Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Quotations under the heading "Non-violence"

Will someone who can edit this page please make note of the following?

Of the four quotations, only one have I been able to verify. One is definitely not Gandhi, and two are questionable.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" (This quotation is from Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. 1)

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always." (This one seems to be fake, per The Quote Verifier, p. 74)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (It’s not documented that Gandhi said this. It is only attributed to him. This one is possibly genuine, whereas the previous one is not).

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for." (The source most often given is The Story of My Experiments with Truth, but the quotation does not appear there, as one may see by searching the full text, which is available at http://www.forget-me.net/en/Gandhi/autobiography.pdf. This one may not be genuine, either.)

Vogelweide (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by putting {{fact}} tags at the end of those quotations, and, hopefully, the people who added the quotes will respond. For the quote that (you are sure) is not Gandhi's, you could add a {{dubious}} tag. If there are no responses in a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks) then one could consider removing them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


Mahatma in the Lead

Fowler is right to say the lead is cluttered, but it's ignorant not to have his most common name in the lead. Until the article is correctly renamed, the article has to, at least, have his common name in the lead. The way I edited just mentions it, and then later explains it. I edited the explanation to make sense with the lead. 3 years != right. And as I've stated before, a little review of ownership issues may be in order, although not necessarily. Beam 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The "lead," by the way, refers to the summary or outline of an article or story, not to the first sentence. In Wikipedia it refers to the lead section. "Mahatma Gandhi" has always been in the leading paragraph of the lead, but not in the lead sentence. Furthermore, it has always been in boldface, and, consequently, hard to miss. This is in keeping with mention of honorifics in other South Asian leaders' pages: Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Qaid), Muhammad Iqbal (Allama), Jawaharlal Nehru (Pandit), Sheikh Mujibur Rehman (Bangbandhu), Vallabhbhai Patel (Sardar), Abul Kalam Azad (Maulana). They all occur in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence.
Secondly, your "fix" is incorrect. Not only is your sentence,

"His common name, Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit: महात्मा mahātmā or "Great Soul", is an honorific first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu (Gujarati: બાપુ bāpu or "Father"),"

syntactically topsy-turvy, but the expression "common name," in modern English, refers to the vernacular or colloquial name, not to an honorific; it is usually applied to biological organisms (e.g. tiger for Panthera tigris), not to the popular name of an individual.
Lastly, before you make accusations of ownership and ignorance, please be aware that this is a featured article. Notwithstanding the Wikipedia injunction to be bold, a controversial edit in a featured article requires, as a common courtesy, a discussion on the talk page before, not after, the edit is made. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The stable state that I have referred to (with "Mahatma Gandhi" not mentioned in the lead sentence, but later in the first paragraph) existed not only at the time of

What does my first edit have anything to do with? You seem to repeatedly bring up my, and others', length of editing or time editing as if it renders my or there contributions null and retarded. It's quite unsettling, and seemingly a habit of yours. Also, I don't see how my reworking of the sentence is off at all. Common Name is referring to "Mahatma Gandhi" not just "Mahatma." His common name is "Mahatma Gandhi." Beam 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? It's not off? Can you parse: ""His common name, Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit ... Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu"? Where is the verb?
Again: a "common name" is not the same thing as the "most popular name." "Common name" usually means, "the non-scientific name by which a species of plant is known etc." (Webster's unabridged) or "a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus" (OED).
Lastly, pointing out that the lead paragraph had a certain form when you made your first edit etc., is another ways of saying that the form is not new, that it was not only there when you made your first appearance on the page, but also well before that, in fact long, long before that. I can't help it that you are sensitive about your purported lack of edits. I made no such imputation about you myself. I would urge you to focus on building this encyclopedia and not ascribing motives to others in endless talk page discussions. I certainly have no time for them and this will be my last response to your inane repetitions here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You obviously lack the ability to civilly discuss policy and edits, I guess it is best if you remove yourself from the process. Don't complain if the result isn't as you want, because you weren't part of it. Beam 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

cn tags

"An overwhelming majority of Muslims living in India, side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, were in favour of Partition. Additionally Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, North-West Frontier Province and East Bengal" - I have add cn tags to these 2 sentences . Please dont remove the tags unless sources are cited for the same.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the tags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Brahmacharya

The section has been given a lot of weight. Besides, all these claims, though seemingly well-referenced, are highly un-heard of. But still, why is this topic been given so much emphasis? I think the intentions are quite obvious here but if someone wants to give some other reasoning, please do so. --Emperor Genius (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal. In addition to the points mentioned above it may be noted that due to the high number of blue linked dates, many new editors erroneously believe that linking all dates in the article is part of wikipedia policy.--Shahab (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really follow this proposal, so any chance you could provide say an edit difference or something as an example of what you mean? And also when you say "which would give greater prominence to the high-value links" do you mean that dates are lower value? Deamon138 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If the dates do not deepen the understanding of the article then they are definitely of lower value. For example the in the sentence Gandhi died on 30 January, no purpose is served by blue linking the dates. This does not deepen the understanding of the user about Gandhi. A large number of blue links in an article dilute the importance of links which are relevant to the context. Auto-formatting allows the user to see the above blue linked dates according to their preset date preferences.--Shahab (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't have any particular quibble with the auto-formatting thing. Go right ahead I guess! But I don't agree that linked dates should be "removed" or that date links are of a lower value. Otherwise you could apply the same to places and even other people. For instance, a biography of someone might contain a lot of information on that person "meeting Tony Blair", but in the context of Tony Blair, that might not be a notable event for TB, since the original article that went into this in detail might be the one of the main reasons that person was notable in the first place. Thus clicking on Tony Blair from that article is unlikely to "deepen the understanding of the article" as you put it. How on earth would one decide which dates to link and which not too? For me it's all or nothing (you can't pick and choose which dates to link as that is a very subjective decision), but link no dates is unacceptable, so linking all makes sense to me. Deamon138 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that in certain cases linking dates is necessary. However, in my opinion, linking all dates is contrary to wikipedia guidelines and should be discouraged. I don't see why something should not be allowed just because it is subjective. Lot's of decisions on wikipedia are subjective, for example the titles of articles. Subjective decisions can be settled through consensus. Anyway, appreciate your response. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
On that link you provided, it says, "In the main text of an article, autoformatting should be used either on none of the month-day and month-day-year dates, or all of them" so surely linking all dates doesn't go against Wikipedia guidelines? "Lot's of decisions on wikipedia are subjective, for example the titles of articles. Subjective decisions can be settled through consensus." Exactly. If the titles of articles is subjective then that means we form consensus on what the titles should be. We don't remove all the titles instead (bringing it back as an analogy to this situation here). So surely we should be trying to reach some sort of consensus like that instead of removing all the linked dates? Deamon138 (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you are confusing autoformatting with general linking of dates. According to the above link Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Consensus has already been reached on this guideline (although if you wish you can reopen it). I think the entire purpose of linking is to deepen the users understanding of that particular topic. Otherwise virtually every word on the encyclopaedia can be linked. So all dates should not linked.--Shahab (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if am confusing those two things or not, sorry if I seem to be a bit slow here! Anyway, my main problem is thus: when is linking a date appropriate then? Unless an article is about dates itself, I fail to see when linking a date would "deepen the understanding of that particular topic" as you put it. Any examples you might have would be great thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, yes, there are only few cases when linking actually deepen the users understanding (BTW that is the way WP guideline puts it and not me.) Some examples might be linking in the history related articles (For example, History of the World can link to the various dates or centuries, Art History can link to various decades in Art are eg 1900 in art, similarly in other fields etc). (Although if you go through the above two examples you'll notice that generally dates are not linked.) Many featured articles (eg Boydell Shakespeare Gallery) do not link to dates, and many do (in my opinion wrongly). The question that we need to answer before linking is simply this: How is linking to a particular date productive? I have long felt, though without any evidence other then my own use, that hardly anyone uses these links because in most cases they take him/her to an unrelated page detailing the events that occured on that date. So these links are not productive. Clearly they also do not satisfy WP:CONTEXT and therefore should be removed.--Shahab (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples, that puts things in a bit more perspective for me. So articles like 1900 in art would still be linked, but that leaves me wondering what happens to 25 March type articles. If we don't link those like you think we shouldn't, then wouldn't the 25th March article (and similar date articles) become an orphan? Okay, so most of those articles link to each other (so from the 25th March article you can get to the other days in March), but wouldn't this still make the dates resemble a bit of a walled garden? Thanks for your patience. Deamon138 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually you have a valid point there about articles such as 25 March threatning to becoming a walled gardens which certainly should be discouraged. The only links other then the date links (which are not necessarily restricted to March btw, April 21 can have a valid link to March 25) that I can think of are: March, and articles like Lady Day, Quarter days, which are related to March 25. There might be other possibilities but these are the only ones I can think of at present. The point is that the danger of a wall garden should not be used as an excuse for adding links irrelevant to the context. Rather we should focus on what is really productive to the article and what is not. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense, thanks. So in doing this people will probably unintentionally create walled gardens, but that's not a reason to not do it. Okay so hypothetically then, what could be done about these walled gardens? Deamon138 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I am not sure that these date articles qualify as walled gardens. March 25 contains many valid links to other articles, and articles such as Lady Day, Quarters Day contain a link to March 25. Since Lady Day etc contain links to other articles too this clearly ensures that March 25 is not part of a walled garden. Similarly for other date articles. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm yes, that's true. Still, these dates will get a little isolated but I guess that will just have to be accepted. Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do you two edit India-related articles? Often we come across such articles as Featured Article nominations in which the prose is deficient but the article is otherwise good. I'm always on the look-out for people who might be interested in providing the odd leg-up. Tony (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'd be happy to help. Cheers.--Shahab (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't edit India related articles, or really anything in particular, I'm mostly just a nomad who comes across articles on a variety of topics and gets involved in discussion. Aside from debating on talk page, I'd consider my other main area of input into Wikipedia to be like a WikiGnome, fixing little odds and ends, so I'd be more than happy to "provide a leg-up" so to speak. Thanks for asking! Deamon138 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Gandhi in Armed Forces.

It should be specified that he was in the Ambulance Corps(even though the patch is visible on his right arm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazardasd (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Date audit

I've made an educated guess that international formatting is more appropriate than US. Until now, the article has been a mixture of both, which is not permitted by MOSNUM. Please buzz me if you decide that US formatting is preferred. Tony (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support the use of the international date format over the American format in this article. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Most (all?) links to http://www.mahatma.org.in/ are broken. This site is sadly out of order since long. I am going to correct these. Yann (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Books on Gandhi

Colonel G. B. Singh from the US Army recently released a book containing harsh criticisms of Gandhi in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity but finding little academic support.

If, as the sentence says, the book had little academic support then what is the point of mentioning it?--Shahab (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shahab, that is in fact POV being pushed onto wikipedia strongly by Gandhi lovers because the findings in the book have challenged the contemporary literature on Gandhi and brought to light many things that Gandhi apologists have been conveniently ignoring since ages. There is no conclusive evidence that the book has received little academic support. Just to support their POV, Gandhi lovers are even pushing the fringe unscholarly comments by all and sundry onto book review section on the article page. There is long-lasting edit-warring going on by this POV group against any information on wikipedia that highlights Gandhi's bad actions. This book and its author are also under attack by all sorts of Gandhi apologists on wikipedia. I recommend you read the book yourself and not let prejudice take over to neglect the 20 years of research on Gandhi by the author of this book. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. If the case is as you say it is then the issue of existence of academic support first needs to be sorted out at Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Only then should we include it here. We need to work with consensus here. This is a featured article and also one of the most trafficked articles on wikipedia. To bring some spill-over controversy here would not serve any purpose and would also cause general confusion. If what you say is correct then once the issue is sorted out on Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity we can include the relevant information here. No harm would be caused by the delay. Being a wikisloth I doubt that I can say or do anything more on the topic. Regards--Shahab (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist tag

The Indian anarchist tag has already had a discussion here. If someone wants he/she can reopen that discussion. In the meantime since the earlier discussion ended with agreement on the anarchist tag being placed, I am reinstating the individual anarchist (Philosophical anarchism, the version that Gandhi associated with, is a subgenre of individual anarchism) tag.--Shahab (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with this. The entire section on anti-statism is close to OR because it seems to use a set of disparate references, each of which makes a point close to anti-statism, to make the case for Gandhi as an anti-state anarchist. And, the reference given for Gandhi calling himself a philosophical anarchist is far from clear. What Edgar Snow says, in full, is:
  • Like Marx, Gandhi hated the state and wished to eliminate it, and he told me he considered himself "a philosophical anarchist." But he was a practical socialist in that he never opposed the state as a necessary instrument in achieving social democracy, though democracy as he understood it is certainly not to be confused with the kind of police state ruled by the Kremlin…
A philosophical anarchist seems to be at odds with a practical socialist who wanted to achieve social democracy! I know that you're saying that there are bomb throwing Verlocian anarchists and that there are armchair philosophical anarchists - and Gandhi may very well be a part of the latter group - but, it does seem like you're connecting the dots yourself rather than relying on WP:RS to connect the dots for you. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure of the aim you have from the above post in relation to the article. If you say that Gandhi was not an anti-statist I certainly contest that. (Although I agree with you if you claim that the many sidedness of Gandhi cannot be understood by classifying him in categories of socialist or anarchist.) That his thought in western political theory is parallel to philosophical anarchism can be found in many commentaries on Gandhian political thought. (One was given in the earlier discussion. For another see this book (also cited elsewhere in the article). That he didn't believe in the state can also be found in all such commentaries. These are all legitimate sources. Gandhi's views had been deeply influenced by Thoreau (an antistatist) and Tolstoy (the originator of Christian Anarchism).
The quote by Edgar Snow above can give a distorted picture. He was a socialist, but again his socialism was village socialism. He was not a doctrinaire socialist believing in the state ownership of the means of production. Rather a socialist who believed in cooperation. In an interview with Louis Fischer, answering a question what he meant by socialism Gandhi said,

Gandhi's ideal society had a stateless democracy (source: the same book linked above), nothing more is required to show that he was an anti-statist.

I hope that I have provided enough sources for you. WP:OR is by no means being violated here. I have provided sources in the earlier discussion (see also Dhawan's The Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi in those sources). Another one was mentioned above. I do agree however that Gandhi cannot be classified using an exclusive if-else approach. He was a philosophical anarchist, a soul-force believer, a socialist etc all rolled into one. As for your contention that I am connecting the dots, all I'll say is: read the above political commentaries on Gandhi. You will find that although he accepted the reality of the existance of the state, and his constraint of working within it, he never thought that this was the ideal way. The ideal way was when there was no state. (The last two statements are also not OR. See introduction to Thoreau's Essay on civil disobedience by Gandhi.) Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is "Gandhi in popular culture" section missing? There are lots of books and movies based on his life and works? Nadesai (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. If you think it needs a "Gandhi in popular culture' section, add it! --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mahathma Gandhi - Ultimate Leader of the Indian Freedom Moment

M K Gandhi, refered as "Bapu" or Mahathma Gandhi lead the Indian Freedom moment through Non Violence. He advocated secularism and never thrived for power. He cannot be quoted as a politician nor a spiritual leader. He lived a simple life for the cause of the poor and the down trodden ( "It would be difficult to believe such a man lived in flesh and blood" - Einstein, Albert).--Radhakrishnan Vijayakumar 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stationcall (talk • contribs)

oui9hjihijik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.65.34 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Asiatic Registration Act and Civil Disobedience

The classification of the Asiatic Registration Act to which Gandhi protested in missing. The Asiatic Registration Act classified the status of Indians and Chinese with the Natives- This is missing.

Gandhi later protested this classification by launching satyagrah.

June 1, 1906

The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs.

Nov. 6, 1906

Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs.

July 12, 1907

If registration is made compulsory, there will be no difference between Indians and Kaffirs, and the neighbouring Colony will be tempted to adopt it as a precedent. It may also turn out to be a prelude to compulsory segregation in Coloured Locations.

(Princhest) 17:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

In the Category section, a category named People_from_Gujarat is missing, although a similar one called Gujarati People is included. I dont know why two different categories are running on Wiki. I don't understand the difference between both. But these both should be linked under section Categories. Or one of them should be deleted. UKnowledge (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What Religion Was Gandhi?

Hey all, I'm doing a school project on several memorials (specifically religious ones) and I could really do with a hand. Could somebody tell me what religion Gandhi was a follower of in life? I'm doing a piece on his memorial (I'm sure there's an article here) and I know this isn't a forum to ask such things, but it would really be handy and if it's not in the article, then it should be put in - but please tell me as well! :p --82.27.56.120 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you ask questions, please read the article - see Religious Beliefs under his photograph. Camillus 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Goetz

Who is Tom Goetz and why is Gandhi's religion listed a Catholic? I believe he was Hindu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.93.138 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

Per WP:NC, article titles should be the most commonly used correct name. Rarely is Gandhi's name given with his middle name of Karamchand; more common is only Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas K. Gandhi. A majority of other languages don't use his middle name. I believe this article should be moved to Mohandas Gandhi. Reywas92Talk 16:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was moved from Mohandas Gandhi to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in November 2007. Can you cite valid sources concurring with your claim that Rarely is Gandhi's name given with his middle name of Karamchand; more common is only Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas K. Gandhi.' (I believe you are looking only at American sources.) Anyway most encyclopaedias refer to him as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Please also see the arguments and points covered here. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Camel service?

Is it true at one point he ran a Camel taxi service? My friends continuously say he did, and some do Religion so I thought I'd ask before assuming they are wrong.84.92.16.13 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this page is only for questions about the Gandhi article and how to improve it. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Shahab (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems unlikely in the extreme that Gandhi would ever "run" such a business. He was an idealistic lawyer who became a shrewd politician and always had far higher things to occupy him. As a young man, he considered a career as a doctor, but his brother persuaded him against it, reminding him that their father had said "We Vaishnavas should have nothing to do with the dissection of dead bodies", adding "Father intended you for the bar" (Sankar Ghose, Mahatma Gandhi, p. 11). Perhaps he might have encouraged such a camel service somewhere? He did occasionally ride camels and took his first camel ride in 1888. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

While I would agree that Gandhi was a great person isn't it violating the neutrality of the article to say he was a "practitioner of truth"? I looked at the truth entry and it seemed to communicate truth was a subjective yet positive attribute.Wikiiscool123 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention any population having grievances with Gandhi. There were millions of Hindus killed by Muslims during the "relocation phase" leading up to Partition. Many feel that Gandhi could have done more to prevent these killings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.128.120 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is highly not neutral. It seems some extremist Hindu has given words to it. Trying to tarnish the image of a man who is the motivation for millions. His way of life is the thread which binds us as Indian and not as micro hindu or muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi was a great man, but of course only human. This is a high-profile and important article, and I would suggest that where a statement is controversial the best thing is for someone to add {{Fact}} to ask for a citation from a reliable source, and then if none arrives it will be fair play for the statement to be deleted. Otherwise, we could get into unseemly "edit wars". Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "practitioner of truth" is over the top and lacking any sort of objective verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.67 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Gandhi's bigotry unmentioned?

gandhi hated blacks with a passion. He believed in aryan supremacy over Africa.YVNP (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All you need is a reliable source and you can add it in. Do you have one?--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"My experiments with truth" by Gandhi and a phanthomic volumes of article gives relatively positive about his stature towards mankind. He preached untouchability as inhumane, he coined the term "Harijans (Meaning: God's own people)" to refer to the down trodden. I wonder how such a personality could be depicted to be racist. In fact, he advocated his life in the path of ahimsa (non-violence). He was against the division of Indian Sub-continent based on religion. He lived a life, which is easy to comment, but tough to live or practise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stationcall (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Addressing a public meeting in Bombay on September 26, 1896, following his return from South Africa, Gandhi said, “Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” (Collected Works, Volume II, page 74). The word kaffir (or keffir) is a derogatory term used in South Africa for native Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.12.88.60 (talk • contribs)
"degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European" This seems to me quite ridiculous. Immediately after those bad Europeans left, a terrible war broke out, followed by others and millions of people died in some way as a consequence of the so-named "peace and non-violence". Actually, one doesn't wonder, since the same scenarios happened in Africa (or in some other parts of Asia), where people imperiously wanted to become free, then freely slaughtered each other. This is very, very sad.--Mazarin07 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
What you say doesn't make sense because millions of people did not die in India after British left. Where did you get that information from? You have got your facts all wrong. There was a war between India and Pakistan few years after independence but nothing like "...then freely slaughtered each other..." happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.66.105 (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
To me, a single quote is not sufficient. Perhaps it was a misquote, or perhaps the intended concept was one emphasizing "raw" (e.g., meaning unenlightened) rather than kaffir, or perhaps some insufficiently-assumed context, such as a different intended meaning of kaffir than simply "any black person". And anyone can occassionally mis-speak. A more substantial, repeated, and more consistent expression of such views would be a different story -- if you can cite such more extensive material, then fine. But one quote does not negate what appears to be a larger body of evidence of a different way of thinking. -Wookipedian (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kaffir may also refer to the "nonbeliever, and may be more of a philosophical slur than a racial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to a 'Against the motion' Gandhi. Pathetic. Seems like you have gathered all the negetive information available or said against him. In the hay you have tried to show the the needle. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you watch Penn and teller bullsh!t you can see a newspaper article and source for ghandi's bigotry. It may seem he or her gathered all the negative information.... so what? This article should be NPOV. Seems like a lot of people gathered just the good information. A criticism section should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.131.48 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No, a criticism section should not be added. Putting in a section entitled criticism is the most lazy, irresponsible crud that gets tossed into articles in the name of NPOV. If you have a reliable source that discusses Gandhi's racism, as opposed to taking a quote and providing your own interpretation on the matter, then integrate the information into the article. For example, you could add into the already existing section on South Africa how Gandhi showed insensitivity or racist tendencies when discussing other groups that were struggling under English rule. That way, you get your negative information into the article in a manner that does not break up the article in an unnatural way. If you do not have reliable sources (and no, Penn and Teller are in no way reliable on a question that requires academic study such as this one) then there is not much you can do. Indrian (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues

This article is for the msot part anti British, even anglophobic. there are a number of unreferenced and/or misleading claims that show the British in a negative light. Its fine to state the facts if the Brits were bad they were bad but don't turn this into a peice of propaganda, just tell the truth. 129.11.76.230 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Accurate religion listed?

I don't believe Gandhi ever professed his following of any particular religion, which is currently noted as Hinduism. I believe he was a heavy spiritual person, but I don't believe he called himself a Hindu. Can we find any documentation on this subject? I didn't find one but I know because he was born in India and he only had respect for the other religions that's why you would think that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.41.73 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi-"jee"

The article explains the terms "bapu" and "mahatma". However in numerous films, including "Gandhi" and Slumdog Millionaire, the term "Gandhi-jee" (spelling?) is also used. Can someone explain what this means - eg. is it an honorary title or an affectionate term? Manning (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

-ji (prounounced, jee) is a suffix used commonly in India as a mark of respect. While bapu and mahatma are specific, though not exclusive, to Gandhi, -ji is used widely for all elders and in formal conversations. That's the reason the use of -ji is not explained in this article. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
a little like the Japanese San Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual leader

Gandhi was not a spiritual leader. Please discuss and change the description in the lead. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Gandhi" per WP:NAME? Most people recognize him as Gandhi in the English speaking world (at least in the US). moocowsruletalk to moo 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Short answer, who knows. Long answer, go through the talk archives before opening really gigantic cans of worms that can engulf this whole talk page in a massive flame war of epic proportions. Indrian (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Please first go through the arguments here before opening a new discussion.--Shahab (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be moved to Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi, because those are the most common names for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Those are the guidelines. moocowsruletalk to moo 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
With that many people wanting it to be changed to Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhi why hasn't it happened? moocowsruletalk to moo 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Enemas and hygiene

why is there no mention of his fondness for hygiene? "Cleanliness, he believed, was godliness"

"He scheduled his bowel movements for 20 minutes morning and afternoon. "The bathroom is a temple," he said, and anyone was welcome to chat with him there. He had a cleansing enema every night. "

The article should also say that he loved enemas and had one every night.

Source:The Time 100: person of the century

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/mohandas_gandhi12a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.131.48 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why has this enema and cleaniness crap not been added?

I'll add it myself if no one does it by june 09.

NPOV so everyone needs to see this side of ghandi :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.131.48 (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this to the end of the talk page rather than the start to keep the topics in chronological order. In answer to the question, no need to wait until June 09, if you want to add something on this go right ahead. "Time" is a reliable source, but you may have a problem with undue weight if you want to make more than a passing mention of it - Ghandi's views on cleanliness pale into reasonable insignificance compared to other parts of his life. But go for it. Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1947 Calcutta fast?

There is nothing in this article about Gandhi's 1947 hunger strike at Calcutta. This seems to me a significant omission. From what I know, Gandhi fasted to protect the Muslims of West Bengal, and this brave act played a large part in stopping violence in the region. Could someone with more knowledge add a section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi's racism

Here is a an article outlining Ghandi's racist writings.
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Kemp184-186.html#ftn13

99.244.189.150 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but these are raw quotes without scholarly interpretation. I have no idea whether Gandhi was racist or not and would not challenge reliable and accepted scholarly sources, but those newspaper articles do not do it. Gandhi was fighting for better treatment for Indians in a country (South Africa) that was scared to death of losing its control over the black population of the region. I imagine that no matter what Gandhi's personal beliefs may have been, simple pragmatism required that he divorce himself from any native African movements for equality. If the white overlords of South Africa thought that Gandhi was joining with a larger movement for complete equality in South Africa rather than merely advocating better treatment for Indians, he probably would never have succeeded in getting rights for his own people. Whether this was good or bad, racist or not, or if my scenario here is right or wrong is not for us to decide. Maybe he really did believe black Africans were inferior, but I want to know what experts on the subject believe. Those that are eager to see Gandhi labelled as a racist in this article need to stop brining quotes from Gandhi's own writings and speeches and start bringing in scholarly interpreations of these primary sources. With all the literature on Gandhi, certainly some distinguished scholars have spilled some ink on this topic. Indrian (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The source speaks volumes of its integrity: The so called Institute for Free Historical Research (Vrij Historisch Onderzoek) openly self-describes itself as a revisionist institution. Historical revisionism is not science, it is gibberish spouted forth by self-appointed "scholars" and "experts". WP does not acknowledge revisionist viewpoints as legitimate sources. There will not be a discussion about that. Vargher (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Historical Revisionism is a perfectly legitimate form of scholarship. Phrases such as "gibberish spouted forth by self-appointed "scholars" and "experts"" add nothing to the debate except to damage your cause. Wikipedia does acknowledge revisionist viewpoints. Monk Bretton (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The revisionism in question here is not the legitimate re-evaluation of historical theories (as opposed to facts) using newly found evidence (factual evidence) performed by reliable scholars, but rather this kind. The VHO is a negationist institution that routinely dismisses historical theories substantiated by a large number of facts and supported by virtually all of established academia. That falls unter WP:FRINGE and is undesired here. Vargher (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a better argument. Monk Bretton (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

after 20 years in south africa, Gandhi return to India == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.196.93 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The idea that Gandhi was a racist is laughable to anyone who has read virtually anything about him. The author Kemp is in fact a "white supremacist" and leading 'light' of the British National Party. Enough said about that. Plus I note that the OP of the article has been repeatedly accused of Vandalism. In the old days of usenet we'd call someone who deliberately tried to stir folks up a 'troll' or 'troller' (see Internet_troll. Csalmon (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Experiments with Brahmacharya

This topic does not have any evidence and also hurts the sentiments of millions of Indians that consider Gandhi as more than God. Thus request to remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msirsiwal (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The subsection was referenced but undue in this summary style article, so I have removed it. I don't know if its worth creating articles on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and brahmacharya, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and diet, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and hygiene etc. where such detailed discussion of his views and practices may be relevant. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Need for citations?

You know, I'm sure that this article could benefit from more citations. Few articles could not. But I respectfuly disagree with the idea that it needs to be tagged, such as it is now. Look, the article has over 100 sources already. Can it use more? Sure. But this tag sends the message to the casual reader that this article is not trustworthy, and that simply is not so.

If an editor sees a specific statement that needs a source, then by all means, please place a {{fact}} tag at the point of concern, but please do not besmirch an entire article for potential shortcomings. If this article needs to be tagged, then so too do 99.9% of our articles—which would render the whole thing pretty much pointless, since the whole point of the tag is to draw distinctions between articles. I will remove the tag. Unschool 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In general this is true, but it was tagged because it is a FA and is at FAR. Usually, people would not bother to tag an average article but as it is an FA, people would expect it to be thoroughly referenced. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 00:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-eminence

I find it odd that the article, right off the bat in the opening, uses the term "pre-eminent" to describe him, especially since a look-up of "pre-eminent" re-directs you to "Greatness", and describes [[1]] as "a concept heavily dependent on a person's perspective and biases. Whether someone or something is great or not depends from subjective judgements of the value of one person or thing as compared to another." Is this a POV issue, by definition? NeutronTaste (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-eminent means most prominent or notable, not necessarily the greatest, and is an apt description of Gandhi's role in the independence movement. I am therefore restoring the adjective since for accuracy. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that Dictionary.com is the "pre-eminent" source of knowledge, but here are their definitions, which are synonymous with "the greatest". [2] Notice terms such as "peerless", "superior" and "supreme". I'm not trying to downplay Gandhi's significance, it's just placing him above all others is, well, not a neutral stance. I fail to see why the term "prominent", which you used, is an intolerable substitute. NeutronTaste (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

General comment: Our aim in writing an encyclopedic article is to present the most accurate picture of the subject, without exaggerating or diluting the subject's importance. In the lead of a well-developed article, perforce, we need to to do this by appropriate choice of descriptive language (including adjectives), leaving the detailed explanation to later sections. Our primary goal in choosing the descriptor for the lead sentence should be accuracy, and this goal is in no way misaligned with writing neutrally.
Now addressing our particular case: I continue to believe that pre-eminent is a pithy and apt description of MKG's role in the Indian Independence Movement, as attested by the weighting he gets in standard texts on the topic (see File:Indian freedom pie chart.jpg for example; courtesy User:Fowler&fowler). Note that pre-eminent, unlike greatness, refers to the public position/perception of a person and not necessarily their innate worth; for example I can continue to believe that my grandfather was the greatest poet of all times, even though he never published a word; but I would be factually incorrect if I claimed that he was the pre-eminent poet of his era.
That said, I am not in any way insistent on this particular word choice - if you have an alternate, equally or more accurate description in mind, I am fine with that too. However simply saying that MKG was a "notable", "prominent" or "major" leader of the Indian Independence Movement is euphemistic and ill-serves the reader.
Can other regulars on this page also chime in with their comments and suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
May I add that pre-eminent is not far-fetched when describing Gandhi's leadership of India during the thirty odd years prior to India's independence. Perhaps other leaders such as Tilak or Nehru or Bose were equally important but the reality is that all those names will likely evoke a 'who?' in the world outside India (and there is a world outside India :-)). Gandhi, however, is one of the few world leaders of the twentieth century (or any century for that matter) who needs no introduction or explanation. Pre-eminent covers all that quite adequately. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems this is swiftly becoming a contest to see who can support the non-neutrality the most, rather than a debate regarding the inherent bias of the term. Your argument that the terms describing a person's impact within their own nation should be in proportion to their global recognizability is flawed. I am not trying to get everyone to give me a recursive breakdowns of the man and his impact on India, which was impressive and hopefully long-lasting. The point is that the word "pre-eminent" leans to one side too heavily. If the definition of the word is peerless, supreme, superior, then merely the suggestion that other figures such as Tilak, Bose, Nehru "were equally important" (quote from post above) makes the term non-applicable. If MKG's mild distaste for the term "Mahatma" was acceptable grounds (at least in part) for the removal of that term from the article's title, then what should lead us to believe that he would accept such exalting terms? I'm asking this question with the hope of some consistency, not to put forth a "What would Gandhi want?" view on the discussion at hand. But apparently the subject's modesty and everyone else's lauding are the required ingredients for decent results on his talk page, and I'm hoping, like that debate, that this one will settle on the side of NPOV. NeutronTaste (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of the suitability of the term, I suggest you consider not viewing the purpose of this discussion as being a contest with winners or losers. I can assure you that we are all hoping that this debate will settle on the side of NPOV, wherever that may take us. I don't see my argument as flawed because Gandhi is recognized as 'surpassing others in respect of some quality', and is seen as being 'exceptionally distinguished' and 'outstanding' (OED). For example, Britannica says leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, considered to be the father of his country. He is internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest to achieve political and social progress. Leader, rather than one of the leaders, father of his country, and 'internationally esteemed'. All this seems to fit quite well with pre-eminent, IMO. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my characterization of a discussion is not a proposal to carry on the rest of said discussion that way. I do not know how you got so far through life, running with illogical inferences like that. Also, I am well aware of the man's accomplishments during the Indian independence movement, and may be spared the nutritional data on what is commonly said of him. I did not just happen to mis-type something else and end up on this zany Gandhi page (whoever that is). I shall wait for more input from other users (if you want to use socks, I won't know the difference - just make each 'voice' distinct and take this fake suggestion really seriously). NeutronTaste (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
For me personally, the problem in many wikipedia articles is the confusing of an NPOV tone and giving credit where credit is due. The NPOV policy at wikipedia requires that all substantial viewpoints on a topic are dealt with fairly and equally, with no position given underserved preference over others. I believe that a scholarly consensus has been reached on Gandhi that he is the best-known (outside India), most visible, most talked about participant in the Indian independence movement. I imagine this is a view that his detractors will generally admit as much as his supporters will. As such, the NPOV policy is not violated by representing this viewpoint, which to my knowledge has not been challenged here by the introduction of reliable sources stating the contrary. To recognize this established fact does not praise him unduly, and indeed is not about praise at all as much as level of recognition and familiarity. In this small case, I am not overly attatched to any particular term and would not engage in edit-warring, but it does bother me when NPOV is brought up in contexts where I personally believe it does not apply. All good research has to draw conclusions presented through a thesis, and as long as these conclusions are supported by reliable sources and no particular view is given undue weight, there is no problem. Indrian (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Very well, then. I can't see this discussion leading to anything but maintenance of the status quo, and accordingly concede. I still find the concept of "objective praise" somewhat (oxy)moronic, despite various words that can be put around it to make it look pretty. It seems that your point is based on the fact that there isn't an equal or greater amount of bad things being said about him. So the first descriptor used in the article is just a term of endearment reliant upon a set of conditions that are probably self-perpetuating, as few dare or have reason to insult Gandhi unless suffering from mental defect or miss the days of British rule. So the term isn't neutral, just a deferral to the majority. Cute. NeutronTaste (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Complete misstatement of my point so I will try again. Wikipedia must be objective, but this does not mean avoiding praise or scorn for its subjects, it means that only material that has received scholarly consensus should be reported and every significant viewpoint that has received scholarly consensus should be represented. If the scholarly consensus is that a person did mostly good in their life, then that is what wikipedia reports. If scholarly consensus is that a person was the antichrist, that is also what wikipedia reports. If scholarly consensus is that a person liked funny hats and this negatively affected their judgment (to choose something ridiculously silly) then that is also what we report. Additionally, if one school of thought believes a person did mostly good and another school of thought believes a person did mostly bad, we identify both viewpoints and state their arguments. Avoiding praise and avoiding scorn does not lead to a lack of bias, it leads to a lack of information on a subject. Indrian (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

the almost total lack of Leo Tolstoy on this page

It's very odd to me that Leo Tolstoy gets one mention (That I noticed, anyway), in a throwaway at the end of the article. He's not listed as an influence in the infobox, and the profound influence he had on a young Gandhi is not mentioned in the article itself. The two wrote to each other a great deal near the end of Tolstoy's life, and The Kingdom of God is Within You, and the long letters, presumably (not presumably - Gandhi said they did) had a huge influence on the Indian. You'll note that Gandhi stresses non-resistance to violence above anything else. This is the key to his entire program. This was also the key to Tolstoy's whole program, and was his real preoccupation - and he was just as rigid about it as Gandhi. This is not a coincidence. Gandhi follows in direct descent of influence from the great man Tolstoy, and I think anyone reading this page to understand him would benefit from knowing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.87.100 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Influences.

Another influence on Gandhi was the Irish political activist Michael Davitt. Please see the article on Michael Davitt for reference. I want to know would there be any objections to the insertion of this information?

Justin5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin5150 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, which article are you refering to? thanks nihar (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rizal

I would like to know why Jose Rizal is considered someone who influenced Gandhi. In Gandhi's Autobiography which I just finished reading, there is no mention at all of him having been influenced by Jose Rizal. He mentions various writers as having deeply affected him, but not Rizal. He details how he came to the conclusions of ahimsa (non-violence) and satyagraha (insistence on the truth) by his own experiments and based on a life he felt was being guided by God's hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.175.47 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Valid question. I do not see a reference for that in the article. Can somebody put a refernce. thanks nihar (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Childhood influences

Talking about influences, I remember to have read so many times about how the classic tale of Harishchandra performed by a troupe, had immensley influenced Gandhiji in his childhood. It is recorded in his autobiography and many other biographies. This incident is said to have had great impact on him. I see this glaringly missing in the article. I think a mention of it is needed. Any comments? thanks nihar (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that this can be mentioned, (one RS). --Nvineeth (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have put the content. Kindly have a look and let me know if you have any suggestions. thanks nihar (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sources

http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2008/03/mr-mohandas-gandhis-views-circa-1935.html

http://harmanjit.googlepages.com/gandhi-criticism.txt

- SridharRatnakumar (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Um, no one is a Libertarian rant from twenty years ago and the other is a blog that probably does not count as a reliable source and quotes Gandhi's writings out of context and without scholarly interpretation. I am sure there is much to criticize about Gahndhi since he was just as human as the rest of us, but why can't you people who are determined to speak ill of him find some scholarly sources to support your views. They must exist. Stop being lazy in your "research" and find some real sources, then you can get your views into the article. Indrian (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Correct, these sources do not qualify as being scholarly - [quote]peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.[endquote]. I posted them in good faith that somebody else interested may do the research from that point (arriving at relevant reliable sources, perhaps) .. not with any interest on understanding Mr. Gandhi's views let alone contributing to the article. Yet, your reply prompted me to take a closer look at WP:RS and WP:SOURCES - and I now understand the policy clearly. - SridharRatnakumar (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There must be valid criticisms, though. I know Christopher Hitchens, at least, has publicly criticized Gandhi, and I'm sure he isn't the only serious person to do so. This page has a considerable air of hero-worship, but I don't know enough about Gandhi or his critics to add the relevant information. Can someone who doesn't have a boner for Gandhi add this clearly important dimension to the page?


37 ^ Birkett, Dea; Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Lloyd I Rudolph. Gandhi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma. Orient Longman, 56. ISBN 0002160056.

38 ^ Caplan, Pat; Patricia Caplan (1987). The Cultural construction of sex. Routledge, 278. ISBN 0415040132.

39 ^ a b Parekh, Bhikhu C. (1999). Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi's Political Discourse. Sage, 210. ISBN 0761993835.

40 ^ Kumar, Girja (1997). The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India. Har-Anand Publications, 98. ISBN 8124105251.

41 ^ a b c Tidrick, Kathryn (2007). Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life. I.B.Tauris, 302–304. ISBN 1845111664.

42 ^ Tidrick, Kathryn (2007). Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life. I.B.Tauris, 160. ISBN 1845111664.

43 ^ a b Wolpert, Stanley (2001). Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford University Press, 226–227. ISBN 019515634X.

44 ^ Kumar, Girja (1997). The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India. Har-Anand Publishers, 73-107. ISBN 8124105251.

45 ^ Ghose, Sankar (1991). Mahatma Gandhi. Allied Publishers, 356. ISBN 8170232058. Gandhi student2 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.175.197 (talk)

Changed the template

changed the template and added the new one includes his signature and his work.last template did not describe it memorials dedicated to him are in mohandas karamchand gandhi template.Sarangsaras (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Champaran and Kheda

There is no reference to who "them" are in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section - ""Suppressed by the militias of the landlords (mostly British), they were given measly compensation, leaving them mired in extreme poverty."" I assume it is the indigo and other cash crop farmers. Just think it needs making clear. The end of the section also needs improving - ""As a result, Gandhi's fame spread all over the nation. He is also now called as "Father of the nation" in Indian."" I don't think that the "Father of the Nation" sentance is needed in this section at all (and the grammer is quite poor in the last sentence). The section should end on the "Gandhi's fame spread all over the nation". --Spaaarkz (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


A new up-to-date weblink?

Hello everyone, I would like to make a suggestion for a rather new weblink concerning Gandhi. On the following page, Gandhi's Path to Nonviolence - autobiographical quotes, photos, original voice, you can find an online-exhibition created in the year 2008. To me, it seems to be a valuable introduction to Gandhi's thoughts, particularly because it only consists of his own writings and no additional, i.e. artificial text. Obviously, some pictures complement this exhibition. Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to add this link to the main article (section: weblinks). Thanks for your consideration and time. Best, Pwrobel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwrobel (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Transliteration of Name

  • I think the Tamil Transliteration of the Name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in the opening sentence is unnecessary. It is general practice to list 1. English, 2. Mother Tongue (Gujarati, in this case) and 3. Hindi (Indian National Language).Other than that, it will only clutter the opening sentence.
  • If there are any objections, please mention here to discuss. I will wait before removing it.

Padalkar.kshitij (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

In order to be as clear as possible, I will use a (Paragraph #)-(Sentence #) naming convention for my recommended changes. ie. 1-2: "He returned to the fore . . ." This will follow the structure of the original article.


1-1: Gandhi stayed out of active politics and as such limelight for most of the 1920s, preferring to resolve the wedge between the Swaraj Party and the Indian National Congress, and expanding initiatives against untouchability, alcoholism, ignorance and poverty.

Please consider changing to: Gandhi stayed out of active politics and, as such, the limelight for most of the 1920s. He focused instead on resolving the wedge between the Swaraj Party and the Indian National Congress, and expanding initiatives against untouchability, alcoholism, ignorance and poverty.


1-3: The year before,

Please consider changing to: In the preceding year,


1-9: 26 January 1930 was celebrated by the Indian National Congress, meeting in Lahore, as India's Independence Day.

Please consider changing to: 26 January 1930 was celebrated as India's Independence Day by the Indian National Congress meeting in Lahore.


1-11: Gandhi then launched a new satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930, highlighted by the famous Salt March to Dandi from 12 March to 6 April, marching 388 kilometres (241 miles) from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt himself.

Please consider changing to: Gandhi then launched a new satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930. This was highlighted by the famous Salt March to Dandi from 12 March to 6 April, where he marched 388 kilometres (241 miles) from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt himself.


1-18: The conference was a disappointment to Gandhi and the nationalists, as it focused on the Indian princes and Indian minorities rather than the transfer of power.

Please consider changing to: The conference was a disappointment to Gandhi and the nationalists, as it focused on the Indian princes and Indian minorities rather than on a transfer of power.


1-21: However, this tactic was not successful.

Please consider changing to: However, this tactic was not successful, as Gandhi's influence continued to spread.


2-2: In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast in September 1932, successfully forcing the government to adopt a more equitable arrangement via negotiations mediated by the Dalit cricketer turned political leader Palwankar Baloo.

Please consider changing to: In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast in September 1932. The resulting public outcry successfully forced the government to adopt a more equitable arrangement via negotiations mediated by the Dalit cricketer turned political leader Palwankar Baloo.


2-5: This new campaign was not universally embraced within the Dalit community, however, as prominent leader B. R. Ambedkar condemned Gandhi's use of the term Harijans as saying that Dalits were socially immature, and that privileged caste Indians played a paternalistic role.

Please consider changing to: This new campaign was not universally embraced within the Dalit community, however. The prominent Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar condemned Gandhi's use of the term Harijans, saying that Dalits were socially immature and that privileged upper-caste Indians played a paternalistic role.


2-7: Gandhi, although born into the Vaishya caste, insisted that he was able to speak on behalf of Dalits, despite the availability of Dalit activists such as Ambedkar.

Please consider changing to: Gandhi, although born into the Vaishya caste, insisted that he was able to speak on behalf of Dalits, despite the presence of Dalit activists such as Ambedkar.


3-1: In the summer of 1934, three unsuccessful attempts were made on his life.

Please consider changing to: In the summer of 1934, three unsuccessful attempts were made on Gandhi's life.


Please consider changing to: He did not disagree with the party's move, but felt that if he resigned, his popularity with Indians would cease to stifle the party's membership, that actually varied from communists, socialists, trade unionists, students, religious conservatives, to those with pro-business convictions and that these various voices would get a chance to make themselves heard.

Please consider changing to: He did not disagree with the party's move, but felt that if he resigned, his popularity with Indians would cease to stifle the party's membership. This varied from communists, socialists, trade unionists, students, and religious conservatives to those with pro-business convictions. He felt that these various voices would get a chance to make themselves heard.


4-3: Gandhi also did not want to prove a target for Raj propaganda by leading a party that had temporarily accepted political accommodation with the Raj.[24]

Please consider changing to: Gandhi also did not want to provide a target for Raj propaganda by leading a party that had temporarily accepted political accommodation with the Raj.[24]


5-1: Gandhi returned to the head in 1936, with the Nehru presidency and the Lucknow session of the Congress.

Please consider changing to: Gandhi returned to active politics again in 1936, with the Nehru presidency and the Lucknow session of the Congress.


Neal wells (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Neal, thanks for those well thought out suggestions. I have added you to the confirmed group of users, so that you should now be able to edit the article and implement the suggested changes yourself! If you have any doubt or questions, feel free to raise them here or contact me on my talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_7&oldid=1136980178"