Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: It's already there--Shahab 15:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhigiri? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of posts and censorship on this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source for mention of Gandhi's interactions with children 

message: 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)
replies: text: see this link. Cheers--Shahab 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gandhi making his own clothes? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Strongest Driving Philosophies

message: 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)
thread_title:  For the first time - Rediscover Gandhi through the audiobook version of his autobiography 

message: ‘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:
--Ved from Victoria Institutions 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The grooming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Objection to featured article status 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mahatma Gandhi's Descendants 

message: 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"
:Express India, "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:Patna Daily, "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:Modesto Bee, "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:Telegraph, U.K., "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:Guardian, U.K., "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:The Times, South Africa, "Mahatma Gandhi" 
:New York Times, in a split decision, recently uses both "Mahatma Gandhi" and "Mohandas Gandhi" 
:Chicago Tribune, "Mahatma Gandhi" 
*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.  
*Gallup Poll #13 finisher in Most Admired Person of the Century is Mahatma Gandhi, and not "Mohandas" Gandhi.
*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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Anti-Gandhian POV