Talk:Nathuram Godse

message: As a person who seeks to eliminate 'hindutva' POV ,May I ask your  credend who the hell are you to comment on what "side" of the Indian independence struggle is to be endorsed ?
are you even Indian, that you keep spouting your worthless opinions on all hindu related articles everywhere ?
(Son of kurus 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote and reorganized. I manage to tone down the Godse adulation a bit, but I'm still uncomfortable with the article. It reeks of Hindutva self-justification. The problem is that they are the only ones who pay much attention to this article. I have a feeling other Indians would much rather forget Godse. Zora 09:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone complete it and add it back. Tintin Talk 12:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: I was just reading through this article, and one paragraph just caught my attention... 
In 1951, the Hindu nationalists created a political wing, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which became the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP, in 1980. Through adroit exploitation of issues such as Ayodhya, the BJP finally won national power. It was the party in power briefly in 1996, and then again from 1998 to 2004, when it was displaced by a revived Congress party.
Isn't that a tad POV?, I mean I personally don't support either the BJP or the Congress for that matter (not really relevant actually), but surely you can't reduce its policies or the reasons for its reaching power to just those mentioned like Ayodhya? 
I'd just like to hear what others who have edited this page feel, before making a change like a rephrasing of the paragraph. Regards Kaushik twin 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrase, if you wish. I think that's my dislike of the BJP and its handling of Ayodhya/Babri Mosque issues seeping into the article. Zora 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight POV view?

message: what makes you say that the konkanasthas is particularly well known for their conservatism??... "He was a Marathi Chitpavan Brahmin - a community known for its social conservatism".
I think this sentence is suggestive and airs the writer's own personal point of view. It certainly should be mentioned that Godse was a Chitapavan Brahmin but I think the rest of the sentence should be deleted in order to adhere to NPOV
There are many liberal chitapavan brahmins...and there is no method of quantifying the degree of conservatism within a particular community.(Saurabhb 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chitapavan Brahmins 

message: The box in the article says he died in Ambala prison, Chandigarh. There may have been such a prison then, at the spot where Chandigarh is now. But I suspect Ambala prison is in Ambala which is now in Haryana and at that time would have been in (East) Punjab. Imc 23:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambala prison, Chandigarh?

message: Deeptrivia, you reverted to an old version of the article. I do think that I re-organized it so that it flowed more easily, instead of being a fractured collection of factoids. Also, you restored the description of Godse as a "freedom fighter". That's POV. I don't think we can endorse one side of the independence struggle. Zora 00:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, sorry about that! deeptrivia (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All is forgiven! Come home and we will kill the fatted tofu for you. Zora 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deeptrivia's revert 

message: quote from the article:
"Nathuram attended the local school at Baramati up through the fourth standard."
'Fourth standard'? This is not clearly defined in the article. Needs clarification by someone who is familiar with the Indian education system.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)  08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I don't understand this term either --AW 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th standard - countering systemic bia. 

message: trying to remove "none|200px| " from infobox (Saurabhb)
Why Godse's image is removed? 'Was he a bad man or Not', that is not a question here. We read Wikipedia to get "Information" and Not "Opinions"  San25872 07:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there was no copyright information on the picture. If you can find a public domain picture of Godse that we can use, please upload it! Zora 07:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text on infobox 

message: Just a smidgen don't ya think? --Axe27 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. --Kamden 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nathuram_Godse#Aftermath|POV]],Much?

message: Three things.
:1	This is Wikipedia, wherein we try to put whatever info is available about a person/event in as much an objective manner as possible without drawing any inferences out of the info available. Let the reader arrive at his/her own conclusions. The page is filled up with content heavy with personal prejudices. Please abstain from doing that. It applies for the talk page as well. 
:2	Let me know if anybody is actively looking after this article so that we could add citations at places where it is required. I do have the requisite material. Would be glad to help him/her out. 
:3	Article 3.2 seems to be a tad too short & devoid of the all the info expected for such an important event. Would like to enhance it with some more info that is available. Case in point:
:http://www.httabloid.com/news/181_1919124,00300002.htm
:http://www.india-today.com/itoday/03081998/cover2.html
:Please let me know your views on the same.
:Kunal.--Kunalpathak13 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please be objective, this is Wikipedia

message: Bmayuresh (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Although the article mentions (and names) a co-conspirator, there's nothing about the conspiracy or planning of the assassination.  It jumps from Godse's political career right to the assassination itself.  I'd add an intermediate section—if I knew anything about the subject.  Anybody?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy? 

message: Needs a caption stating which one Godse is. SGGH ping! 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my own inspection of the subsequent image, I believe he's in the front row at the extreme left. I would point this out myself, but (a) I'm not sure of the proper formatting and (b) without access to the image in its original context, as a reference, it would be original research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While most people may know which individual is Godse, shouldn't the text under the picture make it explicit? i for one am not entirely sure, and anyway it looks sloppy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.221 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: The Beretta M1934 is a 9mm Browning which is also sometimes called 380 Auto, 9mm Corto, 9mm Kurz, 9mm Short, or 9x17mm.  I wonder what the agenda is of the person that posted that misinformation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the lie about the caliber of gun? 

message: No discussion of Godse can be complete without including the motives behind the assassination.
I have split up the Trial and execution into 2 sections and added his answer to the charge sheet.
Ecthelion 8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godse's statement during the trial 

message: The trial is talked about as occurring in 1950 but the dates of sentence and death are given as 1949. Please could someone correct this - I don't know which is in error, but one is ceertainly wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.15.75 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial and death dates 

message: The caption currently states: "Nathuram Godse at Mahatma Gandhi's murder trial". Surely this is ambiguous and should be rewritten - it sounds like Ghandi was the one on trial. Perhaps something like "Nathuram Godse at his murder trial".
144.132.161.142 (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for main picture of Godse 

message: An entire article about a man who committed a murder and no mention of his motives, his statements, the trial (there's exactly 1 sentence), statements from the trial, or the statements of the Judge who sentenced him to death. Great job suppressing the facts. After all, we dont want people forming their own opinions, especially if it differs from the govt approved view.  120.62.166.92 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete 

message: An edit war is developing between IP 77.99.49.23 and user  Ian Rose over the use of 'hanged' vs. 'hung' in this article. IP 77.99.49.23 contends that 'hung' is correct while Ian Rose contends that 'hanged' is correct. Per Hanging > Grammar, 'hanged' is the preferred usage. I've warned IP 77.99.49.23 to not cross 3RR and will leave a note with Ian Rose to discuss this issue here.  —Waldhorn (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2013
With regards to this disagreement surely the usage of the word is to increase the fluency of the text, as mentioned in Hanging > Grammar the traditional usage of the term is ′hanged′ but dictionaries also acknowledge ′hung′ and in regards to the article it makes for more fluent reading and for that reason it should be the preferred usage.  —Ctwhitelaw (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that "hung" is used occasionally doesn't alter the fact that "hanged" is the more common term, and that's what WP should reflect. In any case, consensus for changing the term would need to be gauged on a much wider scale than this one article. IMO this one should simply be protected as it is and those who want to see "hung" used for "hanged" should propose it in a more general forum, where the outcome could be effective Wiki-wide. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The consultation of any encyclopedic entry related to death by hanging (Britannica or otherwise) will show that hanged is used over hung in terms of tone and of grammar so as to 1) distinguish the entry's academic tone, and 2) specify how a criminal was hung. Ex. If Joe Black died hung by the neck, it's Joe Black was hanged. If he died hung by his heels (etc.), then it's Joe Black was hung. The question of "fluency and article flow" based on personal experience flies in the face of Wiki's rules on PoV. Wiki is an encyclopedia (or an attempt to be one) and its guidelines on grammar, tone, and editing from a neutral point of view (rules easily consulted and open to anyone) ought to be enough to settle a very straightforward matter (editor Waldhorn and others have already proven their point using neutral means). --Jumbolino (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Hanged ppl, a, 1451(f.  Hang v. + ED) 1 Now obsolete in the general sense; the form being Hung.  2 Put to death by hanging by the neck 1470.
The general sense of the word should not be confused with the specific meaning of death by hanging. To say Godse was hung begs the question where and how?  But to say he was hanged means he was put to death by hanging. Graham Colm (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! And for those with no easy access to the OED, try the Free Online Dictionary which offers clear and pertinent examples of usage. --Jumbolino (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Although this discussion has been put to bed, the fact that it is grammatical means my pedantry won't allow me to let pass Graham Colm's annoying error:  "To say Godse was hung" does not beg any question; it might require the questions of where and how, but begging the question is a specific phrase which has been misused, as it so commonly is. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: There is no need for it.  "Hanged" is longstanding usage both in American- and British English (and by implication, Indian English). It has immemorially meant, "executed by hanging," i.e. with a noose around the neck.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Hanged' vs. 'Hung' 

message: ... whereas on WikiSource it was apparently eliminated. (Its previous existence there is suggested by comments above on this talk page.) 76.119.30.87 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way it doesn't belong in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godse' speech "why I killed Gandhi" can be easily found on Google 

message: A film, based on his life, titled "Godse" will be released on Janunary 30, 2015.
106.66.119.159 (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take care of this. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  . Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kautilya3 :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015 

message: Pleasee give me edit request.
Vickylawson (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Stickee (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015 

message: An editor has replaced the lead that had stood stably in this article for over five years, with the following paragraph:  "Nathuram Vinayak Godse (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949) was a Hindu nationalist activist from India, who is known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. He shot Gandhi in the chest three times at point-blank range on 30 January 1948 in New Delhi. Born in Pune, Maharashtra, he had been a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Hindu Mahasabha. According to Vinayak Chaturvedi and Thomas Hansen, Nathuram left RSS in the early 1940s to form a militant organization Hindu Rashtra Dal.[1][2] However Gopal Godse, Nathuram's brother who was also a co-accused in the Gandhi assassination, has asserted that Nathuram continued to be a member of the RSS.[3] Nathuram resented Gandhi's accommodating attitude to India's Muslims and plotted the assassination with Narayan Apte and six others. After a trial that lasted over a year, Godse was sentenced to death on 8 November 1949 and was hanged a week later." 
The old lead had its issues.  The editor is right that its language was flowery.  It also had some vague or ambiguous language.  But the new lead is worse.
Godse was the sole assassin of Gandhi, who shot Gandhi on 30 January 1948.    Where does the lead state this cardinal fact?  It says, "He was a Hindu nationalist activist from India, who is known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi."  Godse was little known before he pulled the trigger (see  here) and immediately after pulling the trigger was put in jail where opportunities for activism were typically limited.   Moreover, the collocation "Hindu nationalist activist" is conspicuous by its absence in the literature published before 1987.  In other words, it is a modern term.  It is usually applied to the Hindu nationalism that arose in India in the late 1980s, 90, ...  
What does it mean to be known for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi?  It is suggests only that he was notably involved in the assassination.  But, was he the driver of the getaway car, the supplier of the gun(s), one of three men who each fired one bullet, or merely one in the time-honored Indian crowd that trampled Gandhi underfoot? Or do you mean, "is known for assassinating Mahatma Gandhi?" 
"Assassination" is a nominalization, a zombie noun (in Helen Sword's terminology") that "cannibalizes an active verb."  Wikipedia stresses clear, direct, active language.  Does Lee Harvey Oswald's page say, "He was known for the assassination of JFK?"  No.  It says , "(he) ... assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."    It is active prose and it is informative.
   
Then our lead meanders farther by invoking the ancient principle of rhetoric, "It is never too early to make an obscure academic point."  That the point is made nowhere else in the article is helpful to the  new reader who has never assumed that a lead summarizes article content.  The paragraph also recognizes that a new reader is on first-name basis with the subject by the fourth sentence, which states, "Nathuram resented Gandhi's accommodating attitude to India's Muslims ... "  The new reader easily interprets that to mean, "Gandhi had an accommodating attitude to the demands of (some) Indian Muslims."  The same sentence continues "... and plotted the assassination with Narayan Apte and six others."  The new reader sees that such resentment will inevitably lead to a desire to murder with the help of seven others.
I will take out the flowery language from the old lead and remove the vague or ambiguous sentences.  But the new lead cannot stand in light of the points I have made above.  I am not touching the rest of the article.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The strange new lead 

message: The link for RSS in the following line of text needs to be corrected.
"Godse, an ex RSS member from Pune[2], Maharashtra, thought Gandhi favored the political demands of India's Muslims during the partition of India."
RSS should link to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh
NOT this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS Jamezism (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Izno (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017 

message: SAFFRON TERRORIST words need to be removed as terror has NO religion and NO Wiki entry have the world ISLAMIC/GREEN TERRORIST(not even for OBL).
https://www.indiatoday.in/pti-feed/story/nothing-called-saffron-terror-rahul-gandhi-party-never-used-the-phrase-congress-1213605-2018-04-16 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/congress-never-used-saffron-terror-it-doesnt-exist/articleshow/63791974.cms Sn8532 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by  Danski454 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

text: It was added on 19 December. Removed yesterday after reading this request. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2018 

message: Respected Nathuram Godse ji was a Freedom Fighter and was not at all a terrorist .. It is a misconception which is being prevailed onto the minds of the Indians by the Indian National Congress( Corruption Store ) Msdian4ever (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathuram Godse was not a terrorist 

message: Please remove the term "terrorist" and replace it with "radical activist". 2405:204:B387:3A9:343B:54A1:4FF:70EF (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. DannyS712 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019 

message: when you said he aged 39 he died I think you meant he was age 39 when he died Sn3ow (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 16:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019 

message: I re-added the above descriptor to the lead. If there has been a discussion of this, and I've done the wrong thing, please point me to that discussion.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mulla Terrorist" 

message: Article says to this day RSS denies any connection, after 2019 Lok Sabha Elections, major prominent members including Pragya Thakur have celebrated and acknowledged Nathuram Godse. This section should get updated according to the current views of the RSS led BJP government. Dushyantashu (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to propose content with reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath: To this day RSS denies any connection with Godse and disputes the claim that he was a member. 

message: "As Hindu nationalism swells in India, statues and temples are being raised in Godse's honor, and the city of Meerut may be renamed for him."
This sentence has no credible source, is ambiguous and suggestive. It must be removed. Gorillapluto (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The "no credible source" is apparently the New York Times, so this will not be removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when has NYT become source of credible information, with regards to India? This is a blatant lie that is being propagated against the population and the current dispensation. It needs to be removed with immediate effect. ￼ Vmshera (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi
According to Ashis Nandy, 'before firing the shots Godse "bowed down to Gandhi to show his respect for the services the Mahatma had rendered the country'; he made no attempt to run away and himself shouted for the police".[60] According to Pramod Das, Godse after firing the shots raised his hand with the gun, surrendered and called for the police.[61] According to George Fetherling, Godse did not try to flee, he "stood silently waiting to be arrested but was not approached at first because he was still armed; at last a member of the Indian air force grabbed him by the wrist, and Godse released his weapon". Police, states Fetherling, then "quickly surrounded Godse to prevent the crowd from lynching him".[62] According to Matt Doeden and others, "Godse did not flee the scene, and he voluntarily surrendered himself to the police".[63][64]
Please make sure these details are reflecting in the appropriate section (Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) on this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.44.57 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between your articles 

message: I contest the removal of the hagiographic part :
"As Hindu nationalism becomes more widespread in India, statues and temples are being raised in Godse's honour" 115.97.182.65 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into this.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much hagiography 

message: Remove the Hindu nationalist away from his name. He was just a strong Indian nationalist. Do not misguide people. References from the British source are not true Vmshera (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 

message: I feel the description of Godse as a "former" RSS member should be changed to simply calling him a member of it. The claim that he'd left the RSS at the time of Gandhi's assassination is contradicted by other parts of this same article, which cite fairly conclusive evidence that he remained an RSS member until his death. At the very least, the intro to the article should not uncritically parrot the claim that he'd left the organization. TKSnaevarr (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former" member of RSS 

message: See discussion at Talk:Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi#Hindutva_terror about whether the claim (also included in this article) about the assassination being a terror act is adequately sourced. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion