Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Nelson Mandela

message: * 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)
thread_title:  [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083987/ Gandhi (1982)] the film 

message: Should this not be reworded?  In my opinion, it is not written from a NPOV. --nirvana2013 08:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. --goethean ॐ 16:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight Himalayan achievements to the credit of the Mahatma 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boer War 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  W & E Pakistan 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Amended introduction by Nirav.maurya

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV alert 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gandhi Redirects here?

message: 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)
replies: text: I've emphasised the point the anon meant to make, hopefully. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sundar, I understand now.  --nirvana2013 09:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  strangeness 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like edit summaries! El_C 10:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahatma Gandhi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification and Apology  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The triumvirate, proteges and mentors  

message: 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)
replies: text: It doesn't. I'll remove it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indira Gandhi