Talk:Arun Manilal Gandhi

Discussion
"He never though mentioned once that the Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries in the middle of the 20th century should march back to the places they were evicted from penniless and homeless. But then again, the fact that Jews were expelled does not carry the same panache as Arabs being displaced. I wonder if it has something to do with oil"

This statement is unsubstantiated.

The idea that Arab terrorism is the cause of Jews leaving Arab countries has been questioned by many historians, including Jewish ones (see: Ben Gurion's Scandal: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. by Naeim Giladi). In any event, the above quote tries to paint an opinion held by some historians as a fact, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.54.93 (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nearly 1,000,000 did flee Arab states during the twentieth century following pogroms and discriminatory laws. That is historical fact, and that isn't addressed by your citation. It is addressed elsewhere on wikipedia, among other sources, as encyclopedic fact though. So do you have another citation? Can I expect the author of that citation to have attended certain conferences in Tehran? 141.166.154.164 (talk)

Regardless, Arun's attitudes towards Jews and Israel have been documented in the Washington Post. Leave the blockquote up and let people judge what they think of him. 141.166.154.164 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
A section titled "Controversy" should not be used for quoting the full text of an article considered controversial without discussing the controversy itself. The opening sentence gives readers a fairly concise summary of the controversial claims made by the author, and should be preceded by a concise summary of opposing views.

For comparison, we do not provide the full text of David Duke articles under the corresponding entry in the Wikipedia.Kvihill (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't quite get your point til re-read this now because the description was not very accurate so I replaced it with with short quotes that made it more accurate. Also, you did not have the link to the actual article, which I placed there, or a clear statement that there was an apology and a link to that. I can see now that a summary intro is necessary, but a quote from Gandhi -- esp. from his apology - should be there.  Also, there are people who defend what he said and tomorrow I'll quote one or two of them. Just to be fair and balanced. Carol Moore 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Very similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Menuhinv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.241.156.169 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quotation Removed and Replaced
I remember putting up the whole quotation behind the controversy: to let readers decide the issue for themselves before they read any commentary. I wonder why someone took that down and replaced it with a long paragraph headed with the phrase "the Israel Lobby?" This seems all the more POV when the section keeps other criticisms short.

The quotation that sparked the controversy was short: it should be put up in full. 141.166.241.20 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I have now put it back up in full. 141.166.154.44 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote removed before because did not represent whole blog entry. I don't mind longer quote as long as whole description accurate - how ever did notice someone else believe whole quote was "poisoning the well" - ie POV. People can easily go to the link and read the whole article. The one paragraph summary is sufficient. Israel lobby stuff relevant since a defense of Gandhi and article POV without it. Carol Moore 15:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please Note New Arbitration Resolution on Israel/Palestine and Related issues
Since I can see this already has become a heated topic, please see Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which encourages civil cooperative editing and much more quickly and effectively deals with dispute resolution on problems that arise in editing articles related to these topics. Carol Moore 07:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

please leave this NPOV feb 8 version of protest
I accidentally didnt finish edit summary...this version shoul remain. "On February 2, 2008, 30 members of 'The Organization for Indian Minorities,' half of them Sikhs, protested Arun Gandhi's talk for a crowd of 500 at a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. commemoration at Modesto Junior College in California where he compared Mohandas Gandhi with King. A spokesperson said that Monhandas 'Gandhi's history of bigotry meant that he should never be compared to King.' The host of the event said protesters had a 'cultural beef with the Gandhi family.'"

http://www.gandhism.net/ is NOT a reliable source per wiki guidelines - see [WP:rs]]. It's statements are WP:POV. However, the reliable info can be included here. if the edit war keeps up the article can be locked.Carol Moore 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Yes I agree that gandhism.net is a bogus source. However, I fail to see why this entire incident is notable. Even the article cited barely mentions it as one sentence at the end. This looks like a case of Undue Weight applied to what looks like the inane rants of some Khalistani terrorist group.Hushnak (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually i don't really care but figured it might end the edit war, Carol Moore 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I don't think this sort of compromises with ip trolls should be made in articles on living persons. Isn't WP:BLP a major policy here?Hushnak (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hushnak, considering I'm the caucasian, non-Sikh webmaster of Gandhism.net, and considering the website barely mentions Sikhs, it's really stupid to dismiss the site as a "Khalistani terrorist group." We don't advocate violence on the site. We don't promote Khalistan. And we're not run by Sikhs. As it is, our protest was noteworthy enough to receive some amount of media coverage. Additionally, I doubt many would argue that it's noteworthy that *Gandhi* of all people is being protested. Furthermore, while I have no problem with leaving in the "cultural beef" comment, it's only fair that the response to that comment be given space. Also, simply quoting our spokesman as saying Gandhi had a "history of bigotry" without explaining HOW Gandhi was bigoted is really pointless. Hence, I'm reverting to my original version.


 * BTW, considering your dismissal of our site as a "Khalistani terrorist group," I'm wondering if perhaps you're a Hindu fundamentalist thug? ~ Pieter, 13:10, 15 February 2008 (PST)


 * First, I put up a talk template to remind us to not interrupt others chrono messages, which can change meaning, as mine was. Should have done earlier after first name calling but broke arm on ice other day so a little out of it. Feel free to delete your own negative comments per CIV. Please see WP:RS on reliable sources. Your site obviously POV anti-Gandhi Site - plus it wasn't mentioned in article. Nor is name of group article says did protest mentioned on your site.


 * Moreover, per Rs your site can't be used in this article. Please read it. I will ask for a third opinion on this if necessay and the article can also be locked. Carol Moore 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Moreover, there is also WP:COI, which is particularly germane when webmasters of extremist hate sites like gandhism.net start trolling wikipedia articles. Didn't they ban Wendy Campbell and Israel Shamir when they tried to edit their wikipedia articles? Perhaps an sprotect/ban is in order here.Hushnak (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First. Delete my own negative comments? I'm afraid you've lost me there, as I've made no negative comments. If you're accusing me of name-calling, that's curious considering "Hushnak" is apparently going all out with his "Khalistani terrorist" slur. Second. The name of the organization is mentioned in the articles linked - "Organization for Minorities of India." While the name was written incorrectly as "Organization for Indian Minorities" by an apparently negligent Modesto Bee journalist, it doesn't take a genius to identify the organizations as the same. Our website was listed on all materials handed out at the event. Yes, our site is anti-Gandhi, but in this particular instance that is relevant to the Arun Gandhi article. Third. Our site is just as reliable a source as the Hindu-American Foundation or the Centre for Research on Globalization. Fourth. Article reverted for relevance, news value, human interest value, and in the interest of offering an opposing viewpoint. ~ Pieter 22:22, 15 February 2008 (PST)

With my broken arm, sorry dont have energy for full reply. I see someone else protected page. Please read wiki policies and ask for editorial assistance to understand wiki policies. 20:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please seek 3rd 0pinion on HAF
I can see pros and cons so don't have an opinion. See WP:disputes.Carol Moore 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Undo weight in Controversy section
I think it's unusual that the controversy section is the biggest section of this article. I think the controversy section should be reduced to about three sentences and then placed at the end of the section dealing with his leadership in the MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence. 13:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian08 (talk • contribs)


 * You are correct. Anyone criticizing Israel ends up with a big section like this. Hearing no dissent, I'll cut it down, leaving the best refs but with much shorter description. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stopped watching article and just noticed it's cut down too much, without even references. Will beef up a bit more soon. CarolMooreDC 16:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arun Manilal Gandhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005105825/http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers to http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)