Talk:Mahatma Gandhi: Difference between revisions

---

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

Talk archives

1. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 1 This archive contains discussions up to February 2005. Some content has been moved to topic specific talk archives. (see below)
2. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 2 This archive contains discussions approximately dated from February 2005 to Novmber 2005. Some content moved to topic specific archives listed below.
3. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 3 This archive contains discussions approximately dated from November 2005 to September 2006.
4. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 4
5. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma_vs._Mohandas Please refer this archive if you think the article should be moved to another name. It has been an issue of dispute as to how this article should be named. If you have any new comments, first check to see if a similar opinion has already been discussed in former discussions. Any new comments should go on on this main talk page, not the archive. Do not move the article to a new location without discussion, under any circumstances. The current name is a result of exhaustively discussed consensus among editors.
6. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Gandhi and the Jews: Whether he was 'Racist' If you feel the article is not written from a neutral point of view, and have reasons to believe that Gandhi might have been a racist, and that this has been ignored, or not adequately mentioned in the article, consult this archive first.
7. Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Dying words controversy

---

Gandhigiri?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

---

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)

Deletion of posts and censorship on this page

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)

Source for mention of Gandhi's interactions with children

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)

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)

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)

• • • 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)

Gandhi making his own clothes?

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)

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

Continual reinsertion of Natl Review etc.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Strongest Driving Philosophies

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)

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)

"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)

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)

For the first time - Rediscover Gandhi through the audiobook version of his autobiography

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)

The grooming

‘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)]

External Links

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)

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)

Unclear sentence

"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)

Hindi

Can someone enter his name in Hindi too? ChiefJaca 05:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Blacks

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)

Lair

He is not raceist he cares aboat every body.