Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 2

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ARCHIVED. PLEASE DO NOT ADD OR EDIT. Post comments at the current talk page.

link to version of main talk from which arcive 2 was made:[1]

Nelson Mandela

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

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

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

Mandela is/was a communist (Marxist/Lenist) - Marxism-Leninism is per definition violent. However we can be sure that the ANC/SACP looked at Gandhi for copying mehtods gullible "libarals" would find agreeable. Mandela and his handers also wanted to take-over the whole of South Africa. Something he then wanted to fuck every one he then saw he did it really hard.Ok... so an economic system is violent.. that makes perfect sense. Thats a mighty racist view of yours by the way and I'm interested in seeing these "opportunities" for self government. You sound more like a brainwashed puppet of a racist ideal than an intellectual. Please dont deface the discussion thread with your useless and blatantly incorrect (and biased) lies. Not to mention this article is on Gandhi not Nelson Mandela.

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

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

Gandhi's death

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

unresponded to comment by anon

What did Gandhi feel needed to be changed when he returned to India in 1915?(198.164.250.16, 16/5/2005)

Recent additions

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

Controversiality

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

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

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

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

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

Gandhi (1982) the film

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

Eight Himalayan achievements to the credit of the Mahatma

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

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

Boer War

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

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

W & E Pakistan

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

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

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

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

Introduction

Amended introduction by Nirav.maurya

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

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

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

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

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

POV alert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gandhi Redirects here?

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

Nirav.maurya's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Edits

Hello All,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio?

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSE TO "COPYVIO"

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

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

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

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

- Nirav Maurya

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

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

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

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

SARDAR PATEL AND NEHRU IN GANDHI'S BIO

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

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

- Nirav Maurya

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

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

strangeness

found this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahatma Gandhi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

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

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

NPOV

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

An example of an unsuitable sentence is:

Gandhi knew that as long as Hindu society retained this system of oppression within itself, the nation could never truly be free in spirit and character, which was more important than merely controlling the government. [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification and Apology

Hello Gurubrahma, Nirvana and the Wikipedia Community,

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

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

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

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

Har Har Mahadev!

Nirav Maurya.

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

The triumvirate, proteges and mentors

Dear All,

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

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

Jai Sri Rama! - Nirav Maurya.

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

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

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

mollycoddling?

We ought to use a less strange word.

Indira Gandhi

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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