "front pages of newspapers across the world", I am fine with mentioning that in the main article somewhere but we need to in-text attribute it. However, we must also properly and carefully summarize alternate versions, per WP:NPOV policy:
"Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.".
I ignore your personal flawed analysis/(mis)representation of sources, because it is WP:OR. I am willing to quote exact the sources, if "summary in your own words" wouldn't work. As I explained above, the sources you brought in are inconsistent and questionable, for different reasons. "Godse's surrender and calling for police", as published in Oxford University Press source, a peer reviewed journal article, and many other sources I have added, is a mainstream version that belongs in this article. On the rest, as DIYeditor notes, your "heart felt personal connection to Reiner and seemingly overall emotional attachment to the content of the article" raises questions (should we allow people to create articles for their close friends or family members). You created a new wiki article on your former neighbor Reiner, few months ago! Your COI etc are "real issues". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact that both of you are definitely here to build an encyclopedia, I find the level of conflict here unfortunate. Can you both dial it back a little, please? I've looked over this debate, but I just got back from a break and am rather short for time at the moment. The obituary would, in general, be an okay source. Not great, but okay. If there were an exceptional statement in the obituary, not backed up elsewhere, using that would be a problem, but I am not seeing evidence of that here. That said, F&F, the statement in question does use fairly heavy editorial voice; you could compromise on the wording, surely? Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Responding to pings) As we know, newspapers are only reliable for news. Obituaries are not news. They gather historical information and are often written by other commentators. So, their reliability is not clear-cut. We have to know who wrote the obituary and how well versed they were with the life of the deceased. On the other hand, many of the sources here seem to be contemporary news reports at the time of the assassination. There is no reason to doubt those.
More generally, it is not uncommon in a chaotic and shocking event like this that different witnesses come away with different impressions. I think we should report all viewpoints as per WP:NPOV without overplaying any one theory. I support the decision to take this out of the lead and discuss it in the body -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Compromise lead version[edit]

Since you have twice deleted the alternate versions in the lead in last few days, and because both DIYeditor and I have concerns explained above, I am temporarily deleting both your and my versions from the lead. For now, the Reiner version and the alternate versions are only in the main article. Clearly, we do not have a consensus. Let us work to reach a consensus, in the spirit of collaborative compromise. I welcome your suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead is too detailed. Including quotes in the lead rather than having a summary or paraphrasing seems inappropriate. I also feel that the last two paragraphs of the lead should be moved down to the sections on trial and executions since this is an article about the assassination. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The quotes that I have added were added only to prevent Sarah Welch from removing text by offering some perfunctory WP:ThisThatOrOther reason. I have said a few times on this page, this article is about the "Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi" not the Trial of, and Billy Pulpit, for Nathuram Godse. In fact, the increased assassination coverage in the article is the result of my intervention. What the assassination section looked like after Sarah Welch's edits, and before my intervention, was this. Compare this article with Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Assassination of James A. Garfield, Assassination of William McKinley, even that of the Archduke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As for Sarah Welch, please don't repeat for the hundredth time the sanctimonious platitudes that you are quick to recommend to other, but slow to heed yourself. Wikipedia is not about compromises between people. It is about accuracy in reporting the sources and assessing the extent of a warrant in the sources. Herbert Reiner Jr. is in the sources, in hundreds of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time to look at this but I removed the unreliable source tag. Apparently, multiple contemporary sources said that Reiner seized the assailant, so it is unclear why the source is being labeled as unreliable. The claim itself may be disputed but that's an entirely different matter. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My take and goodbye[edit]

@Vanamonde93: @RegentsPark: It will help if you both take some time out and examine the history of this article.

  • Before this current impasse, I last edited the article on 10 May 2017 when the reference to Reiner in the lead stated, "The first to approach Godse was an American vice-consul, Herbert Reiner Jr., who grasped him by the shoulders, and held him until he was taken away." That sentence was cited to 1) Pronko and Bowles classic Empirical Foundations of Psychology—originally published in 1952, and republished many times since, the version cited dating to 2013— which makes a case study of Reiner's action 2) Robert Stimson's BBC report of the night of 30 January 1948, barely an hour after the assassination 3) Robert Trumbull's front page cover story from the New York Times, 31 January 1948, which describes Reiner's actions in fair detail, and 4) Alex von Tunzelmann's Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of Empire, Simon and Schuster, 2014, which describes actions as they were recorded in an exchange between the British Ambassador to India and the British Foreign Office found in the archives of the then British prime minister C. R. Attlee. I deliberately added four in order to prevent future drive by edit-warring. I first added the Reiner bit to the lead, but never got around to editing the rest of the article. As you will see, the article then was mainly about the assassination, not about the trial.
  • In early June Sarah Welch began editing the article. She edited actively for a few days and then intermittently until 30 June when the article looked like this. Much of the old material had been removed and it was now much more about the trial, with Godse's motives and court statements a bigger part of the lead than the Gandhi's assassination. In particular, my reference to Reiner was replaced by the sentence: "Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by the witnesses." That sentences was now cited to 1) The Book of World Crime, which has a paragraph long entry on Gandhi's assassination and 2) a book The Americanization of Gandhi: Images of the Mahatma. My sources for Reiner were retained, but now as attribution for the sentence, "Gandhi fell to the ground." For the month that she was editing the article, off and on, I did not interfere.
  • On the 11th of July, I finally began to edit the article again starting with this edit, whose edit summary I will live to regret, but whose goal was that of replacing the text with better sourced text. In a little over half an hour, my edit was reverted. with edit summary, "
  • I then added an inuse tag and edited the article until the next day, when it stood in this form with edit summary, "change to underconstruction; not done yet; will come back to finish over the next few days." The reference to Reiner said, "While the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner, a young American vice consul at the American embassy in Delhi.[6][4][7][8][9][10][11] Godse was soon disarmed and arrested." I had added three more secondary sources, totaling five secondary sources and two eyewitness accounts already mentioned.
  • In a few hours, despite the plea in my edit summary, Sarah Welch had reappeared, edited the article, and by the time she was done the reference to Reiner had now become, "While the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, some accounts state Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner, a 32-year old American vice consul at the American embassy in Delhi and pummeled.[6][7][8] Other accounts state Godse was seized by the crowd, beaten and then taken to jail.[2][9]" [2] and [9] were the same Almanac of World Crime etc refs; four of my references which did not say anything about pummeling were removed, but one the that did was left in as attribution.
  • In such fashion the article stumbled along, until by 19th July, I had changed the citations to sfmn (multiple sfn) format, and the article looked like this, with Reiner's mention reading: "While the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner Jr, a 32-year old vice consul at the American embassy in Delhi,[4][A][12], who was attending the meeting. Godse was then rushed by the crowd, beaten, arrested, and taken to jail."[2][13] The edit had edit summary ("change to under-construction; not done yet).
  • In a couple of hours, Sarah Welch had changed the article again in this edit (with edit summary, "rm OR:Synthesis with "then" part; add summary and sources for NPOV") and in which the Reiner part read: "According to some reports, while the surrounding crowd seemed stunned, Gandhi's assassin Godse was seized by Herbert Reiner Jr, a 32-year old vice consul at the American embassy in Delhi,[4][A][12], who was attending the meeting. According to other reports, Godse surrendered voluntarily and asked for the police.[13]," where the reference [13] (was in multiple citation format and citing these six references, whose quality you can inspect in the Wikilink.
  • It was at this point I introduced the LA Times Obit, which spoke to Reiner's action being reported on the front pages of newspapers around the world. (Any time the NY Times, BBC, AP, and the Chicago Tribune News Service, carries special mention of someone on their front pages or main evening news, it is not surprising that the reports would be carried by hundreds of other newspapers.) in this edit. And after that what has happened is what you already know.
  • I am simply tired of someone who keeps interfering, who does not let an editor edit in peace, even when I leave summaries that I'm not done, that I'll come back and finish. I'm sure she can quote some WP rule that allows her to do this. But we all allow each other some breathing room. I allowed her the entire month of June, even though I had noticed early on she had removed the reference to Reiner. What is worse is that she engages in a tit for tat in which the article sinks to the lowest common denominator. If I cite the NY Times and BBC, she uses a juvenile non-fiction book "8 grade and up" (Doeden) and the Almanac of World Crime (with its one paragraph entry on Gandhi) as counterpoise. Is this really building an encyclopedia or simply waging a low-grade war of spite for reasons unbeknownst to me, to create an an indiscriminate collection of nonsense. I can say with all honesty that in my 11 years on Wikipedia I have not met such editors in a very long time, probably not since 2007.
  • Finally, if I wanted to, I too could play this game. In fact I could use the sources she herself Talk:Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi#The_biased.2C_shabby.2C_incomplete_citations_are_being_removed_for_the_following_reasons has introduced, plus a few others published by academic publishers, to state that Gandhi was shot twice, three times or four; that he was shot through the heart (Manuben), that two bullets went through the abdomen and one lodged in the lung, ...; that he said, "Ram Ram," (Rajmohan Gandhi) "Ram Ram Ram," "Ai Ram, Ai Ram," "He Rama He Rama," "Hai Ram, Hai Ram" or simply "Eh Eh" as a reflex, before he died, that he looked directly at his assassin with a look that directly said, "I forgive you." (Arun Gandhi)j, that his eyes closed instantly; that he died at 5:00 PM, 5:12 PM, 5:17 PM, 5:20 PM or half an hour thereafter; how it was really a gardener, with his trowel or his sickle (attributed to Tushar Gandhi) who caught Godse by attacking him on the back of the neck. People such as @Kautilya3: who offer free sage advice are unaware that so much is disputed that nothing will appear in the lead. All sources are not equal (and it is not "Oxford University Press" that makes a source reliable). All contexts are not equal. We can't in graduate-student fashion go to our library, pick up any source we can find that furthers our POV, and then abuse WP rules and guidelines by quoting WP rules and guidelines. I am frankly done with this article. I wish everyone well in editing it. I am reverting it to the version of Sarah Welch, which made no mention of Reiner. I am taking this article off my watchlist. I believe admins by being too passive are allowing a peculiar kind of low-grade, scholarly-sounding, POV pushing on Wikipedia, by people who have no overall knowledge, only access to the sources, which they read no more beyond the barest minimum they need to promote their POV . Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This mischaracterizes what happened in the last 2 weeks. Mocking "People such as Kautilya3 who offer free sage advice" is inappropriate, as is this strange "presumption about monopoly on 'overall knowledge, access to the sources,' etc. Calling other editors 'low-grade, scholarly sounding' etc is inappropriate and it does not encourage a collaborative spirit (because others too can call F&f as 'low-grade, scholarly sounding' POV-pushing in colorful language). We can't take sides in wikipedia to favor "my former neighbor", or "my friend, or my family member, my company". We summarize the different mainstream sides in wikipedia, per the NPOV policy. To declare "it is not "Oxford University Press" that makes a source reliable", then pretend that "only an editor's personal-analysis-and-OR is" is inappropriate. Personal analysis / interpretations / OR may be appropriate for a blog or something, it is inappropriate for this article and wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We follow the scholarly curve, don't lead it. Thanks and goodbye, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)