Talk:Arun Gandhi

Why the crop?
The reason I put that picture up: I wanted Arun's page to have a picture of Arun, but I was afraid that if I chose one off of the Internet then I would get slapped with all this "violation of copyright" nonsense (such as I was the time my page was blocked because I quoted from my own review), so I used a picture I myself held the copyright to. Was I supposed to block out my face? Should I have had someone airbrush my head, leaving an eerie torso to mingle with the Gandhi couple? Should I have just referred to myself as "a student of the Gandhis'"? I always thought that when names are known, pictures are more interesting to list them -- and I know my own name because, well, I'm me.

Further, Arun Gandhi's page references his wife, Sunanda. And the picture had Sunanda in it. Wikipedia is a strange place, I'm afraid. Aesculapius75 00:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I would say it's pretty strange that you think people here will let you put vanity information about yourself into articles. An article about Arun should have a photo of Arun, not a photo focused on yourself as the prime focus. Yes, you should have cropped the photo, or used a photo with him and his wife without your face taking up most of the space. That's common sense. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal scrapbook for you to play with. It's the same reason why your baby photo was taken off another article, and so forth. DreamGuy 01:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

What I just can't comprehend about you is your suggestion that this was malicious. Do you know nothing about Arun Gandhi? Are you not aware of the fact that he conducts retreats around the world? That his life is devoted to meeting with students? The picture of me with the Gandhis was an honest portrayal of what Arun Gandhi's life is devoted to. Read into it whatever you want. Believe it was my intention to turn this into "a personal scrapbook" all you want. You believe what you want to believe, and I'll know what I know.

The truth is that I included that picture because it was a picture I knew I could submit without having to contend with accusations of copyright infringement. I didn't crop myself out of the picture because, as you have seen, the result would be weird. I didn't think to separate Arun and Sunanda Gandhi in the picture because I didn't think the rest of you would flip out to know that an editor actually did something with his life other than just sit on the computer. -- Aesculapius75

Why the photomanipulation?
OK, I doubt really think it's appropriate to manipulate a photo to erase someone out of the middle of it and move people around to make it falsely look like they were standing next to each other. I just don't think that's a good way to handle it at all. Cropping is perfectly fine, because you aren't actually distorting anything, but altering photos themselves just strikes me as complete wrong. If for some reason you insist upon having the man and the wife both and don;t have a real photo where they stand next to each other, you should probably crop it twice and have one of the man and one of the wife. DreamGuy 11:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * My last word on this whole issue before I ride off in the sunset and never look back, thankful that I've left....


 * The picture of Arun Gandhi, Sunanda Gandhi, and me, was appropriate because:


 * 1. The article about Arun Gandhi mentions his marriage to his wife.
 * 2. The article about Arun Gandhi mentions that Arun Gandhi teaches about nonviolence.
 * 3. The picture of the Gandhis with me was a picture taken at the end of a retreat on nonviolence, and it described me as a retreat participant.
 * 4. The description of the picture linked to the page describing the place where the retreat took place.
 * 5. The page that describes where the retreat took place, mentions Arun Gandhi by name.


 * Bizarre how you guys get upset over nothing.


 * Lastly, it's not a case of me "having stood next to someone famous." It was a case of me having attended a life-changing retreat with Arun and Sunanda Gandhi, and me being something of a stand-in for the thousands of others who have attended retreats with them and had their lives changed as a result. The picture was perfectly on-topic. Most of you editors, most likely, read into the picture your own insecurities. Most of you most likely want to be famous, want your day in the sun, and thought I was attempting to do that with Arun Gandhi. But, alas, I will say it one last time: Arun Gandhi is not "famous". Mention his name to every person you interact with over the next week, and unless you travel in New Age/New Thought circles, I would be surprised if anyone you meet has heard of him.


 * You all majorly need to get a life and get some perspective on life. Aesculapius75 14:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Arun Gandhi picture Sure. Use it if you want. But I must add that the crop is very odd, as it leaves my hand resting on Sunanda's right shoulder. Lest someone mistake the Gandhis for the Addams Family, my had for Thing. (There's no way anyone would think that is Arun's hand, because it is about five shades lighter than his face.)

I ask you, my dear Wikipedians, which is worse: to allow for the publication of a photo that depicts an editor engages in an activity that directly corresponds to the text of an article (the article mentions that they teach about Nonviolence), or to distort the picture to make both Arun and Sunanda look like freaks?

The crop is very bizarre. They look like they are candle effigies of themselves, melting into one another. Is this Madame Tussaud? Are Americans ruminants? Aesculapius75 20:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Dude, when they are cropped, they look just the same as normal except for not having some guy forcing himself in the middle of the two. How can that possibly be considered bizarre? How can they look like effigies? That makes no sense. DreamGuy 01:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any concept of what a retreat is? At the end of the retreat, Arun Gandhi and his wife, Sunanda, posed with all retreat participants for pictures. They warmly embraced me. I was not "forcing" my way into the picture. The bizarre crop made them look life effigies for obvious reasons: it looked like they were melting into one another. But this is a moot point anyway, because even you saw how weird the crop looked and you removed it. -- Aesculapius75


 * Hi there, everyone. I'm responding to the RfC, and I have not seen the photo before.  I looked at the cropped photo before reading the comments, and the presence of the hand did not seem strange.  Often photos of people contain extraneous stuff in them.  I can't recall any other wikipedia examples off hand, but I think I've seen them elsewhere.  Obviously we would prefer a less "home taken" photo, but I don't find it strange.  I must say, I'm not so opposed to photos containing extraneous people (even an editor) on principle.  However, I would prefer the cropped image to one that makes someone else central.  Finally, I think a doctored photo is unacceptable, unless the doctoring is explicitly mentioned in the caption.  This would be even more distracting than a photo with someone else.  Personally, I like the photo in the article as it is.  Hope this helps! --best, kevin  · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 04:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

A less "home made" photo would be copyrighted, which is why I uploaded mine. If you look at many other listings, you will see that there are many "home made" photos. -- Aesculapius75