Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 5

I've added the term "Gandhigiri" as a "Further Information" wikilink at the top of the "Legacy" section. However, by this point it does seem to be a concept that deserves a subsection of its own in the "legacy" section - while it did not begin with Gandhi, Gandhigiri appears to be notable, contemporary interpretation of Gandhism. Any thoughts? -Classicfilms 12:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slang used in some movie in some language from some corner of the world and belongs only in the movie's own article. Not in this one. Sarvagnya 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as it is more than just a term - it refers to various contemporary movements which have been well documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhigiri#Gandhigiri-style_protests and thus satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. It doesn't have to be a mainlink but it does deserve mention somewhere in the article. -Classicfilms 18:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say the term, a neologism as it is, is not notable. If I thought that it was not 'notable' I'd be putting it up for deletion instead of just removing it from this article. The issue here is that it is just not pertinent to this article. This neologism is essentially a slang for Gandhism which has already been mentioned in the article. Sarvagnya 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is slang - but it also refers to the events here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhigiri#Gandhigiri-style_protests which are related to the legacy of Gandhi. The legacy section contains many different examples of the legacy of Gandhi and I'm still not certain I understand why the events listed above are not referred to - since they were well documented in the press. If the issue is just the term, then a sentence can be added which refers to these events as a larger movement - since they seem of equal merit to what already exists in the legacy section. -Classicfilms 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So called Gandhigiri is not at all related to Gandhi and in fact there is no such thing except in a movie and some English news sites. Wait for few more days and no body will even remember there was something referred to as Gandhigiri. Gandhigiri is not a slang for Gandhism as Sarvagnya points out but rather a non-existing vague concept which sometimes gets referred to some totally non-related things. Actually there are many other terms having a "Gandhi" prefix but no way related to Gandhi like Gandhi cap(when Gandhi never wore a cap), Gandhi seat in theaters etc and all these terms are in use for a long time now. I don't think they deserve a link in this article though. Gnanapiti 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough re: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -Classicfilms 16:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The following site is a comprehensive site on Mahatma Gandhi by Gandhian institutes 'Mumbai Sarvoday Mandal' and 'Gujarat Vidyapeeth' Ahamadabad. I request to add this site in the external links to this page.

MK_Gandhi_dot_org

It's already there--Shahab 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned to see that censorship has been taking place on this discussion page over a sustained period, and without any debate or justification. I will not reinstate the particular post that some editors refuse to allow to remain today because no doubt it will be gone again very quickly, but instead I will warn editors that if you continue to delete posts which break no Wiki rules then I will seek to have you blocked. This is NOT acceptable behaviour on this resource, and you should either explain your actions here or desist immediately. Controlling the information that appears on your user talk page is one thing (it says a lot about a user who routinely deletes criticism leaving only praise and congratulations); controlling and censoring the content of article discussion pages in NOT permitted and will NOT be tolerated. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

In answer to the post that keeps getting reinstated then deleted by different users, any references to these matters have always been banned from this article - even when sources have been provided, including transcriptions of filmed interviews with Gandhi's own nephew - and such discussion posts have been deleted before. Regretfully, my advice to you is to not bother with this: you will never successfully get the article amended to refer to these matters in any way, shape or form. -- Delsource (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of those sources which some users here refuse to allow to be used to support changes to the article:

• http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_2_1.htm.

Relevant reference in this article is noted as:

Bullough V. L. (1981). Mahatma Gandhi. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 15, 11-12.

Vern Bullough is distinguished professor emeritus at the State University at Buffalo where he was the dean of natural and social sciences for over ten years and is currently a visiting professor at the University of Southern California. Bonnie Bullough, who died in April, 1996, was a professor in the school of nursing at the University of South California and was dean emeritus of the nursing school of the State University of New York at Buffalo. The Bulloughs have collaborated on many works, most recently Sexual Attitudes: Myths and Realities, published by Prometheus Books.

This paper was originally presented at the Western Region Annual Conference for the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, San Diego, California, April, 1996.

Who can argue that this is not a valid source for an entry in the article? This post will disappear in about five minutes.....after which I shall complain to the mods. 86.17.211.191 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's an excellent source referring to events not even disputed by those who were close to him (though the analysis of his behaviour and intentions may be hotly disputed). You still won't get any reference to the subject added in a squillion years..... 62.25.106.209 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is most stark about this is the point that if he had done these things in the UK or America for example - remember, activities not disputed by those close to him - he would have been charged with a serious crime carrying a lengthy custodial sentence. Even if one claims to be pure and without malice and no sexual intentions or motive it is still illegal and immoral to behave in that way with children, penetration or not. I will try to solicit help from others with more experience of Wiki editing in order to get this subject incorporated in some way in this article for it bothers me greatly that I have seen and heard many peple ask "Was Gandhi a paedophile?" only to see the false and ignorant (and probably deliberately obfuscatory) reply "This baseless accusation comes from the fact that he married a minor, but he too was a minor at the time of union". Er, no the accusation does not come from that - regardless of whether the accusation is right or not this is where it comes from........ Remember, this is an encyclopaedia and not a place for politics, religious or nationalist agendas, or hagiography. The sooner more people recognise that the better this resource will be. -- 86.17.211.191 00:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Actually, this is a very good article, it's been featured for ages. I can understand the skepticism on some of our more experienced editors on this subject, it comes from lack of valid sources, not ignorance or falsehood; if you look back a few pages, you'll see that many sites that accuse Gandhi of pedophilia also contain Neo-Nazi propaganda. Just remember to "think horses, not zebras"; when you here "Gandhi was not a pedophile", think "Hm, maybe Gandhi was not a pedophile", not "Evil Indian nationalist conspiracy trying to shut up the fact that Gandhi was, in fact, a pedophie". You'll just get eyes rolled at you if you continue what you're doing. Belgium EO 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He spun the cotton yarn using charkha (a crude spinning wheel), but I doubt if he ever used a loom himself to weave. Chakkshusravana 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see this link. Cheers--Shahab 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly integrates Gandhi's views on Zionism and resistance to Nazism into his broader beliefs about multi-religious public spheres and non-violence. It is, in fact, a textbook example of how criticism should be woven into the discussion of an individual's overall system of thought. Creating an arbitrary section discussing his views on Zionism - in any case of minimal importance in terms of his life - and introducing quotations from primary sources and from partisan magazines of no academic status is precisely the sort of thing that is not recommended for criticism or for FAs. I am not reverting immediately - I have waited, in fact, a few hours for justification, while the editors in question have happily edited away elsewhere. I will continue to wait in the anticipation of discussion. Hornplease 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a added a few scholarly sources. Blanking/blind reverts is a weird way to collaborate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THank you. This does not address the issues I pointed out above: the refactoring of the article to create a section on Zionism destroys the carefully worked out explanation on Gandhi's philosophy. Also, the NAtional Review article obviously doesnt belong here.

Of the references you have added, only one is useful: the discussion of Buber's letter in the JEcumS. This is obviously of note as far as Buber is concerned, but hardly so in terms of Gandhi's life and work; the section is already over-large. In particular, if you can cite a biographical study of Gandhi that places it in perspective, it might be usefully integrated. In any case, the article you have cited begins: " ..Gandhi attempted to impose his Hindu beliefs and approaches upon Judaism and the Jewish people. Gandhi's rejection of Jewish spirituality, coupled with his attempt to impose such Hindu beliefs as reincarnation upon Judaism can only be called spiritual imperialism." Fascinating. Quote it all, why don't we. Hornplease 23:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also exceedingly strange to see the section given such extreme undue weight in this article. The Non-violence section comes to 460 words. Gandhi's views on Jews, Palestine and the Holocaust are given 694 words. Non-violence was central to his life and beliefs. His views on Judaism were, by comparison, peripheral to his life and beliefs. Controversial, perhaps, but still given undue weight for this article. From WP:Undue Weight:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

Blanking is perhaps more appropriate than adding more and more material to a peripheral (to this article) subject. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you clearly want to do is to have an article where Gandhi's responses to critics are presented without any actual discussion of what those critics said or say. That seems more like hagiography than encyclopedia to me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Clearly'? No. What I'm suggesting is that the length of that section is way out of proportion for this article. It should be reduced. My suggestion that blanking is 'more' appropriate was only because this section is given such extreme undue weight, and length. A short mention of it, in context, would be the most appropriate. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is most definitely hagiographic as opposed to encyclopaedic. And censorship - mostly of anonymous IPs - goes largely unchallenged on this article and its discussion (just look at the recent history, for a start). You know who you are, editors (sic). 195.92.40.49 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length of that section, I tried to make it more concise. Some topics are not easy to fit in a few words. Most of it are direct citations and references, and BTW, WP:NOT#PAPER. Given the sensitivities, we don't want to misrepresent important positions by oversimplification. As a compromise, I wouldn't mind to turn the quotes into refs or shorten them further. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome that alternative, which would restore some balance. The flow of the article, and the contextualisation of his beliefs on nonviolence and binational states should be preserved. My objections regarding the source of the material still stand, however: I would expect the analysis be sourced to scholarly work about Gandhi's thought written by historians. Hornplease 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that shortening the quotes would balance the article. Yes, it's true that WP:NOT#PAPER. But Featured Articles (which this is) don't become FAs by expanding them endlessly. They are well written (which typically means each section being concise) and balanced. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent)I believe that section should be re-folded into Gandhi's broader opinions on binational states etc., and since I ahve received no word to the contrary, I will do so. I will also move some quotes to the footnote, per Humus' suggestion, and refactor the criticisms into those about partition and non-violence. In addition, some stuff from more modern Indian sources about non-violence and perhaps a Pakistani source on partition would be helpful, but in future let us try and discuss that first. Hornplease 23:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NOT#PAPER, it refers more to the encyclopedia as a whole, not individual articles. Otherwise, it would be in direct conflict with WP:SS. I have always interpreted it as that Wikipedia theoretically can have information on everything humankind has ever known about if it were possible to maintain it (which it can't unfourtunately). Gizza^{Discuss ©} 07:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against "re-folding" the section on Jews and the Holocaust "into Gandhi's broader opinions on binational states" because that information doesn't belong there. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information belongs in the discussion of the criticism of his views on non-violence, as I explained above. ("Refactor the criticisms into those about partition and non-violence.") Hornplease 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It wasn't clear from your earlier comment. Please do not separate the content related to Jewish history into various sections. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. This is a page on Gandhi, and the part about Jewish history is relevant only in as much as it illustrates Gandhi's thought. In particular, his views on Zionism are related to his broader views on statehood, religious syncretism and Partition, and his views on resistance to the Nazis are borderline notable with regard to criticism of his views on non-violence in general. I am frankly a little amazed; not all content on this encyclopaedia exists to facilitate specialised interests.

I find your continued puzzlement disingenuous, as I stated at the outset that the original outline, that went to Featured status, is a textbook example of how criticism is supposed to be written: woven into the discussion of an individual's overall system of thought. See wp:criticism. Hornplease 07:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a page on Gandhi, and the part about Jewish history is relevant only in as much as it illustrates Gandhi's thought on Jewish history. Information may be sorted or systematized in many ways, and other editors may disagree with you without being "disingenuous" (review NPA). This section is not dedicated to "criticism", but to MG's views on Jews, Palestine, and the Nazis. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section recently created, and to which I opened this conversation by objecting! Which is what I meant by disingenous - my original objection was to the artificial creation of a section to deal with his views on "Jews, Palestine and the Nazis", which are not connected in the way in which they are relevant to Gandhi's thought. He had no thoughts on Jewish history which were sufficiently independent of his thoughts on other subjects in order to justify a section. Doing so exalts a relatively minor illustration of his principles, and the criticism thereof. "Gandhi's thought on Jewish history" is a construction which is invalid in that it implies he had thoughts about the history and plight of the Jews per se, rather than the fact as demonstrated by the sources, which is that he applied his principles of governance and resistance to that history in plight in a particular way, and which laid him open to criticism. Note that it is not only I who disagree with you; others have, in fact, indicated a preference for minimising it completely. I merely believe quotes can be moved to footnotes and the original flow can be restored. Hornplease 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Criticism should be present, but woven into the general flow of the article, not inserted into a catch-all "Criticism" section. The latter is sloppy writing (much like "Trivia" sections), but easier to do, unlike the former. His views on "Jews, Palestine and Nazis" could be incorporated into the "Nonviolence" section. The "Early South African articles" should probably be merged into the "Legacy" and "Civil Rights in South Africa" section, etc. A general "criticism" section to document every criticism without regard to the rest of the article is poor writing. 75.116.69.198 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It vexes me to be discussing the subject of Jews here. I wish people were less fascinated with us and could just leave us the heck alone when the discussion is Gandhi. Gandhi is a sufficiently fascinating and important character that there should be no need for a long discussion regarding Jews and Gandhi. Jew-haters and their travelling companions, monomaniacal Jew-obsessors should start themselves a stamp collection and just get out of our faces.

In any event, having come across some brilliantly-subtle anti-semitic nonsense in this article I engaged in the following edit. Owing to the subtlety of this antisemitism might I beg your indulgence to stay with me here for a moment.

For reasons that aren't clear to me, Gandhi's views on a thousand and one subjects of great concern to him are NOT included in his encyclopedia while the subject of Zionism, which was quite tangential to his regular thoughts, are discussed and quoted at length. In my opinion that's sort of silly but I've never removed accurate information from wikipedia even if it was relatively irrelevant. My only complaint is that matters more central to Gandhi's interests were not included. The quote regarding Zionism is not one that I personally would agree with but it is accurate and good information so I'm pleased that it's there. The same applies regarding his thoughts on the Nazi persecutions of Jews as well.

Here comes the rub.

Directly after Gandhi's recommendations to the Jews of Germany (for which, in my opinion, he MAY be fairly disagreed with or criticised but is more often disagreed with and criticised quite unfairly by illiterate fools) was the following sentence. It is the subtle yet purposefully anti-semitic - and informationally useless - sentence that I've removed. It is contained as its own paragraph and it reads:

" Also, in Harijan, December 17, 1938, Gandhi asserted that Jews "so far as I know, have never practised non-violence as an article of faith or even as a deliberate policy," and alleged that Jews sought to "punish Germany for her persecution and to deliver them from oppression." "

A) This sentence/paragraph appears to have been inserted in a place that makes no logical sense. I wish I knew how to find out how and when this paragraph appeared but alas, I'm not yet at that level. The reason why it appears to be a later agenda-driven insert is because it is immediately followed by the following:

" Gandhi was criticized by a number of people for these and related remarks. He responded by stating that, "friends have sent me two newspaper cuttings criticizing my appeal to the Jews. The two critics suggest that in presenting non-violence to the Jews as a remedy against the wrong done to them, I have suggested nothing new....what I have pleaded for is renunciation of violence of the heart and consequent active exercise of the force generated by the great renunciation. "

A paragraph that makes sense following as it (originally) did the quote by Gandhi regarding Jews standing up to German oppression with satyagrah but which makes NO sense when it is read following the sentence which I deleted. Thea reason why? Because the deleted sentence, which snatches random words from Gandhi out of context, is from the self-same article that supposedly "responds" to the criticism that he received for making those statements. In other words, our anti-semitic vandals would have it that Gandhi bethought the Jews a violent people, was then criticised for it and subsequently responded to that criticism by going back in time and writing words in the same paragraph that caused the initial criticism. If you find that hard to follow, so do I, but those are the twists and turns one must engage in to comprehend the logic of antisemites.

B) Hitler claimed that the Jews needed to be "dealt with" because they were declaring war on Germany. In other words, rounding up Yiddish speakers from far-flung and impoverished shtetls and subsequently gassing them to death was simply an act of self-defense against an aggressor. Modern neo-Nazis mostly shy away from this sort of argument, logically sound though it obviously is. But not all neo-nazis do. Some of the dumber ones believe that their allegiance to their Fuhrer must extend even to his more ridiculous claims and they repeat (and repeat and repeat) that "the Jews started it". They don't generally sound very intelligent when they vomit this mantra but these are usually the inbred ones anyway and appearing intelligent is not a prize that will be offered them in any case.

And this, "the Jews started it with Germany and GANDHI knew it!" is the clear meaning (and probably intent) of the anachronistic nonsense.

The partial-sentence quotes give a wholly inaccurate view of Gandhi's thoughts on the subject (as the rest of those sentences, and furthermore the entire article, make obvious) and are intended to mislead rather than educate. Hence their removal.

Please don't misunderstand me however. Were a subsequent editor to choose to deal with this nonsense by including the ENTIRE article in question, such that the half-sentences are now in their true context, I would be elated. I am, as mentioned, one of those who would like to see Encyclopedia articles as full of information as possible. This solution would of course be ridiculous, considering how much disproportional focus "the Jewish Question" ALREADY receives on a page dedicated to Gandhi (which ought to devote more attention to subjects that HE did) but I would welcome it nonetheless. Reprint ALL his articles on his page for all I care.

Why then, as a pack-rat editor did I not expand the Jew section by blockquoting another couple of inches? Well, for one, I'd be ashamed to be one of the people responsible for further lopsiding this article. For two, there ALREADY IS a larger quote from that self-same paragraph in the non-deleted subsequent section (as mentioned and quoted). And third of all, and truest of all, because there IS NOTHING TO WHICH TO GIVE CONTEXT TO. If some potty-obsessed fool were to quote from a speech of Gandhi's wherein he says, "and sometimes I make", there would be no requirement to keep that quote but to give it greater context. There WAS no meaningful quote there in the first place.

mnuez

www.mnuez.blogspot.com

Someone keeps reinserting the clunky, "strongest driving philosophies of the Indian independence movement," in reference to non-violence (in the lead). I think I know what the motivation for this sentence is: the need to acknowledge that there were other philosophies. But, please, the lead is not the place for ugliness. The usual version simply says, "which led India to independence." I think most people understand that it means that it (non-violence) was the "prime mover," not the only factor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) you know what is speacil about ghandhi he was told the true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.78.226 (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me couple of months ago. But just wondering, if it is to be implied, I think it would be more appropriate to say "prime mover" rather than "led India to Independence".Rueben lys 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mahatma Ghandi" Is the reason for that being the title of this entry because that is the name he is widely known by? This was certainly not his real name. It was a name given him by the British, which he did not like being called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.200.87 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a resource used to find information and if the name was changed, this would cause major problems for the reader as they would not be able to find a page on "Mahatma Gandhi". It would be the source of many complicatons. Thundermaster367 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscover Gandhi through the audiobook version of his autobiography - The Story of My Experiments with Truth featuring the voices of Sekhar Kapur and Nandita Das with music by 3 Brothers & A Violin. This has been produced in association with Navjivan Trust, Ahmedabad. For the first time in a downloadable format at a special introductory offer of Rs. 50 or USD 1.25 www.karaditales.com/gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.42.86 (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘The British were wicked, they looted India. Gandhi’Ji’ drove them out. He gave us everything, the British gave us nothing. They imposed English on us. Gandhi stood for Indian languages, especially Hindi. He showed us greatness of our traditional dress; Indians do not want pants, shirts, and suits. He showed the whole world what a great, non-violent nation ours is. Everything is in the Gandhi movie made by a renegade Briton.’

This is the standard Indian emotion about Gandhi. It is parroted in all the school books, and taught at government expense or imposition.

It is a natural phenomenon. In all deluded nations. The ruling groups, who have manipulated themselves into power, catch the focus of the people’s emotions through such sustained indoctrination. See a different perspective here:[1] --Ved from Victoria Institutions 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

I would like one of the page editors to revise one of the external links. The MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence has a new webpage - www.gandhiinstitute.net.

Thank you Anthony Beckman Volunteer, Mk Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence Zenlunatic2007 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony, I took a look at the site along with the others on the page and ended up deleting it and several others entirely as they weren't really appropriate for this article. While the site has a noble mission, this is an encyclopedia article about Gandhi himself, and links should provide additional encyclopedic information about the man, rather than be to organizations that continue work of the same type, even if they were inspired by him. If the organization is well known, the site might be appropriate to suggest at some of our articles on the peace movement. See our external links guidelines for more on what is generally appropriate for consideration and what should not be added. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His 50-year old secretary Mahadev Desai died of a heart attack 6 days later..."

Later than what? (Also, '6' should be 'six.')

GeneCallahan 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone enter his name in Hindi too? ChiefJaca 05:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) मोहनदास करमचन्द गांधी —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.73.255 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi's writings depict racism against Black people during his days in South Africa. Gandhi also categorically refused to be associated with Black people because he considered them uncivilized.

Quotes

“A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 193 Collective Works of Mahatma Gandhi

“So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 229

“The Attorney-General of Natal wants to keep the Indians for ever ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water.’ We are classed with the natives of South Africa - Kaffir race.” ~ Vol. I, p. 364

“Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, 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.” ~ Vol. I, pp. 409-410 Princhest —Preceding comment was added at 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that these quotes all are from Volume I (1888-98) of his collected works. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_Mahatma_Gandhi goes up to Volume XXX which is only 1926 and he wrote a lot more after that. Gandhi admitted his prejudices and intolerance (incluidng sexism) of his younger days and did a pretty good job overcoming them, considering he was a creature of an extremely bigoted age.

Carol Moore 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

There is no evidence as to where he ever admitted his bigotry against Black people. Please advise as to where did Gandhi ever admit to his racism against Black people and that he ever considered himself as "creature of a extremely bigoted age"? His comments about Jews posted below however tell us a very different story. Princhest

Most of the critics of Gandhi whom I have met are Christians -of course Gandhi was a great critic of Christianity. However, Martin Luther King was very influenced and inspired by Gandhi. For the full quote of what Dr. King said about Gandhi check out the King profile.

Here is a fragment: "In a real sense, Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.” Q.E.D. Teetotaler 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk)

Please note that Dr King also considered Gandhi a devout Christian which of course is not true. In any sense neither does it allow us to believe that Dr King was in fact aware about Gandhi's view on Blacks nor justifies Gandhi's racism as moral structure of the universe. Dr King of course as he mentions learned about Gandhi through secondary sources(not primary sources like CWMG) which never mention about Gandhi's racial beliefs about Blacks. Princhest 22:23 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs)

Did King and Gandhi ever meet? If Gandhi had overcome his Racist tendencies in his later years please point to references and/or his acts which prove this. Interestingly, Gandhi was instead promoting and following the principles of a philosophy of which "caste system" is an integral part. Reading this article makes me feel that this is non-encyclopedic and Gandhian POV only. Surprisingly, the article has been given "Featured Article" status. ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone writing in this Wikipedia entry meet Gandhi? Where does it say that King believed Gandhi was ONLY a Christian -King's wiki entry says he visited India and met Gandhis family -surely King wasn't as naive as Princhest says. (Note -Gandhi called himself an adherant to every religion more than once -he read from the Koran during prayer time on occassion -check the autobiography). I don't believe quotes from Gandhi on overcoming racism are needed because I don't think the above quotes are necessarily racist anymore than there is a racism which everyone is guilty of in recognizing "race" in the first place, i.e., those quotes aren't necessarily derogatory, but descriptive. (Calling myself white makes me racist because I believe I am a member of a race. But that isn't deragotory in the sense in which there is a kind of racism which is prejudiced and imperial.} Sure, in those quotes Gandhi says there are blacks whom people recognize in a non-deragoty(?) way as "kaffir", sure he uses the adjective "raw" and he says their desires are different than his -these are mostly descriptions -they do not strike me as being derogatory in the way that a noun can be used to purposfully misrepresnet someone, like "cracker" or "honky". Second of all, we learn in Gandi's autobiography (will give page #'s if necessary) he volunteered to be a nurse or field medic during the English war on the Zulu people. Interestingly he wasn't a medic for the British but for the wounded Zulus. He was harassed or attacked (can't remember which, or if it was both)by the English for healing the Zulu people whom the English had injured in the first place. So, then perhaps we have to say Gandhi wasn't racist toward "black" people per say, just Kaffirs and not Zulus. If he wasn't against the whole race of dark-skinned Africans but maybe only one group called Kaffirs, doesn't the charge change from "race-ism" to some other non-racial, but class based, prejudice? As for an indictment of Gandhi's support of the caste system, it should be remembered that the caste system is not in a normative sense racist or imperial. The caste system was theorized thousands of years ago by Hindu philosophers and should be understood as a religio-socio-economic system with social mobility, rather than the more modern corrupted system which exists without social-mobility. Note again that Gandhi refused to agree with other members of certain ashrams (sp.) who would not permit untouchables or harijan. Gandhi befriended many harijan. Again, there are no untouchables or harijan in the original scriptures which discuss the caste system, but they exist only in the modern, corrupted form of the caste system. Teetotaler 1 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence on Gandhi points otherwise and what you are saying is quite unhistorical. I think it is ridiculous how teetotaler has concluded that the words above are descriptive. What a way to describe someone by having a hostile use of language by a so-called "apostle of peace"? Secondly, The reason Gandhi joined ambulatory corps was because the British denied Indians to be soldiers in their army at that point of time. Gandhi campaigned on all levels (Read Indian opinion) to promote that Indians should be allowed to fight for the “defense of the colony” or the ethnic cleansing of Blacks. Gandhi was under the orders of British to treat the Zulus not all by himself. Where has Gandhi ever protested against the British for the slaughter of Blacks? Any words on that? Hence, Gandhi did fight for the rights of Indians but at expense of slaughter of the Blacks. At least we should agree to remove the unhistorical point mentioned in the article about Gandhi feeling for the discrimination against Blacks.This is a cruel joke.

Gandhi in 1929(more than 20 years after the Zulu war) during an interview to foreign visitors about the discrimination of Blacks in S Africa says the following: “I had occasion to discuss this subject with natives while I was in S Africa. I told them that they had got to help themselves and always to work in the hope that help would come to them from somewhere when the hour for it arrived. In the meantime they had to prepare themselves for it by a process of self-purification (CWMG , # 62, p63)

There is not any iota of evidence that he ever mentioned that to Blacks at least not from his words and actions against Blacks. It seems more like a cover-up to hide the facts years later.

The encyclopedic norms demand us to be objective and present the full picture. Why hide the facts about Gandhi? It is half –truth about Gandhi and half-truth is a lie, let alone encyclopedic.

Thirdly, untouchability is the part of castism-they are not different.

Fourthly, Gandhi’s view on religion:

"It cannot be said that Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are separate religions. All these four faiths and their offshoots are one. Hinduism is an ocean into which all the rivers run. It can absorb Islam and Christianity and all other religions and only then can it become the ocean. Otherwise it remains merely a stream along which large ships cannot ply." (CWMG 90, p177)

"Indian civilization is the best and the European is a nine day wonder. I bear no enmity towards the English, but I do towards their civilization" Hind Swaraj, 1909

Certainly, the idea dangerously seems to consider racism and hostility as permissible under the cloak of religion. It is a not encyclopedic. Princhest 3 December 2007 22:45(UTC)

"I have known no distinction between relatives and strangers, countrymen and foreigners, white and coloured, Hindus and Indians of other faiths, whether Musalmans, Parsis, Christians or Jews. I may say that my heart has been incapable of making any such distinctions." -Autobiography of Gandhi, (p276)

"I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the 'rebellion' itself. But I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world... So I wrote the Governer, expressing my readiness, if necessary, to form an Indian Ambulance Corps. He replied immediately accepting my offer." (p313)

"...At any rate my heart was with the Zulus, and I was delighted, on reaching headquarters, to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus... the white people were not willing nurses for the wounded Zulus... The Zulus were delighted to see us. The white soldiers used to peep through the railings that seperated us from them and tried to dissuade us from attending to the wounds. And as we would not heed them, they became enraged and poured unspeakable abuse on the Zulus." (p314)

"But wherever we went, I am thankful that we had God's good work to do, having to carry to the camp on our stretchers those Zulu friendlies who had been inadvertently wounded, and to attend upon them as nurses." (p315)

"I could see that but for us the Zulus would have been uncared for. This work, therefore, eased my conscience." (Autobiography of Gandhi, p315-316)

So there, princess. Teetotaler 5 December, 2007

"The root of all religions is one and it is pure and all of them have sprung from the same source, hence all are equal... Non-violence, truth, non-stealing, brahmacharya, non-possession, body-labour, control of the palate, fearlessness on all occassion, equal respect for all religions, swadeshi and sparshabhavana -these eleven vows should be observed in a spirit of humility. I am trying to live in accordance with this and so are my associates." The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, ed. Raghavan Iyer, p160

"This evening when as usual before prayer meeting the audience was asked if there was any objector to the Koran verses recited as part of the prayer, one member spoke up and persisted in his objection. Gandhiji had made it clear that if there was such objection, he would neither have public prayer nor the after-prayer speech on current events." Gandhi: Selected Writings, Ed. Ronald Duncan, p192 Teetotaler 5 December, 2007

So you are suggesting that Gandhi expressed his “pain” for the Blacks 15 years later in his Autobiography albeit completely covering-up his unequivocal promotion of the slaughter? Is Gandhi’s silence(cover-up) on this and his virulent literature on Blacks be taken as an answer to consider that it is justified? You and Gandhi are distorting a lot of facts. If Gandhi had pain for Blacks, why did Gandhi campaign to get Indians into the army for the defense of British against the Blacks? Was this his duty to perform “welfare” to the world as he thought about British Empire for the welfare of world? Certainly what we get is a two-faced image. As evident from the quotes you posted above- Gandhi no doubt believed that Hinduism is the root of all religions and moral values. Thanks for posting his brand of Hindu fundamentalism.

Indian Opinion June 9, 1906

The Durban women’s Association has started a special fund for the soldiers who have gone to the front to fight the Kaffirs. All leading men have contributed to the fund. It is our advice that more Indians should subscribe to the fund. Therefore who do not go the front should, in order to express their sympathy, raise a fund for the purpose of sending the soldiers fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things they might need. It is our duty to subscribe to such a fund. (CWMG 5,#377, p353) Princhest 5 December 2007 22:44 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think people should be blamed for changing their minds. Sure Gandhi didn't come out against World War I, as Bertrand Russell did, however, he changed his mind about war in the years to come. I'm not sure if you study ethics or philosophy, but people aren't born with a finalized version of their ethics -they learn from their mistakes, hopefully, and become better people. This does not mean they are as Princhest says, "two-faced". Bertrand Russell changed his mind so many times that some say that in all the different points in his life he had held every view there is. Yet, Russell, like Gandhi, ended up as a pacifist. Sure we can blame someone who didn't change their mind for the better, but that is not the case here. If Hindu fundamentalism is the non-violence of Gandhi's mature philosophy, by all means I am a Hindu fundamentalist. However, as you didn't notice from previous quotes, Gandhi was tolerant of all religions. Perhaps we should start a new section of discussion concerning this very subject, because you have veered from the subject of whether Gandhi was a racist. Was Gandhi a racist in the same way that he was a man and not a woman? No, it has been demonstrated that he didn't hate any race. Again, a young Gandhi supported war, but the mature Gandhi did not. It is childish to think that people cannot change their minds and to blame people for their ignorance. As Gandhi once told some African Americans who visited him: "...it may be through the Negroes that the unadulterated message of non-violence will be delivered to the world." The Gandhi Reader, ed. Homer A. Jack, p316 Teetotaler 7 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you do believe that Gandhi promoted the slaughter of the Blacks but fail to understand that we can't leave this out from his life. When evidence flies in the face of Gandhi's own covering up of his actions (his lying)- you are now switching your mantra to a different one-"that he probably changed his mind". This is what is called Blind acceptance Princhest 06 December 2007 00:03 (UTC)

Allow me to use another example. Gandhi "supported" (i.e., he didn't protest) the Boer War (which occured before the English war on the Zulus). So according to Princhest's logic, Gandhi was racist against the Dutch. Oh, Gandhi didn't protest World War I either -so he was racist against Turks and Germans? Just because Gandhi hadn't developed his non-violent philosophy yet doesn't mean he was racist against every enemy of the British Empire. The British fought Hindus too -oh, so Gandhi was racist against Hindus as well? Just because in his youth he didn't protest a war against a certain group of people doesn't make him racist against them. The quotes given above prove that Gandhi was not racist against any entire race of people, and as he took the time to say in his autobiography, he wasn't discriminatory toward any race or religion. You (Princhest) are using a fallacious kind of reasoning known in Logic as the falllacy of Affirming the consequent, which can be stated thus: If A then B; B; therefore A.

(A) Gandhi was racist if (B) Gandhi didn't protest the British Empire during each of its wars. (B) Gandhi didn't protest the British Empire during each of its wars. Therefore (A) Gandhi was racist.

Lets see Princhest's logic as used in the example given by the wikipedia entry on the Fallacy of Affirming the consequent.

(A) If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, (B) then he is rich. (B) Bill Gates is rich. Therefore,(A) Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

I recommend looking up the word metonym and the Latin phrase Pars pro toto. Good luck on that one, budd. Teetotaler 7 December, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting the facts. Gandhi supported the war against and slaughter for the Blacks, virulently campaigned against their rights and then 20 years later lied about it in his "Autobiography". Princhest 7 December 2007 19:14 (UTC)

I just discovered http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_Mahatma_Gandhi/Volume_I It would be helpful if you would tell us in which year/letter/document your quotes are found so we could look at full context. Carol Moore 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Carol, That is not comprehensive as it leaves out lot of portions of Gandhi's writtings. You can read all 98 Volumes at http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html Please read Vol. I, p. 193, Vol I, pp. 224-225, Vol. I, p. 225 and Vol. I, p. 229. Start with these and you can clearly see how Gandhi pushing for cause of Hinduism as Indian philosophy and rights of Indians decries humanity to the Blacks. Princhest 9 December 2007 16:32 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs)

Ok, useful to have that link. But it remains the case these things were said very early in his 50 year career and that he clearly made, as Teetotaler quotes above, anti-racism statements later. You know that Senator Robert Byrd was promoting the KKK and spouting racist nonsense until the late 1940s. I don't see you yelling and screaming he should resign. People drop their racist attitudes and even denounce them and we always should be glad of it. Changing people - not punishing them for their past stupidity - is part of all positive philosophies, including Gandhianism. That's why your views don't get much sympathy here. Carol Moore 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

PS: Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with one sentence mentioning past racist views, should they prove to be in full context, as long as they are balanced by evidence that he also was against bigotry. Carol Moore 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Again, you are missing the point- Gandhi lied in his Autobiography about his views on Blacks 15 years later after the Zulu war. What you say about people changing beliefs is understandable but is not applicable here. Also, why write that Gandhi felt for rights of Blacks when he was an outright racist. This needs to be corrected in the article. I am for a constructive write-up and also for introducing Gandhi's role in Zulu war-an important period of his life. Princhest 10 December 2007 20:10 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs)

Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? I think early on Gandhi BOTH had cultural problems with native Africans that we today would consider racist AND supported their desire to be free of oppression by whites, if only theoretically. In his old age Gandhi doubtless forgot the earlier negative views - or didn't think past stupidity worth mentioning. That's not necessarily lying. I mean how many 60 year old men dwell on all the obnoxious demeaning things they said about women 40 years ago? Should I spend all my time finding and denouncing the sexist pasts of a large majority of America's older males? Or recognize that most of them have forgotten the bad old selves and moved on to at least some measure of support? I'd rather worry about the guys STILL engaged in outright sexist behaviors. Again, I'm not opposed to having a small and balanced mention of all this, but you seem to be a POV crusade against Gandhi for his ignorance in younger days or you would have had acceptable language included in the article by now. My final comment. Carol Moore 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Thanks! I will be editing the article shortly. I was trying to be fair in presenting all the facts that are available Princhest 12 December 2007 22:53 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs)

This article is pure Gandhian POV and full of propaganda. It lacks the characteristics of a "featured article" until complete and neutral information is added and the article is completed. For example, a section "criticism" exists on the page but is colored with propaganda covering the real issues with Gandhi that lead to criticism. Also, certain claims like Gandhi regretting his racism and sexism are factually incorrect. Additionally, there is nothing mentioned about the critism Gandhi faced for his sexist activities which he continued to his later life as well.--Freshnap (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been studying Gandhi for all my time in India as well and feel that this article does not deserve "featured article" status due to the cooked up language and Gandhian propaganda. Its Gandhi lover's POV only and selectively leaves facts out. Gandhi did not give up his sexist activities even in his later life and all the fake claims of his having given up racism and sexism stem from his own autobiography.--Roadahead (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following site has a comprehensive family tree of Mahatma Gandhi covering upto 5th generation descendants. Requesting that it should be added under external links: [http://www.kincafe.com/family-tree/mahatma-gandhi/ ]

- Anita Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita.n.singh (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has left many factual points about Gandhi which tell us more about his personality. The article is incompetent in giving a true picture about Gandhi.

In an open Letter to British in 1940- Gandhi advocated British to not resist Nazis with Arms

“I want you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child to be slaughtered... I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s government, should they consider them of any practical use in enhancing my appeal.”

Gandhi advised the Jews of Europe to commit "mass suicide"

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

Louis Fisher, asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"

Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife,"

Source : Louis Fisher: The Life of Mahatma Gandhi Princhest

We have been this way more than once before. Please look up the Archive-6 near the top of the page for more discussions. Tintin 02:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the archive 6 only concludes that Gandhi was probably unaware about the atrocities of Nazis. How unaware one can be when one knows and admits that 5 million were killed? Is that number not enough to be aware? It is absolutely softness on crime to propagate that Gandhi was misunderstood about the situation.It is a POV. What is the evidence that he was unaware? Secondly, in another way to save Gandhi- he has been proposed as absolute pacifist(which is in itself is another POV) How do such protagonists of Gandhi who will go to all lengths to defy rules of logic justify Gandhi in purporting the use of violence:

“When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.” Vol. 21, p. 133 of Gandhi’s “Collected Works,” Gandhi is promoting use of violence when it comes to saving himself but not when it comes to Jews? It appears to be more of sham non-violence. Princhest

Interesting point. I wouldn't put it past him to ask Jews to use non-violence and offer themselves to Nazis to be butchered. How reliable is the source who claims that violence was justified in protecting himself? ChiefJaca 04:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if one reference was sited where Gandhi offered that Hindus martyr themselves when Japan was invading India? The correspondence between Gandhi and Martin Buber and others concerning World War II is a very fruitful discussion in ethics. Many opinions abound. I agree with Bertrand Russell that the British would have been better off in World War I if they had chosen pacifism. Many English were killed in World War I. Is a non-English person who agrees with Russell a racist? Teetotaler 28 November, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, see my comments in the racism section above. Also, we don't have the whole context of the Fisher quote. And Fisher himself may not have offered the whole context. Gandhi often explored all sides of an issue. Perhaps in the same conversation he also presented his view that in extreme circumstances of self-defense one could and should take up arms and that was omitted by Fisher. If it was something in an actual article he wrote and in full context, then we'd have a better idea of whether it represented Gandhis thoughts at the time - and his thoughts on many topics evolved over time. The problem with proliferic writers is it's much easier to get them on a bad day when they aren't thinking clearly than it is to get those who write little and parse their words carefully.

If you want something more questionable, look at his means of proving his ability to stay chaste, even into his old age. What a silly man - or worse?? Still, he was one of the great original thinkers of all history. Those who disagree with his thoughts will nitpick his flaws, just like those who agree with the best synthesis of his views will overlook or down play them. Carol Moore 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

We are actually not allowed to see the full picture but half-picture which is therefore not truth. Why cover up things here? Sources tell us that Gandhi called for the defense of India by all means, including cooperation with the British military when attacked by Japan (Stanley, Maron- The non-universality of Satyagrah" p277) Lets agree to bring all sides of Gandhi in the article. Princhest 3 December 2007 20:20 (UTC)

"In 1942 the Japanese occupied Burma and it was feared that they would soon land on the coast of India. At Gandhi's suggestion one of this trusted co-workers, Miss Madeleine Slade, went to Orissa, a province on India's east coast, to prepare the people for non-violent resistance to the invaders." The Gandhi Reader, ed. Homer A. Jack, p375 Teetotaler 5 December, 2007

Thanks.This further tells us that Gandhi used the mask of non-violence only for myth building as his actions were quite different when Japan attacked British India. The blind acceptance of Gandhi is without the basis of facts. Princhest 6 December 2007 21:35 (UTC)

"If I were a Czech, therefore, I would free these two nations from the obligation to defend my country. And yet I must live. I would not be a vassal to any nation or body. I must have absolute independence or perish. To seek to win in a clash of arms would be pure bravado. Not so, if in defying the might of one who would deprive me of my independence I refuse to obey his will and perish unarmed in the attempt. In so doing, though I lose the body, I save my sould, i.e., my honor." The Gandhi Reader, ed. Homer A. Jack, p333-334 Teetotaler 7 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for Gandhi is not valid. Gandhi's eulogizing of "non-violence" for others and his call for self-defense through arms as evident when Japan attacked British India is non-conforming. Princhest 7 December 2007, 19:18 (UTC)

Are we going to understand Gandhi from Gandhian POV or an independent POV? The article certainly is not encyclopedic. The article assumes Mohandas Gandhi was a “Mahatma”- or a great soul.Who made him Mahatma? He has been eulogized as a Mahatma only by his followers not by humanity. Gandhi, as Mahatma and his ideas can't be imposed on everybody. Secondly, the article assumes that Gandhian ideas are universal. This in turn asserts that there is a universal consensus on his philosophy. For an academician and a researcher he is not “a great soul-Mahatma”. There is certainly an effort to hide behind religion by using such terms in the article. The article mentions about "Ahimsa" as an idea of Indian religious thought. Apart from using religion as shield, which religion does the article point to? The article assumes a lot of inaccuracies as such. This article should be better a source for Gandhians.Princhest

Hi, this article should be linked to the one at the following location, should it not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma [User:Linnellmr|Linnellmr]] (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)linnellmr[reply]

If Princhest is talking about the TITLE of the article, obviously it should be his full name, not his "nickname." But the article does explain: "Gandhi is commonly known in India and across the world as Mahatma Gandhi." Someone has to specifically propose here on this Talk page (and maybe elsewhere on wiki) making his full name the main page title and then do ALL the wiki changes that would lead to that. (I'm not going to do it.) I'm neutral on the topic, others might feel more strongly. So look up process for doing that.

Also note that just typing in "Gandhi" goes straight to his page, and probably there should be a disambiguation page since there have a been a few other famous Gandhis since then. But someone's gotta do it.

As for adding Mahatma, either it could be linked on first mention in his name above, or under See Also section, or under one of those boxes if more relevant. Be bold and go for it :-)

Carol Moore 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

WP:NAMEPEOPLE is unequivocal on this subject - the title of the article should be the name most commonly used for that person. The example used at WP:NAMEPEOPLE makes it abundantly clear that this article should be named "Mahatma Gandhi", no matter how uncomfortable it makes Princhest feel (emphasis below is mine):

"The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person." priyanath talk 19:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that MK Gandhi is commonly known as "Gandhi" in the world.Even the article addresses him as Gandhi many times. The discussions on this page also bear witness to that. More examples are the movies made in the West and his statues having the title of "Gandhi".The statues in the US mention him as Mohandas K Gandhi and not "Mahatma Gandhi". He is revered as "Mahatma Gandhi" ONLY by his followers. Thus, you can't compare Gandhi with Mother Teresa etc who is always referred with her qualifier rather than just "Teressa" . Also as Carol mentioned typing "Gandhi" in the search page takes us directly to this page. All these facts stand alone as testimony to the fact of "Gandhi". 19 November 2007 (UTC)Princhest 23:11 19 November 2007 User:Princhest

I guess someone will have to come up with some statistical evidence to see which name is most consistent with WP:NAMEPEOPLE. However, I do think it is not just his followers who call him Mahatma, but most people who want to give him a "first" name or two names. Snce there ARE other Gandhis out there, it is likely many people will look for a "first" name. And Mohandas is not the name that comes to mind first for most people! So it does make sense to keep it in that case.

Carol Moore 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

• Encarta uses Mohandas Gandhi http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575565/Gandhi_Mohandas_Karamchand.html
• Encyclopedia Britannica uses Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109421/Mohandas-Karamchand-Gandhi

I am moving this article to Mohandas Gandhi, leaving redirects to it from Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All double redirects have been fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move - clearly Mahatma Gandhi is most commonly used.

Ghits on Google Scholar for "Mohandas Gandhi" = 2,070

Ghits on Google Scholar for "Mahatma Gandhi" = 20,400

Ghits on Google books for "Mohandas Gandhi" = 846

Ghits on Google books for "Mahatma Gandhi" = 2,140

This should have been discussed and consensus reached before moving a featured article page to a title that completely violates WP:NAMEPEOPLE.  priyanath talk 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate WP:NAMEPEOPLE. What was the name of the article when it became FA? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi is correct. WP:NAMEPEOPLE specifically excludes qualifiers "except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation;" which clearly does not apply here. treesmill (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jossi is not correct. "Mahatma Gandhi" is the most used name, which is precisely what is proven above with google scholar of all things. And again, WP:NAMEPEOPLE clearly states "The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time..." I feel bad that some of you find it awkward to see "Mahatma", but that's precisely why WP:NAMEPEOPLE states it that way. If 'other encyclopedias' are suddenly the standard, and official WP policy, then the article should actually be titled "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", which is how Encarta, Britannica, and Columbia all title theirs. Though I have a feeling that " 'Anything but Mahatma' Gandhi" is where this is headed.  priyanath talk 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposed 'proof' is biased toward the result you want because you have failed to search on what is almost certainly the most used name which is 'Gandhi'. You have also failed to take account of the the quotation I gave from WP:NAMEPEOPLE. The only exception to the exclusion of a qualifier is where the qualifier "is the simplest *and* most NPOV way to deal with with disambiguation". The simplest way is obviously to use his correct name, and there is no need to use the qualifier. Therefore the use of the qualifier is against WP:NAMEPEOPLE. treesmill (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the right answer is. But you could always ask a neutral administrator to look at it and give advice. Step 6 here has several suggestions I have found useful, even if things didn't go my way ;-( Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes Carol Moore 23:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I am a neutral admin on this subject :). In any case, I see that given that the different names are all widely used, and the "Gandhi" is the most known one, I would argue that having Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhi already redirecting here, the best would be to use his full passport name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name change. The norms of Encyclopedic writing dictate completely opposite towards the breadth of illogical statements, spurred with religion and half-truths by the apologists. Gandhian apologists should not have us look at Gandhi as a book of Universal moral code. This certainly is true amongst his followers and admirers but not amongst others and this needs to be filtered out. E.g. It is not Encyclopedic to write

[Mohandas Gandhi]was a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian independence movement

Considered by Who? This is not an indisputable fact. However, there is better way to write this

Mohandas Gandhi is considered by many (among his followers) as one of the major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian independence movement

Also, to which spirituality did Gandhi belong? It is quite clear from Gandhi's writings that he was a proponent of Hindu religion and values. He is no doubt considered a Hindu spiritual leader by his followers. Clearly, to put this across- without assigning the name of spirituality is POV as Gandhi can't be a spiritual leader for everybody in India because of many other non-Hindu spiritualities in India. Princhest 22:49 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem, do some research and do a constructive rewrite of the most problematic areas, using references of course, not just wiki links. But remember that only citing critics also is POV :-) P.S.: Since your changes so far have been controversial, it would be good to run it by people here, as you did above. Adding "many" is weasel words. Adding "among his followers" is POV because there are all sorts of independent sources who consider him a "major ... Leader" - it doesn't say THE leader or the Most Important leader.

Carol Moore 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I agree for a consensus. I have quoted the primary sources above also that are not mentioned in the article. Isn't ignoring Primary sources (NPOV) a POV? Also, should the primary source super cede any secondary source if there is a contradiction between the two? Do all secondary "independent sources" present a same viewpoint on Gandhi? Selectively choosing sources and ignoring the rest could be a POV. Here is a news story that is relevant to the context

http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1065018,00.html Princhest 19:12 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m continuing the conversation above, under the correct title. I'm somewhat stunned that the original heading and argument, made by a Single Purpose Account created solely for this reason (see Special:Contributions/Princhest), was able to subvert WP Policy. The following evidence shows convincing WP:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia policy supporting the move back to Mahatma Gandhi for this article. It’s clear that “Mahatma Gandhi” is by far the most widely used version of his name, especially in mainstream use, but also in academic sources.

• A sampling of recent newspaper articles show nearly all WP:Reliable Sources currently use Mahatma Gandhi. I didn’t cherry-pick these. I did a news search for “Gandhi”, and these were the most recent articles printed by various mainstream and regional papers:

Times of India, "Mahatma Gandhi"[2]

Express India, "Mahatma Gandhi" [3]

Patna Daily, "Mahatma Gandhi" [4]

Modesto Bee, "Mahatma Gandhi" [5]

Telegraph, U.K., "Mahatma Gandhi" [6]

Guardian, U.K., "Mahatma Gandhi" [7]

The Times, South Africa, "Mahatma Gandhi" [8]

New York Times, in a split decision, recently uses both "Mahatma Gandhi" and "Mohandas Gandhi"[9] [10]

Chicago Tribune, "Mahatma Gandhi" [11]

• The only two WP:Reliable Sources used in the Mahatma Gandhi article which have book titles that use a first name for Gandhi both use “Mahatma”:

Gandhi, Mahatma. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India, 1994.

Mann, Bernhard, The Pedagogical and Political Concepts of Mahatma Gandhi and Paulo Freire. In: Claußen, B. (Ed.) International Studies in Political Socialization

• The Indian Currency with Gandhi’s image is named the Mahatma Gandhi series by the Bank of India, and the name Mahatma Gandhi is on each note.[12] [13] [14]

• Gallup Poll #13 finisher in Most Admired Person of the Century is Mahatma Gandhi, and not "Mohandas" Gandhi.[15]

• Wikipedia’s own MOS for India Related Biographical Articles actually uses the example of Mahatma Gandhi. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (India-related articles)#Biographical articles:

“Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title. Examples are Mahatma Gandhi where Mahatma is an honorific…”

• And again, from WP:NAMEPEOPLE:

"The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used.

I’ll say no more on this, except that I think this is a most shameful example of the very kind of WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKE that this policy is trying to prevent.  priyanath talk 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your change of title is inappropriate. Having the article under his actual name can only be seen as anti by someone whose PoV is far from neutral. Second, you ignore the fact that 'Gandhi' alone is by far the most common form of identification. Then, you have completely ignored the important and relevant part of WP:NAMEPEOPLE to which I have already referred twice. By far the most common way of referring to Queen Victoria is exactly that, but her article is entitled Victoria of the United Kingdom, certainly not a common way of referring to her. The reason for not using Queen Victoria is that it would be against WP:NAMEPEOPLE. 'Mahatma' Gandhi is against WP:NAMEPEOPLE for exactly the same reason. Is 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' somehow anti Queen Victoria? Of course not. Similarly pretending that using Gandhi's full name is in some way anti or not neutral is simply wrong. treesmill (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore your point, Treesmill. WP:NAMEPEOPLE uses the following example as an exception to your quoted guideline: "Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used." I've proven that "Mahatma Gandhi" is by far the most commonly used name, by WP Reliable Sources. Therefore, "Changing the name.... would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used." And so my new subject heading is also correct. By the way, the word "Gandhi" all by itself is typically used in articles after the full and proper name "Mahatma Gandhi" is first used. That's simply part of writing style, to use the full name the first time in an article. That's how all the mainstream newspapers do it in the links I use above - the first time they use "Mahatma Gandhi", and then after that they simply use "Gandhi".  priyanath talk 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say you did not ignore the point, yet you didn't mention it at all. You haven't proved that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is more common than 'Gandhi', you have simply asserted with no evidence that the use of Gandhi is preceded by the use of Mahatma. Your own examples show that this is frequently not the case, and you don't deal with the use of Gandhi alone at all. Note that 'Afred the Great' is specifically quoted as an exception because there is no simpler or NPOV way to refer to Alfred the Great. In his case there is no <first name><last name> available to use instead, which is the format preferred by WP:NAMEPEOPLE where it is available. WP:NAMEPEOPLE specifically says "don't add qualifiers(such "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation". 'Mohandas Gandhi' is the simplest way, it cannot be anything but NPOV, since it is simply <first name><last name>, so it must be the preferred article name. I believe I have made this perfectly clear to the NPOV reader so I will not say any more on the subject and unlike you, I will stick to this. treesmill (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required to "prove" that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is more common than 'Mohandas Gandhi' or whatever, since Wikipedia uses the name for which people are well-known by. If not, then we may as well change Tom Cruise into Thomas Cruise Maphother IV, or even Thomas Cruise since 'Tom' is the short version. Also, trying to gauge usage of title by Ghits is a very bad strategy that is frowned upon in Wikipedia. - Ekantik ^talk 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, 'Gandhi' and 'Mohandas Gandhi' can be set up as redirects, but the main article should be named 'Mahatma Gandhi' since that is the name he is most known by. - Ekantik ^talk 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled Gandhi and someone who has more time that me could QUANTIFY how many times the name of the page is Mahatma, vs Mohandas, vs. plain Gandhi. Also, there is often descriptive text that uses one or the other that might be separately quantified. Just an idea to keep the pot stirring. PS: I meant regular web search engine, not news, which you did a great job of documenting. Yes I think we do have a case as someone said of WP:IDONTLIKE. Carol Moore 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

This move is totally uncalled for. Please use commonsense instead of citing policy after policy. Policies are made keeping common practice in mind and not the other way round. And there are always exceptions as this case proves. I never consider google as an authority for Indian cases, but this case is an exception as Mahatma Gandhi is so famous. "Gandhi" itself gives some 19 million results. Under normal circumstances I would say that this page be renamed just Gandhi. But the problem with that is that there are other famous Gandhi's in India too. Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and more to come. So just Gandhi would not be appropriate. The only other option is Mahatma Gandhi. I'm sure half the people in the world wouldn't know Gandhi's first name if you ask them. But they are bound to know Mahatma. Mahatma Gandhi is how he is called in India and how he is known all over the world. The first para of the article itself proves your point - "Gandhi is commonly known in India and across the world as Mahatma Gandhi". If he is most known by that name then the article should reside at that name. "Mahatma Gandhi" gives 2.2 million hits vs just 0.5 million for "Mohandas Gandhi" and just 0.25 million for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". I would urge people not to move articles like this without prior discussion. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even more surprised to see that the reason for the move is given as "as per other encyclopedias". Other enc. are never considered reliable sources. As shown above there are far more hits for "Mahatma Gandhi" in news, scholar, on the web, books, etc. than any other name except Gandhi and I have already given reasons why this page should be at Gandhi. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry, but I'm not clear. Do you think the article should be renamed 'Mahatma Gandhi' or something else? Ekantik ^talk 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohandas Gandhi is clearly unacceptable, most(Indians themselves) are unfamiliar with that name. I suggest full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This is better than all other options, and should be acceptable by all. Actually i dont like gandhi, but here i strongly oppose title Mohandas Gandhi name. A swift move to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would be appropriate for now, later we can discuss if should we move to Mahatma. Thanks. Southern image (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is unacceptable for the same reason - most people are unfamiliar with that name. Mahatma Ganhi is supported by widely popular use and WP:Common Sense, as pointed out above. –priyanath talk 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, everyone knows Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I was once puzzled to see "Mohandas Gandhi", but certainly would not - if it had been full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. We read this so many times in our textbooks :) "Mahatma" may look good for Indians, though it is POV, also that RBI was slammed by Supreme court for writing M.K.Gandhi in currency notes, but from world wide view - full name is what i support. Southern image (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the worldwide view, supported by every single western newspaper using Mahatma Gandhi (see above). It's not even a close call. –priyanath talk 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone" does not know 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi', nor do they know much about 'M.K. Gandhi'. I still don't realise what this big issue is, the page should be clearly renamed 'Mahatma Gandhi'. Priyanath, you may like to think about filing an RM request whereby everyone can vote on it, making sure you leave a message on everyone's talk-page who has spoken here so that they know about it. Ekantik ^talk 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]