Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 13

Mahatma?
I took much time to go through these records but none of the reasons could convince me why M.K. Gandhi is still called Mahatma in an encyclopedia. [Oxford database] calls him Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand [known as Mahatma Gandhi], Britannica calls him Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, byname Mahatma (“Great-Souled”) Gandhi, Encyclopaedia.com have Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (no mention of byname) and not even half a dozen of Internet encyclopedias have an article with name Mahatma Gandhi. Then why in Wikipedia? Is WP:Naming conventions an excuse or is it the respect to that great soul? Then why not Akbar the Great or Ashoka the great or even Jesus Christ? We don't have Sir Issac Newton or such..Now please don't take this my hated, I respect and adore him and he's my idol, but in that case, others must have the same privilege. So I am proposing a move Mahatma Gandhi -> Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Thank you..-- The herald  15:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this should be discussed here. Per WP:RM/CM, the discussion belongs at the talk page of the article you want moved, i.e. at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well..I am quite sure about that. But may be this may do more good than that. Anyway, I'll have to go for an RfC there.  The herald  16:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The RS call him Mahatma is the basic reason. Google lists 6700 books with "Mahatma" in title, and Amazon has 1800. We follow them not tertiary sources. Rjensen (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Summoned here by bot. Under WP:COMMONNAME it clearly is Mahatma. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Summoned by bot. We should continue to use Mahatma Gandhi for the page. Fraulein451 (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The name is indeed Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, but per WP:COMMONNAME it should remain Mahatma Gandhi. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not move Here by RfC bot. You made a reasonable request and probably do not know this has been debated before. To sum up: Wikipedia is not like other Encyclopedias that organize subjects only by their "official" name. Policy (WP:COMMONNAME) is "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" - if you head over there, you'll see the very first example is this article. Thus Wikipedia uses as article name: Alexander the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent, and Mother Teresa - as well as Bono, Cher and even Common (rapper). Because Wikipedia exists digitally, all subjects are also easily finable by their full legal names as well. According to sources (NYT), Mahatma Gandhi was known by this name universally. Thus Wikipedia will use that name for the article title. Cheers, EBY (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -We are not governed by other encyclopedias. We are different from them in many aspects, as such free encyclopedia, openly editable model, collaborative project, consensus-based decisions, and also have different set of policies and guidelines that include WP:COMMONNAME one of them (See also, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA). Wikipedia relies on third-party, reliable sources, not unreliable sources. And, as user-generated contents (other encyclopedias) are not considered reliable sources, this could be not a valid ground to make a point using COMMONNAME. Google search results around 2,82,00,000 entries for "Mahatma Gandhi" and 5,86,000 for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandi". It doesn't suggest, but may give us a fair idea on what is frequently used to name the subject of the article. However, I'm not sure why an editor in good standing would invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please let it be as it is. Thank you!  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not move Per WP:COMMONNAME and, also the fact that the Indian banknotes say Mahatma Gandhi. Metro stations/bus stations in India are also named Mahatma Gandhi and not MK Gandhi. The argument posed about Ashoka the Great is valid to a certain extent, but he is commonly referred to as Samrat Ashok. However, Alexander is still referred to as Alex the Great. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not governed by other encyclopedia. The best example would be Mother Teresa, her article has some other title in Britannica. Moreover WP:COMMONNAME is Mahatma. -sarvajna (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move. Per WP:COMMONNAME - see this ngram. Philg88 ♦talk 09:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move. Per WP:COMMONNAME --AmritasyaPutra T 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move - Just go through the move requests in the archives. It has been discussed several times before. Harsh (talk)  20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move RFC bot asked me to SNOW on this. Philg88's ngram is pretty definitive, article is currently at the common name. The policy is for a reason, a reader searching for MK Gandhi that gets Mahatma is unlikely is be confused, but a reader searching for Mahatma that gets Mohandas Karamchand will have to start reading to know they are in the right place. Revent talk 11:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Gandhi Gandhi already redirects here and is recognizable, concise, precise and natural (per WP:AT . Mahatma is an honorific and should be avoided (per WP:HONORIFIC). --regentspark (comment) 13:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move -per my comment above. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not move For some people, their honorifics have been used for so often and so widely that they have essentially become a part of their names. Rare gems of humanity that we should admire and celebrate. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015
Rajdeepishu (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No request made. --Neil N  talk to me 11:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Criticism section
It's needed. Let's not forget the guy regarded indians as on a higher spiritual plane than black people, that he decided to take no action to help the untouchable castes in Indian society, that he wrote to the Allied powers in world war 2 that they should let Hitler take over their lands in spite of evidence he was already mistreating them in the lands he did capture... why is this page written like an ad? In any section which deals with South Africa for example or the caste system it stops short of describing how he actually treated these situations, which was generally to regard the system as some holy order which should not be interfered with. He also supported India unlearning all it's technological achievements and going back to the spinning wheel and village life, which would undoubtedly havled to even worse suffering perhaps than was endured under the British raj. So why no critique?Equivocasmannus (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the article. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure a criticism section is needed, but the apologetic tone and structure of the article are not appropriate. The article needs to give appropriate weight to concerns about Gandhi's bad ideas and practices including attitudes about Africans and abuse of women. Tom Haws (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2015
Please put great-grandad of Akash Gandhi in the page title... I am his great Grandson. Akash Kumar Gandhi!

Akashg5501 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

8-D Funny joke. Tom Haws (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Black Racism
References to Gandhi's antiblack racism and sources have been hogwashed by Gandhi propagandists. I propose to add Gandhi's well-documented evidence of segregation of Indian from Blacks at Durban Post Office and his war campaign against Blacks during Boer war.

Andrew Roberts, Wall Street Journal

Irene Monroe, Huffington Post

Spandaze (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

..This artice reads like an advertisement. From the mis-representation of Gandhi's views on the Indian labourers in South Africa, through the total avoidance of Gandhi's views about being classed in South Africa with the black Africans and the terms he uses to describe black Africans, to the misleading presentation of "forced the government to adopt an equitable arrangement (Poona Pact)" in his efforts to continue the oppression of the untouchables, it's a biased, POV riddled whitewash. Please add as much RS material as you can find to present a NPOV on the topic. 49.182.174.40 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Moral absolutism. the same has been said of Martin Luther King, that since he felt his wife and women should take a back seat role he isn't a hero anymore. Frankly if a bad man says a good thing should it be disregarded? if a good man says a bad thing should that be disregarded? The end result is the same, No human being including any of us are free of actions or thoughts that others find repugnant, the general tone of the author could do better to reflect the negatives. But the end result is the same, Whether or not Gandhi was a good man his ideas have been judged by society as valuable or idealistic to a sense that can be followed. To this end moral absolutism would not suite this article, good or bad, pretending that some of his views override the rest simply suggest bias. Do you values his good qualities so much that you overlook his bad ones? do you overlook his good qualities because you hate him for some values? both would be a mistake in my view, negatives and positives of Gandhi should both be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.168.225 (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Very Strongly Agree These concerns need to be addressed. Hagiography? Tom Haws (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not correct
QUOTE: Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. END of QUOTE

This is just Indian text book history. Gandhi was just a self-appointed leaders of the 'Indians', with not much popular support other than what he could garner through media manipulations. Even inside the Congress, he had not much support. The Film Gandhi is only a film and is not historically correct. In fact, 3 million soldiery from the subcontinent stood by the English, while Gandhi really had only much less support.In fact, most of the lower classes of the peninsula who improved under the English rule had nothing to do with a freedom struggle. Even Subash Chandrabose could garner only around 2000 soldiers to switch to his side from the captive native soldiers in the British-Indian army.

Care to look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.217.225.188 (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The so-called "this" is not a reliable source. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the statement is widely made by scholars around the world--with little or no serious dissent by a reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Early life and background section
In recent weeks the Early life and background and background section has been considerably expanded from roughly 425 words a month back to roughly 1300 words at present (not counting the references etc). The new additions, by User:Aumnamahashiva, are well-written and well-sourced but IMO way undue, for example almost two paragraphs are devoted to the family history of the employers of Gandhi's father and grandfather! And, the added material covers only material from 14 pages of Guha's 688 page bio, which covers Gandhi only before his return to India from South Africa and the period of his life that he is best known for; so there is much much more from where this came from. Any thoughts on whether this material should be retained or the section essentially reverted to the pre-expansion version? Also, is there any desire or precedent for creating an Early life and background of Mahatma Gandhi article? Abecedare (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln. Good idea. Reading the material added I think it is relevant and Gandhi's early life is much studied so an article that covers Gandhi's early life and his career in South Africa is probably a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 01:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good find. Will wait for User:Aumnamahashiva to respond, and hoping that they volunteer to create the early life article. Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; I would be interested in creating the article. Kindly give me a couple of days or so.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! The early life section in this article can also then be shortened to better summarize the more detailed article and sources, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. No real rush on either matters though. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015
Please change all spellings of "nonco-operation" to "non-cooperation" for better consistency within this article and others, i.e. Non-cooperation movement.

Erdavis7 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Helpsome (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Influencing
Any influence about Gandhi's image and British influencing as to dismiss his authority as a leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point-- I added some text about Churchill's vehement opposition... See text at footnote 108. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Gandhi's achievements
Gandhi created text support :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamonium yo (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015
205.156.88.233 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also redacted the copyvio, please do not copy and paste from other websites. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015
'संविधान के तहत महात्मा गांधी 'राष्ट्रपिता' नहीं भारत के केंद्रीय गृह मंत्रालय ने कहा है कि सरकार महात्मा गांधी को 'राष्ट्रपिता' की उपाधि नहीं दे सकती.

सूचना के अधिकार के तहत पूछे गए एक सवाल के जवाब में मंत्रालय ने कहा कि इसका कारण यह है कि देश का संविधान शैक्षिक और सैन्य उपाधि के अलावा कोई और उपाधि देने की इजाजत नहीं देता.

यह सवाल लखनऊ की दस साल की बच्ची ऐश्वर्या पराशर ने पूछा था.

उन्होंने बीबीसी को बताया कि अब वे सभी सांसदों को लिखेंगी और उनसे अपील करेंगी कि संविधान में संशोधन करें ताकि महात्मा गांधी को यह उपाधि दी जा सके.

छठी कक्षा में पढ़ने वाली ऐश्ववर्या के पिता संजय शर्मा ने बताया कि उनकी बेटी सात साल की उम्र से आरटीआई के तहत जानकारी लेती आई हैं.

'राष्ट्रपिता' क्यों?

ऐश्वर्या ने यह पूछा था कि गांधीजी को 'राष्ट्रपिता' क्यों कहा जाता है और क्या उन्हें यह उपाधि दी गई है.

इसके जवाब में उसे बताया गया कि गांधीजी को ऐसी कोई उपाधि नहीं दी गई है.

इसके बाद उसने राष्ट्रपति और प्रधानमंत्री को पत्र लिखकर महात्मा गांधी को राष्ट्रपिता घोषित करने के लिए अधिसूचना जारी करने के लिए कहा.

ऐश्वर्या की यह अर्जी गृह मंत्रालय को भेजी गई और पूछा गया कि उसके आवेदन पर क्या कार्यवाही की गई है.

गृह मंत्रालय ने अपने जवाब में महात्मा गांधी को 'राष्ट्रपिता' का खिताब न दिए जाने के लिए संवैधानिक मजबूरियों का हवाला दिया.

मंत्रालय का कहना था कि संविधान के अनुच्छेद 8(1) शैक्षिक और सैन्य खिताब के अलावा कोई और उपाधि देने की इजाजत सरकार को नहीं देती.

Cyberhost (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a request. If you want to discuss changing the content to reflect the above, please start a discussion in English. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015
The phrase that says that Gandhi was thrown from a train in South Africa, is incorrect, as South Africa did not exist at the time (1893). He was thrown from a train in the British colony of Natal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natal_Colony Please update the article accordingly.

Loeis3 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: "South Africa" is used for this time period throughout the entirety of the article, if that's going to change it will probably need at least some discussion. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 14:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Was Gandhi in the Bania caste or the Vaishya caste???
This article appears to have two conflicting statements. At the top, it says he was born into the Baniya caste. I can corroborate this information with:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GWzXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq=kshatriya+gandhi&source=bl&ots=jqq4M759Pv&sig=Jcr0UhpdnvMF7i6yXhup9-Wa1m0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwA2oVChMI-tW_4qjRyAIVgpqACh0DvQhy#v=onepage&q=kshatriya%20gandhi&f=false

But then under the section on Untouchables, the article says

"Gandhi, although born into the Vaishya caste, insisted that he was able to speak on behalf of Dalits, despite the presence of Dalit activists such as Ambedkar."

This is attributed to this source: https://books.google.com/books?id=WcLJ3aK-ZSkC&pg=PT354&hl=en

But, short of buying the book there is no way for me to know if page 354 really does say that he was born into the Vaishya caste or not.

If it does, then there appears to be a disagreement about which caste he was born into. Perhaps the confusion comes from this quote from David Arnold's book:

"Bania merchants and moneylenders were conventionally far removed from Kshatriya warriors in the Hindu tradition… but there were times… when Gandhi thought of himself as a kind of non-violent Kshatriya and exhorted other Indians to find in the example of the Kshatriyas the physical courage and defiant spirit to confront the British."

This is a serious error that needs to be fixed, but I'm new here so I'll leave it to the more experienced editors.

Soundlessw (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Banias generally belong to the Vaishya varna. So there is no contradiction. Perhaps changing "the Vaishya caste" to "a Vaishya caste" would be enough. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * agree with kautilya . bania is sub caste under vaishya . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh.pawar27 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

New book
The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire by Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed, 2015, Stanford University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015
Within the section titled "Civil rights activist in South Africa (1893–1914)" there is an historically inaccurate and gross generalization about the entire Indian populace of South Africa at that time being led by "wealthy Muslims!" This truly silly statement is either misquoted or taken out of context from other sources because there is absolutely NO factual basis for such statement which flies in the face of the proud histories of the many non-Muslim Indians in South Africa from that era.

It is possible that this statement may be applied to certain Indian communities in Pretoria or the Cape Province, HOWEVER this was COMPLETELY untrue for the province of Natal, on the Indian ocean side of South Africa, with its largely HINDU, TAMIL, GUJARATI, AND CHRISTIAN communities. These communities were most certainly never led by Muslims especially in light of the historical conflict between Muslims and Indians on the Indian sub-continent and the aggression on both sides.

This gross generalization gives the unknowing reader the impression that these non-Muslim, Indian (Christian, Hindu, Tamil, Gujarat etc) communities could not lead themselves, depended on Muslim businessmen not even related to their communities, and is injurious to the history and distinguished reputations and legacies of the leaders and heroes who led the non-Muslim, Indian communities in the province of Natal.

Furthermore, it is a disambiguation in South Africa to call a Muslim and Indian, when most say that they prefer to be called Arab, Pakistani or otherwise.

Wiki-gizmogurrl (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2015
Please correct the following sentence under the heading Civil rights activist in South Africa (1893–1914):

the "by" is not correct imho:

(...) Indians in South Africa included wealthy Muslims, who employed Gandhi as a lawyer, and by impoverished Hindu indentured labourers with very limited rights. 

should be:

''Indians in South Africa included wealthy Muslims, who employed Gandhi as a lawyer, and impoverished Hindu indentured labourers with very limited rights. ''

R4nd0m1zek (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Mahatma Gandhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121224061752/http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jan2005/englishPdf/Gandhi_subhas.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jan2005/englishPdf/Gandhi_subhas.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907222553/http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2006/11/04/history.htm to http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2006/11/04/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215184920/http://www.orissa.gov.in:80/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070804022748/http://www.lifepositive.com:80/Spirit/masters/mahatma-gandhi/journalist.asp to http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/masters/mahatma-gandhi/journalist.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
I think appropriate title for this article should be "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi". Reason: "Mahatma" is actually an unofficial title given to him by people to show respect to him. In my opinion wikipedia article title should not be unofficial title / name of a person. Instead actual name should be used as title. Gandhiji in his autobiography mentioned that he didn't like the title "Mahatma" for himself. Let me know if I should quote from the book (autobiography)

Dharmesh Chauhan (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ On Wikipedia, we use the common name, in other words how he is usually referred to by English language sources. The title of the article reflects that. Philg88 ♦talk 07:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The father of the nation
I think the "father of the nation" paragraph shouldn't be in the lead of the article. It is a duplicate of the same paragraph, Mahatma_Gandhi in the article, and the lead should summarize. I will boldly make an edit accordingly. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a heavily trafficked page, and such pages need to be watched with the eyes of a hawk.  As you will see here, this was not an issue two years ago.  Thanks for noticing, and correcting.  Also, I dimly recall a consensus (?) to avoid the use of (non-English) vernacular scripts, which too have made an appearance.  I'm not sure the "Bharat" bit is needed.  Am pinging, who would know.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INDICSCRIPT I've removed the devnagri from the lead para. Also, replaced Bharat by India (which is, after all, the name of the country). Agree about the Father of the Nation para (thanks Debresser!). --regentspark (comment) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before February 28, 2016 as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. Is this a primary school project in South Africa?  Will this article itself be modified to make it appropriate for elementary schools? (For the record, I don't believe it is Wikipedia's job to write articles for elementary schools (or, for that matter, colleges); as everyone knows, Wikipedia is not censored.)  And who selected this expert, and where was this decision made?  It doesn't sound like he has worked in elementary school education, nor is he a historian of modern India.  People who edit Wikipedia have all sorts of motivations and interests.  The article quality too, in a much trafficked article such is this, keeps changing, depending on who has edited it recently and what POV has driven their edit.  (Sometimes articles get mangled; see for example the version of V. S. Naipaul that I was attempting to improve two years ago, before I went on a longish Wikileave, and what it has become today.)  The English professor is welcome to review the article, but if the article itself is changed by editors in light of those remarks, without appealing to WP's well worn principles, that is, I expect there will be resistance.  (As far as I'm aware, external experts are usually sought in situations involving content disputes, but maybe things have changed.)  All the best.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016
Wowpolaki (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. Who or what is Eileen Stronzo, why/how are they notable, and why are you posting this on the talk page of the Mahatma Gandhi article? --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Mahatma vs. Saint
Why is "Mahatma" okay to use in an article title, but not "Saint"? Rosekelleher (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . Apparently it is so. --regentspark (comment) 22:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Where did you read that "Saint" isn't allowed in article titles? The articles about Saint George and Saint Peter don't follow that rule, if it is a rule.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016
61.2.10.54 (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition to World War II
The introduction should mention Gandhi publicly opposed helping Britain during World War II, as the UK was not prepared to allow India its independence. (86.133.85.80 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC))

Ahimsa - Effeminism - Jainism
The article should mention that officers rebelled for Indian independence before Mahatma Gandhi became the focus of British ( to their advantage as they rather strategically have an ahimsa leader for India rather than the officers that killed british troops). Jains and other weak tribes have used ahimsa for centuries to influence Indians into a lifestyle that would be perceived as weak so that the ruling class and the weak have a way of dealing with their precarious situation. "Weak" not in the sense to be dismissive but as fact and necessity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.98.15.88 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016
The article "Brahmacharya, celibacy" was completely wrong and baseless. Please remove wordings such as Gandhi slept with Naked women, this never happened.

The citation from below article is written on conspiracy and fiction. Vinay Lal is a college grad published his paper on JSTOR, no other article has this cited or agreed. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3704634?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Praveen229 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See this is good article so that means these things were properly investigated secondly the link u gave isnt cited so pls be careful. Thirdly given data has proves yours doesnt reliable sources needed. Not likely to be done VarunFEB2003 (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To expand on the semi-answer above, all needs to know is that JSTOR doesn't publish anyone's articles; it is a repository for the journals themselves. In this case, the article was published by a peer-reviewed academic journal under the aegis of the University of Texas: that is not 'wrong,' 'baseless,' 'conspiracy,' or fiction. Muffled  Pocketed  14:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Rumors of Nathu Ram Godse circumcision and facts. Why he killed Mahatma Gandhi?
On 23rd july 2016 Asaduddin Owaisi blamed RSS for circumcising Nathu Ram Godse in a press conclave. So it has become important discussion to release facts. Some Muslim think tanks & secular political parties spread such rumors (Circumcision, Muslim connection...) for strategic advantages and to bend facts and history in a way that best suits their interest. By spreading rumor about Nathu Ram that he was circumcised by RSS, they get opportunity to blame RSS-Hindus and prove that they are terrorist. It is an organized rumor without any facts/evidence.

Why Nathu Ram Killed Gandhi Ji ?

Nathu ram didn't had any personal enmity towards Gandhi, nor he was paid for it. Nathu Ram didn't had criminal back ground and he was not a criminal before killing Mahatma Gandhi ji. Nathuram was well educated rich Brahmin freedom fighter. Once he was also a follower of Gandhi ji. Perhaps to protect Hindus from Muslims and Gandhi, he took that infamous decision.

FACTS FROM HISTORY;

1) Nathu Ram was freedom fighter too. He followed Gandhi ji path of freedom and non violence in early days.

2) Later he realized that Gandhi ji made childish decision without political maturity, he innocently supported Muslim (indirectly) by making Hindus non violent (even during riots) when Hindus were killed by Muslims. In this way while majority Hindus were non violent (which protected Muslims in Hindu areas), majority Muslims were violent (which killed Hindus in Muslim majority areas). He realized that Gandhi had shadowed Nation and was trying to be bigger than nation. He realized that Gandhi ji had become a tool for Muslims and because of his inaction many Hindus had died and women were raped.

3) To protect Hindus and India Nathu Ram decided to kill mahatma Gandhi.

4) He touched feet's of Gandhi before killing. In court he said that Gandhi and his principles were great and perhaps a man like him will never reborn. So out of respect for Gandhi, he touched Gandhi feet before killing. But because no man is more important or bigger than nation, to protect nation he had to sacrifice his life and kill Gandhi ji both. He knew that after killing Gandhi he will be caught and hanged, but it was necessity of that time. Nathuram also sacrificed his own life for killing Gandhi ji. Nathuram paid the price of killing Gandhi by being prosecuted and getting hanged. He became infamous, however he protected Hindus from immature decisions of Gandhi ji.

He became notorious person after killing mahatma Gandhi but, he did this to protect his loving motherland and Hindu brothers & sisters, from wrath of cruel Islamic atrocities.

Some times its better to live long and sometimes it is better to die early. Long life of Gandhi ji was dangerous for non violent Hindus and, boon/beneficial for violent Muslims. Some people should live long (Like Subash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh) and its better if some people die early (like Hitler).

These were the reasons for Nathuram to kill Gandhi ji.

Finally there is no evidence of changing name or circumcision by Nathu Ram Godse. This is Muslim propaganda to defame Nathuram and Hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.198.175.75 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

New filmography
A new Hollywood feature Solar Eclipse-Depth of Darkness is due for release in August 2017. The film sheds light on the events that led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January, 1948. Set in a communally sensitive and violent India immediately after it's independence from Great Britain, the feature stars Spanish actor Jesus Sans as Mahatma Gandhi. A feature based on little known facts around the conspiracy to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi, the film also stars Stephen Lang, Luke Pasqualino and Om Puri in key roles, supported by well known Hollywood and Bollywood actors such as Vinnie Jones, Mark Moses, Rajiv Kapur, Bobbie Phillips, Ryajpaal Yadav, Anant Mahadevan, Govind Namdeo and Avtar Gill in pivotal roles. Actor Vikas Shrivastav plays the roles of Mahatma Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.30.100.14 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Gandhi
Most of gandhis movement seems to be created by the british and most sepoys that fought for independence are ignored (anti satya graha), yet indians are blindly following leaders created by the british. the bhagavad gita is based on female psychology and makes making decisions very difficult (ambiguity, dubious talk, possibly influenced by non hindus) and muslims overwhelmingly stayed in india. anyone care to clean up this article. Jainism is also not the way to gain influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.141.185 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is a political statement
This post which can improve the quality of the article from pure hero-worship is seen to be deleted by some PureMilk.

I am also not interested in any debate with any Milk, pure or impure.

None of the items mention are from imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.58.77.201 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so could you suggest specific changes to the article which you think would improve it? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
Should we have a "criticism" section in this article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  20:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally criticism is best worked into the relevant sections. See WP:CRITICISM. I don't think criticism sections are good because the reader is immediately drawn to them, regardless of how important/notable they are. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The decision as to whether a criticism section is warranted is one that must be based on the evaluation and relative weight of reliable sources, not made editorially or stylistically. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016
Under Early life and background, Para 10 says

Please change/rephrase this line 'Karamchand died, on a night when Mohandas had just left his father to sleep with his wife'

to 'Karamchand died on a night when Mohandas had just left his father and his pregnant wife

106.51.135.183 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ This change seems directly contradicted by the immediately following quote, indicating he left to be with his wife, rather than leaving both his wife and father. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016
Request to change "fired three bullets from a Beretta 9 mm pistol into his chest at point-blank range" to "fired three bullets from a Beretta M1934 9mm pistol into his chest at point-blank range" 2605:E000:1C0E:C104:288A:FF95:8B3B:87CA (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * --Can you please provide a reliable source specifying the model? Light ❯❯❯ Saber 08:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Gandhi and interests in cleanliness and sanitation
I come from the sanitation side, and Gandhi is often quoted with this statement: "Cleanliness Is Next to Godliness". He's a huge inspiration to Indians working on sanitation, also the current prime minister Modi is quoting him on that, see the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan campaign (the Wikipedia article on that topic is not that great yet). It would be great if someone who has done work on the Gandhi article before could insert somewhere a statement about his interested in sanitation. You find lots on Google, e.g. could use this link as a starting point: http://www.navhindtimes.in/cleanliness-next-godliness/ Thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mk Gandhi was very curious about clininess Aman raj sinha (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to World War II
The lede should mention Gandhi strongly opposed World War II throughout its course. (86.133.84.192 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017
Plase change the last sentence of the first paragraph in from
 * There is a wide spread rumour that Gandhi took his own goat all the way to London which is wrong.

to the folowing, which reads less awkwardly and points out the severely broken source: Note the addition to the reference; you'll want to copy the wiki markup. (Sorry to use directly;  doesn't take a reason parameter or any other way to incude details about the problem.)  71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a widespread, but false, rumour that Gandhi took his own goat all the way to London.
 * I removed the sentence entirely. The linked article is about a different book and the book title and author don't match anyway. Absent a reliable reference, this doesn't seem worth retaining. Thanks for the heads up. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * that's a good solution, too. Indeed, that reference was completely messed up. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

formatting error
Indentation error after the Einstein quotation. Article's semi-protected status means anonymous users can't make the correction.

New section addition needed
What about the controversial stories about Gandhi? While talking about history, it's essential to know the other side of the story. Gandhi, apparently, had relationships with his servants in order to test his self-control. Would want to know more on how he lived, as a person, in the ashram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvac (talk • contribs) 07:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mahatma 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/20100215184920/http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/COMMEMORATING-MARTIN-LUTHER-KING-JR-Gandhi-s-2640319.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915025114/http://www.icrs.ugm.ac.id/wednesday-forum-schedule/111-relevance-of-gandhian-philosophy-in-the-21st-century to http://www.icrs.ugm.ac.id/wednesday-forum-schedule/111-relevance-of-gandhian-philosophy-in-the-21st-century

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) 14:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Racism towards Africans. He called Africans Khaffirs multiple times.
I have added some of his racist quotes in Wikiquotes.

His racist behavior and quotes and nature should be mentioned in the article.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/31/not-all-peaceful-13-racist-quotes-gandhi-said-about-black-people/ Userbaba (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS
I have removed the entire "criticism" section that was added without any discussion. This is a good article and should have consensus before addition of such major inclusion. Section it didn't included anything like "criticism" rather a protest of countable people. I believe that we can instead make a section like "Black people", and add his past views on Blacks and how they later on reformed. Capitals00 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahatma 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/20100215184920/http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2008/December-2008/engpdf/1-5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026095526/http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/ic_banknotes.aspx to http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/ic_banknotes.aspx

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) 10:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

1990 Gandhi source
The article at several places cites a primary source in harv fmt, with. This harv cite was not linked in the version before my first edit to this article few days ago. I was able to find a cite to a 1990 source, as Desai translation of Gandhi's autobiography. I assumed earlier editor(s) probably summarized the Desai source. I have checked the Desai 1990 source, but am unable to verify the summary. Further, in my view, it could not be the reprinted Desai source, because the last edition of it was originally published in 1940 and the claimed summary is about events between 1940 and 1947. Not only is this odd, the summary is unusual and inconsistent with other reliable sources. Per WP:AGF I have left it in for NPOV. For now. If someone knows the correct 1990 source, or an alternate source which does support the content currently cited to Gandhi (1990), please update the harv "Primary sources" section at the bottom of the article. Any assistance would be much appreciated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added it. (How to fix it: Search revision history for "Gandhi|1990", see when it got inserted, and try to figure out what citation was meant. In this case, a half-baked citation was converted to an sfn.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You are awesome! Thanks for the tip, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article size
Excluding the references / bibliography / etc sections, the current version of the article is about 35 pages long. To place this in perspective, the main article sans ref-biblio-etc of the John F. Kennedy article is ~35 pages long, as are Buddhism article, Hinduism article, etc., , , others: any thoughts on the article size? The article could be improved with some careful trimming and copyediting, even though many sections are summaries which can each be expanded given the available reliable sources. But trimming could also make this article more prone to disputes and less stable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the length is fine. Gandhi is a big subject.
 * On the other hand, I wonder if we should change the title to "Gandhi". I voted no on a previous RfC, but that was before I knew Wikipedia well enough. He is referred to as "Gandhi" all over the world, whereas "Mahatma Gandhi" is limited to India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Gandhi redirects here, doesn't that suffice? I confess I am tempted by your proposal though, but on second thoughts maybe you and others were wise in the last RfC. I will need to meditate on this a bit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the size, I think there's no problem now. Some sections can still be expanded if necessary.
 * About the title, yes. It should be Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, preferably Gandhi as that's how he's popularly called across the world. Mahatma is obviously a honorific which is widely used in India. I would personally want the title to carry Mahatma, but, as you people know better than me, Indians' choices alone should not decide things on Wikipedia, as its consumed by public worldwide. The honorific will stay in the beginning of the lead anyway. :-) Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Either of these good suggestions or current title may be okay. Mahatma Gandhi is relatively pretty common in publications, even tertiary literature such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Reference, etc. Much like Mother Teresa, not Teresa, her original name was Anjezë Bojaxhiu. Gandhi can be confusing, since Indira Nehru and her husband confusingly (smartly?) adopted the Gandhi surname / spelling, the Nehru dynasty members are all Gandhi. So are Gandhi's family, relatives and many more in their country. In other words, a difficult choice between equally good options. We need to reflect on all this a bit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now, I'd go with Sarah here. If sources like Britannica use the tag to refer to him, Wikipedia can comfortably do the same, to avoid any confusion. ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  18:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 242k is very much; yet, if the article is good, why bother? Big subject indeed.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A major improvement. I offer my congratulations to the author. Here are some issues, but they should be seen in the context of my overall approval of this rewrite. It is not so much the length, but the relative lengths of the sections. Principles, actions, beliefs is way too long compared to politics. I have seen no encyclopedia article or review article on Gandhi which has a similar emphasis. Obviously, principles etc will need to be whittled down majorly, and Gandhi's political life expanded and given more depth. More political sources will need to be read and summarized at a high level. Also, the long list of subsections in the principles section, themselves constitute a POV, as they elevate relatively inconsequential things in his career&mdash;brought latterly into the dubious realm of scholarship because there is nothing else left for graduate students and junior faculty to dredge in Gandhiana&mdash;into major topics. Not to mention that reducing Gandhi's political heft at the expense of his non-political is also in line with India's history as being retold by Hindu nationalists, who were mostly twiddling their thumbs during the anti-colonial struggle, and are anxious to give others equal billing in an effort to detract from Gandhi's achievement. Gandhi is ultimately Gandhi, and not one among a long list of India's time-honored spiritual cranks, because he was the pre-eminent leader of Indian anti-colonial nationalism. The relative lengths, the number of section titles, etc needs to reflect that. Also, I notice errors here and there. Raj Ghat, the site of his samadhi, is not the place where he was shot and died (which was Birla House). Why Indians have made a fetish of cremation sites after Gandhi, turning various other national leaders' cremation sites into large parks on the banks of the Jumna river, is another story. Also, Gandhi's insistence of the payment to Pakistan in his last fast was the very much the spark that lit the prairie fire of semi-literate Hindu nationalist ire. Taking that out of the lead and but leaving "some people thought he was too accommodating" in the lead sounds disjointed. As for the article name, it used to be Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for years, as was Britannica's, then one year during my absence others managed to change it to Mahatma Gandhi. I notice now, Britannica too has changed to Mahatma Gandhi. No point changing it to Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi is known and used worldwide. Indeed even "the Mahatma" is pretty much understood worldwide. I haven't looked at the sources, but given the state of scholarship these days, I would urge the editors to pay attention to the source's own paraphrasing. It is a good idea once in a while to look at a source's citation and evaluate how the content and context of the cited source has been summarized. So, again, the political section is too tentative, and more importantly, lacking in depth. There is a huge amount of literature on Gandhi and Indian nationalism. Pretty much all major historians of modern India have written on Gandhi. Their opinions need to be incorporated, and not just authors such as Dennis Dalton, or semi-professional historians such as Ramchandra Guha or Yasmin Khan who write popular history in trade books and not in academic monographs or journal articles. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @All comments so far, Thanks. Will meditate on it. The current version of the article dedicates ~20 pages to Gandhi's biography, ~12 pages to "Principles, practices and beliefs", ~3 pages to legacy, popular culture, etc. The lead needs another look, from WP:LEAD perspective, indeed. I will review again the numerous tertiary sources that contain Gandhi-related articles. Per WP:AIM of wikipedia, particularly the "a comprehensively written" and "both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth" parts, the wikipedia articles do not need to copy or fit the style of other encyclopedias, much like the Mahatma Gandhi article lengths and their depths in various encyclopedias are remarkably different. No harm and more good in being more comprehensive, of course when done while respecting our core content guidelines. All collaborative inputs are much appreciated, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the political Gandhi, starting in South Africa and until just before his assassination takes up 5694 words of readable prose. The Principles section alone takes up 6949 words.  There seems to be more description than narration in the article.  Contrast this with BR Nanda's Britannica entry.  Also, I have a nagging sense that this version has turned Gandhi into much more of a orthodox Hindu than he really was.  No mention of Unto this last, which Gandhi translated into Gujarati, and inspired by which he founded both the Phoenix settlement and the Tolstoy farm, not to mention Sabarmati and Wardha.  The same book which inspired many Labour Party backbenchers in the 1920s including Attlee who would would later go on to become the British PM to spearhead decolonization. Yet, we have more words devoted to Swaminarayan and Advaita xyz, words which Gandhi&mdash;whose religious beliefs were very much of the same homespun variety as his Hindustani speech&mdash;very likely uttered or wrote as many times are there are fingers in my right hand. Where is the Gandhi of Abide with me, of Vaishnava Jana To, of Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram (Ishwar Allah Tere Naam),  of Sare Jahan Se Accha, ie the Gandhi in the form he was known to India? The Gandhi of Story of my experiments with truth or Gita According to Gandhi?  Swaminarayan whose American Gujarati devotees have built a monument to ugliness and extravagance on the left bank of the Jamuna River in Delhi, would, at least in his current manifestation have given Gandhi the shudders. Don't get me wrong, I'm writing fast, while traveling,  and giving you an impressionistic view of the article.   It doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the great work you have done.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Swaminarayan part is from an old version you and others had helped create. I left it in along with a lot of other stuff, as legacy content. Swaminarayan part would be one of the parts I would trim a bit. Gandhi autobiography covers his life till ~1920. The current version of the article does include it, and the 1920-1948 part of his life.
 * I have let that legacy "Principles, practices and beliefs" section title stay from the old version others and you helped create. That section was ~8 pages long before my first edit, now it is ~12 pages. Note a large part of that addition is from moving out-of-place content in other sections to the "Principles, practices and beliefs" section. Then I added a bit more scholarly RS summaries to help improve those moved parts, for NPOV. That section existed before my first edit, was relevant, and remains relevant. Britannica discusses Gandhi's view on brahmacharya etc, in a section titled differently. Other encyclopedias cover his beliefs etc too. There is plenty of quality RS on all this, so it is okay to include it.
 * Wikipedia =/= Britannica, and we do not need to follow or mimic it. We have no policy that we measure an article with one or another paper version encyclopedia. That discussion is best done on village pump, not on this talk page. The bigger problem in this article has been the use of non-RS websites / blogs / op-ed in news sources / OR to create an article with non-RS summary and NPOV issues. Questionable sources and that is what we must trim more of. I have no objections to revising or adding more stuff from his South Africa period, if it comes from quality RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Sarah, I intend not to take a position in this debate just yet, but Fowler isn't asking to reflect the style of Britannica, as you seem to be thinking. He's just referring to it as an example. You're missing the actual point. What he's trying to say is, the article in its current state is giving WP:UNDUE weight to some of the Gandhi's Hindu-spiritual aspects over his more popular ideologies & preachings, for which he is widely known and remembered in India. Also he is saying that the political narrative of Gandhi is not covered in depth and hence not given its due weight. However, certainly, none of these might have been your doings/intentions, during the pretty admirable contributions that you made to this article. Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @TD: Given the abundance of scholarly sources on him and his religious faith, his own statements in his autobiography, it is inappropriate to be silent or imply Gandhi was not a Hindu, but was a Jain, or Christian, or "spiritual but not religious", or etc. A discussion of Gandhi and his Hinduism is due. We can't emphasize the influence of Tolstoy etc, and suppress the influence of Bhagavad Gita and Hinduism, given the RS. Doing so would create balance and NPOV issues. FWIW, in the influences section, the article now presents the various scholarly viewpoints for NPOV. On political narrative question, F&f and you are right. Some of my updates have tried to address that. I intend to continue, over the coming weeks, as I did with some edits today. If others or you summarize additional quality reliable sources to strengthen and add depth to the political narrative part, that would be most welcome! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@TD: You may be right about Fowler's comment about comparing this article to the one in Britannica. Because study the edit history of Indian famine of 1899–1900 article, where F&f and my paths have crossed. Most contributions in that article, good that they are, are primarily by F&f. It cites many secondary sources (books / journal articles / etc), it is very different and more comprehensive than the summary you find in tertiary sources on that famine. Numerous past edits and reverts in this article by others, and some by F&f, have tried to follow wikipedia content policies, not Britannica as a standard. No need for new standards, different standards here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't write inaccuracies, repeated twice, "which you helped create." I wrote only the lead, without reading the rest of the article, in a bid, as was the custom then, to prod people into improving the article, and the first part of the early life, i.e. until he left for England, a long time ago.  I have no idea who wrote what, what you left in and what you didn't.  I'm simply commenting on the article as it stands now, which I see that you have revised in some fashion, especially with respect to the sourcing, and I am very glad for that.  However, there are issues of DUE, the result of looking for sources to affirm a text that already exists whether in reality or conceptually, rather than a text that results from reading the sources comprehensively and distilling them.  I am suggesting there are plenty quality RS, but these are not biographies of Gandhi, or books with Gandhi in the title; rather, they are books on Indian history, such as Anthony Low's Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Ambiguity, or for that matter, his edited, Congress and the Raj (which apparently has been cite for Swaminarayan, but for nothing else), the many books of Bipin Chandra on the Indian independence movement, indeed, the books of Christopher Bayly on Indian intellectual history (Origin of Nationality in South Asia, Recovering liberties). Even general books on Indian history such as Burton Stein's History of India or Metcalf and Metcalf's A concise history of modern India, have not been used.  Instead, we have strange set sources, which in many cases say nothing else about Gandhi except the cited bit, or say many things about Gandhi only one of which have made their way into the article.  This happens when Google is used to find the sources for a text, rather than a text that results from the reading the best sources on Gandhi.  That I think explains the tentativeness of the text.  I don't know what this has to do with the Indian famine articles, which (except for the two Bengal famines) did not exist anywhere on the internet until I wrote them, and for which I had to scrounge around for sources, many of which probably need to be revised in light of new scholarship.  Here there is a surfeit of sources, an eccentric selection of which, it seems to me, has been used in the article.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Again, I don't mean in the least that you are responsible for these shortcomings, but rather that, in my view, they exist despite your valiant effort. That effort, I very much hope, will continue to improve the article and turn it into the quality article it deserves to be.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PPS I'm throwing some ideas out there.  One way of creating balance, would be to start with the most low-res sources, say, some general histories of modern India (e.g. the two books of Stein and the Metcalfs already mentioned, and say, Judith Brown's Modern India, Sekhar Bandopadhyay's From Plassey to Partition, Sumit Sarkar's Modern India, and write a backbone for the article based on them (this includes the religious bit).  To these, then, in waves of additions, add content from more specialized monographs, such as Low's, journal articles, biographies, etc   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

F&f: Indeed, we need to clean out more eccentric sources. Will keep that in mind. After a quick check, I see some of the low-res sources you mention are already in the article, added by past editors, and I have kept them in. The article can be further strengthened with dedicated peer reviewed scholarship on Gandhi such as by Wolpert, Markovits, Herman, Brown, Sharma, Carr, Coward, Gorringe, Neufeldt, etc. These are high quality RS. Dedicated peer reviewed scholarly monographs / journal articles too. This is along the lines of what I have tried to do so far. Thanks for the suggestions. I plan to continue my review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahatma 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/20100215184920/http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/sept-oct2006/engpdf/11-15.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2008/December-2008/engpdf/1-5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107183114/http://progressive.org/mag_amitpalabdul to http://progressive.org/mag_amitpalabdul
 * Added tag to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/502501/

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) 15:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Allegations about racism
There seems to be a concerted effort to conceal the fact that Ghandi has been accused of racism by a number African academics. Per WP:CENSOR, we should include this information even if it we find it offensive. The sources for this section all meet WP:RS. If you feel otherwise then explain here. ReusGang (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @ReusGang: The article already covers racism allegations in the Africa-related sections. There is no need to repeat. Al Jazeera, other newspapers / blogs / opinion columns / tabloids are not WP:HISTRS and we must rely on high quality, peer reviewed / scholarly reliable publications as sources for this article. If you find WP:RS that state something new and not summarized already, we can include it. But, please avoid edit warring over allegations based on non-HISTRS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , I am suggesting the addition of the following text:


 * "In 2016, a group of Ghanaian academics, students and artists called for the removal of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi from a university campus. They accused Gandhi of being racist towards black people by holding the view that Indians were higher than them." This is sourced from The Washington Post and Al Jazeera. These sources are not "tabloids" or "blogs" but mainstream news agencies. They certainly fulfill the conditions of WP:RS. If you think otherwise then provide your reasons here.
 * Further, you quote WP:HISTRS, yet this is not relevant here as we are not talking about a historical incident but a recent event in that Ghanaian academics have accused Ghandi of racism. Also, WP:HISTRS is not a policy but an essay and essays are only for advice.
 * I have also suggested adding the following:
 * "This view was also held by two South African professors Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed who claimed that Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness”. Gandhi also demanded separate entrances for blacks and Indians at the Durban post office while he was living in South Africa". This is sourced from The Washington Post. Again, there is no reason to remove the information as the source is reliable. Further, the above is found in the following book: The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire, Stanford University Press, pp.37-44. Again, this is reliable.
 * The article at present makes little mention of the fact that Ghandi "not only rendered African exploitation and oppression invisible, but was, on occasion, a willing part of their subjugation and racist stereotyping" Ref: The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire, Stanford University Press, pp.22. It is a key point in Ghandi's views whilst he was in South Africa and ought not to be censored. What reasons do you have to remove the above? ReusGang (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ReusGang: Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed source states a lot of things, and we cannot cherrypick and quote them out of context. NPOV is important. This article already cites and summarizes Desai and Vahed. It already states the part "his [Gandhi] behaviour was one of being a willing part of racial stereotyping and African exploitation.[75]" The article does not censor. There is no need to repeat. No, newspaper sources are not reliable as sources of history / scholarship. Yes, they can be reliable source of news and recent developments. Please see the following note from admin Nyttend, which I copy paste from a wall of text elsewhere:


 * Ian.thomson saw my comments elsewhere and asked me to chime in here. Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. Of course, all this applies if there's no significant dispute; a faithful adherence to WP:NPOV will demand that we use the best sources from (or about) each position, and we can trust a journalist to report on the rise of a new popular movement that advocates a different perspective on such-and-such an idea, but journalists being primary sources in such situations, we shouldn't use them to interpret something about the different perspective. – Nyttend


 * HISTRS is an essay, a good one. It is consistent with wikipedia policies. Feel free to take this to RSN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You claimed that "Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed source states a lot of things, and we cannot cherrypick and quote them out of context". Can you explain how I have "cherrypicked" or quoted them "out of context"? My summary is taken directly from the book The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire which is published by Stanford University Press and ties in with summaries by journalists in The Washington Post and also the official Stanford University Press summary of the book which states that: "Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed unveil a man who, throughout his stay on African soil, stayed true to Empire while showing a disdain for Africans. For Gandhi, whites and Indians were bonded by an Aryan bloodline that had no place for the African. Gandhi's racism was matched by his class prejudice towards the Indian indentured." So no, this isn't cherry picking - it's an accurate statement taken from academia. Further, you haven't actually given a policy reason for it's removal. If you have a policy reason then please provide it here. Likewise, if you think that this is not WP:NPOV then please explain. You cannot simply make an accusation without providing evidence.
 * You also state that, "No, newspaper sources are not reliable as sources of history / scholarship." I didn't claim that they were so this is irrelevant. Then you state that "Yes, they can be reliable source of news and recent developments." Which is precisely what I am doing. It is a recent development that Ghandi has been accused of racism by academics. I am using the newspaper articles to show that "In 2016, a group of Ghanaian academics, students and artists called for the removal of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi from a university campus. They accused Gandhi of being racist towards black people by holding the view that Indians were higher than them." Newspapers are perfectly reliable and acceptable for statements such as this. Have a look at WP:NEWSORG for details. Note this is NOT a historical statement but a statement regarding an event that took place in 2016. (i.e. recently). If you do not consider the sources reliable then I can take it RSN. Please confirm that this is your objection. ReusGang (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Europeans, Indians and Africans section in this article. Doesn't the article already state this and more from Desai and Vahed, as well as other RS?Why repeat? Desai and Vahed also mention between pages 22-38 that Gandhi suffered persecution, people there called him a parasite, semi-barbarious, canker, squalid coolie, yellow man, would spit on him, etc. They and other RS also mention the years when all this happened (Gandhi was aged 24 when he wrote the legal brief using Aryan theory, for example). You created much repetition and did not include all this from Desai and Vahed. Further, NPOV requires us to summarize the different views in multiple RS, without taking sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017
'Bold text'

Munesh Sonwane (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nothing requested. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Alma Mater in Infobox
In the infobox under the "alma_mater" parameter "University College London" has been mentioned whereas in the main article no where it states Gandhi passed out from this university its quit confusing. Although he did passed out as a barrister from "Inner Temple". any help. Check his britannica biography also.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See this, this and this, for more information. The infobox needs a source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've read but not sure what to do, should I put both "University College London" and "Inner Temple" in the infobox of alma_mater parameter or keep only "Inner Temple". Please advice me.--Anandmoorti (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Inner Temple is where the overwhelmingly unanimous majority of the sources say he became a barrister. It is true that even in Gandhi's day a Briton typically first went to college and then became a barrister. Gandhi was an Indian, in the first generation of Indians who in large numbers were studying in England.  Gandhi spent one term in Samaldas College in Bhavnagar before he went away to England.  Whether or not he formally went to college at UCL, went somewhere else, or took some kind of a correspondence course, UCL is mentioned nowhere in Gandhi's autobiography, in all the standard biographies of Gandhi, including that of Louis Fischer, who interviewed Gandhi, to BR Nanda's in the 1970s, to Joe Lelyveld's of a few years ago.  He did take the University of London's matriculation examination (see Rajmohan Gandhi's biography) If UCL is claiming, some 120 years later, that he was formally enrolled there when he took that examination, it is really unimportant for us, because, again, the overwhelming majority of sources make no mention of UCL.  Obviously, we can't mention UCL on the strength of a few blogs and by reading the tea leaves in Britannica article on the Inns of the Court.  We can mention Samaldas College, where Gandhi went for one term before he left India, and the Inner Temple.  In fact there is no reason why we can't mention his high school, Alfred High School, Rajkot.  Perhaps we can mention the University of London instead of UCL, because we do know he took the exam.  So, one possibility would be Alfred High School, Rajkot, Samaldas College, Bhavnagar, University of London, Inner Temple.  UCL is a part of the University of London.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Inner Temple makes sense. I am fine with adding the rest or embedding/clarifying the rest in a ref-note. Please do cite RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree Inner Temple is fine but avoid school degree's generally alma_mater should be college or university degree. Most biography articles avoid school degrees. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017
39.36.71.206 (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Dark side of gandhi It was found recently that gandi raped his 17&19 year old grandniece, in 3 letter which he wrote to his brother in which he admitted that he do with his grandniece.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)