Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 4

Gandhi's Thougths about Turkish Indepedence War and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
I saw that there is no information about Gandhi's thougths in Turkish Indepedence War and Kemalism. Gandhi was supporting Mustafa Kemal's revolutionist ideas as a solution for 3rd World Countries. He was supporting the Turkish Indepedence War against imperialists and finding Kemalism as a solution for third world countries, he was seeing Kemalism as a pacifist ideology. If any of the wikipedists could have put this information with its details, it would be better. Thank you... PS. Gandhi Says: I was thinking the God was British until Ataturk has beaten them.

Page Coding or Other Error
(1)Why does it say "Hi There Beller" in the opening paragraph? (fixed?) (2)And why is Derek Jeter's name mentioned in the "Early Life" section, second paragraph?

Move article to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi?
Just wondering, since his name was actually Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the introduction says so as well, shouldn't the article be under that name instead of Mahatma, which is an adulation/title?Rueben lys 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma vs. Mohandas.--Shahab 07:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Artistic depictions" edits and...
Please see the changes made in Mahatma Gandhi. The subsection "Artistic depictions" was shortened, and a new daughter article (Artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi) created by shifting contents from Mahatma Gandhi. Please see if the changes are ok.

Also, the subsection "Mahatma" - does it merit a seperate seb-section at all? The thing can be discussed in lead, or in other places, with the mostly believed idea (that Rabindranath Tagore named him Mahatma) stated...and with a footnote describing the other claim(s). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed, shortening needed
The following portion needs citation and shortening:


 * "Mohandas Gandhi's sleeping arrangements attracted public attention during the winter of 1946-47, when he was trying to quell violence between Muslims and Hindus in the Noakhali district in what is now Bangladesh. It came out that Gandhi was sleeping nightly with his 19-year-old grandniece, Manu. In part this was an effort to stay warm in the winter chill, but Gandhi soon acknowledged there was more to it: he was testing his vow of brahmacharya, or total chastity in thought and deed. If he could spend the night in a woman's embrace without feeling sexual stirrings, it would demonstrate that he had conquered his carnal impulses and become "God's eunuch." It turned out that Manu was not his first brahmacharya lab partner--he'd also recently gotten naked (partly, at least) with another young woman in his extended family, starting when she was 18.
 * There were quite a few raised eyebrows in India. One of the most vocal critics was Nirmal Kumar Bose, a university lecturer who served as Gandhi's interpreter in Noakhali. While conceding that no intercourse had taken place (Gandhi and his entourage typically all slept in the same room) Bose protested that the master was exploiting the women, each of whom felt she had a special place in his affections and became "hysterical" if slighted. (Refer the account by author Ved Mehta in his 1976 New Yorker series on Gandhi and his followers.) Gandhi, far from being abashed, vigorously defended himself in meetings, letters, and articles, arguing that making a woman "the instrument of my lust" would be far more exploitative than what he actually did.
 * Remarkably, the critics eventually quieted down. Even Bose, who quit in protest and later discussed the issue in a book, My Days With Gandhi, remained an admirer. Gandhi continued to sleep with women until his assassination in 1948, and the matter is little remembered today. The esteem in which Gandhi was held no doubt partly accounts for the lack of repercussions, along with his advanced age. His notoriously eccentric views on sex may have been a factor too. Gandhi believed that sex for pleasure was sinful (for that matter, he felt eating chocolate was sinful), that sexual attraction between men and women was unnatural, and that husband and wife should live together as brother and sister, having sex only for purposes of procreation."

While the sleeping fact has been noted in several literatures (so citation should not be a problem), the portion is much larger in volume than it probably deserves in the article. People with knowledge in this regard are requested to help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that this text was deleted long ago and there was no discussion about it. Do the long term editors here have any idea? --Knverma 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This material seems unnecessarily detailed for the Gandhi article, and I agree with the decision to remove most of it. Perhaps some of it would fit in the article on Brahmacharya, since Gandhi could be considered a prominent modern teacher of that concept. Jeremy Tobacman 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wife beater?
Did Gandhi beat his wife?
 * Yes (I think) in the beginning. He had changed his attitude towards his wife and marriage in South Africa. Rama's arrow  03:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He has never beaten his wife but shoved her as per his biography (Saraths 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Both of these are technically true but misleading. They lived in a community where all labor was shared. On one occasion, he pushed her out of the house for refusing to take her turn in cleaning the communal toilets, for as she told him, "that is the work of untouchables".

A racist?
Yep. And he was a racist, too. A great man in many respects, but a racist. And, no, Rama's Arrow. Including such information in the article under "Criticism" is perfectly valid. It should not be obliterated with a dismissive edit note calling it "nonsense" -- as you have done. It is no different from dealing with Sally Hemmings and slavery in the article on Thomas Jefferson. Wikipedia is no place for censorship. No subject is sacrosanct. deeceevoice 15:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:CITE, WP:SOURCE, WP:RS. Editors have often discussed such claims before so you are also requested to check out the talkpage archives here. Rama's arrow  16:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

z The charges of racism are well known and completely valid. Don't quote wiki policy to me when you are clearly in violation of it. You oblitered accurate, relevant, adequately sourced information with a completely meaningless and dismissive (uncivil) edit note that in no way justified the edit. You have yet to offer any justification for removing the information. Why is it not relevant? And how is it "nonsense"? Finally, absolutely none of your nice, little links has any relevance whatsoever to the edits I've made. If anything, they apply to your behavior -- and not mine. Unless and until you can justify your deletion of the material, I will continue to insert it. deeceevoice 16:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Khalistan.com is a POV source. Please see WP:RS. Also I request you to see the talkpage archives here as I think this issue has been previously discussed numerous times. Rama's arrow  16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A mere technicality. That's all you had to say, that the Khalitsan website is considered a POV source. Your unhelpful, disrespectful edit note gave no indication of the nature of your objection and -- again -- clearly is a violation of wiki policy. And that business about "disruption" is just bluster -- to use your word -- utter "nonsense." I'll be happy to provide the same information from a NPOV source, then, so you will have no credible objection -- because the historical record is clear: Gandhi was an anti-black bigot. deeceevoice 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This resource must absolutely refer to Gandhi's outspoken hatred of black Africans. This is not eulogy, it's biography.  Gandhi was no more a defender of human rights than, say, Farrakhan; he was defender of his own race against everyone else. Let's kill another modern myth. 86.17.209.251 20:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS As for evidence, just check Gandhi's own paper published in South Africa, Indian Opinion, in which he wrote of his racial beliefs "in four languages", writing at least a dozen columns inciting Indians in Africa to attack black Africans.  Oh, and by the way, he also slept with young naked girls. 86.17.209.251 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to argue this - in particular the 'slept with young naked girls' bit amongst others, you're going to have to back it up with some sort of evidence. Kitushi 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This fact is well known. Read (Please experienced editors, this is the name of a book. I dont know how to make it a link) Freedom at Midnight - Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milindsmart (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Why isn't this covered in the article? There is even a book about how he viewed Sikhs, Untouchables, how he covered up the murder of Euro-American William Francis Doherty at the hands of Gandhi followers, and the aforementioned black South Africans. The book is called Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity by G. B. Singh. Gandhi was also one of three different "saints," if you will, covered on Showtime Channel's Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (Holier Than Thou, episode 305 [Season 3, episode 5]. The two others were Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama). There was even backlash of the unveiling of a Gandhi statue in Johannesburg, South Africa in October 2003. These criticisms should be included in the article, even with a rebuttal if there are any. You can read the following websites for more information:, , , , , , , ,.

There are of course sensible rebuttals, that while he may have had ill-feelings towards black South Africans early in his life his views may have changed. People, including those highly revered, have the right to change their mind over time. (look for Koryo's post second to the last post), (the post by Anil Nauriya)  -- WiccaIrish 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC) [updated 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)]

any sources besides that G.B. singh guy? and a couple of those links (i did not read through them all) seem iffy...if this was a valid criticism, then wouldent there be more people out there besides that one author and articles attriubted to him? Maybe it would be good to list this criticism as being one from a particular source, specificallly that one author Pirus 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's break this down, step by step, as this is becoming a major case of "he-said-she-said"...


 * Africans: Gandhi's statements about Africans can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the one where he was in prison with the African gentlemen who had been reduced to "one step removed from..." feral beasts, I think it was. Some use this to prove that Gandhi though all South Africans were feral beasts, although he may have just been describing the sorry state the prisoners were in. Also, keep in mind that the the meaning of "k*ffir" has changed over the years.


 * Singh: I googled "Gandhi racist blacks" and here were the results: Most of them had something to do with Gandhi's antiracism. Others had nothing to do with this particular Gandhi (It's a common name). The remaining ones that cited his so-called "racism" were usually interviews with this G.B. Singh person or internet forums citing his work. Curious, I ran a search on Singh, but could only find pictures of his book, a blurry photo of him, hideously biased interviews, and one guy on a forum claiming to have met him. It gets even weirder. I could not find even one objective and neutral biography of the man. That maketh me sur-spicious.


 * Jews:This has been discussed before. I hosestly can't tell where they're coming from here.


 * The Army: Some people use the fact that Gandhi was in the Army and fought Africans to "prove" he did not like them. Whuh? By this logic, US soldiers who fight Iraqi insurgents hate all Arabs.


 * In conclusion, whether or not you think Gandhi was racist depends on how one interprets what he said. Thank you. Belgium EO 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S., I hosestly can't see how anyone could be anti-Gandhi. Don't they realize that means being anti-Martin Luther King and anti-Nelson Mandela (or at least, their philosophies). Singh calls Gandhi a "mad tyrant" and that trinicenter site says that he was a Nazi and that by encouraging Indians to join the Army during a time when they were fighting against blacks, then, logically (not), Gandhi wanted the Indians to wipe out the blacks. HUH? Belgium EO 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting dynamic that forms around a famously good person. Some people become set on discrediting him/her, and can say that anyone who disagrees is misinformed by the popular body of knowledge about the famous person, which is generally overwhelmingly good. However, often the people who are bent on discreditation are wrong, using POV sources, or POV themselves. Al  e  thiophile 1   2  3  21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is especially true in the case of Gandhi. But you would also agree that there is some hesitation in discussing controversies concerning famously good persons. For whatever reasons, there was no response to my comments here. --Knverma 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

M.K. Gandhi's protest in Africa were about consideration of indians in Africa equal to British - as India was a British colony. He and some other indians were British soldiers. Most of his letters were against treating Indians as Blacks, he was protesting against moving indians to black communities and not being considered at par with British. He was not fighting for the civil rights of Blacks - in their country. In my mind that is racist. M.L.King Jr probably did not know this.
 * Dear oh dear. While Gandhi did indeed believe in helping his own race first, it appears that you have confused racialism (love of one's own race) with racism (hatred of others' races), which, strangely enough, is a misconception that many people have. and please sign your posts. Belgium EO 06:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the discussion here about Gandhi's alleged racism, wife beating, and paedophelia is very helpful in understanding some of what I heard. Too bad it's only in the Talk. The controversy about those subjects is real and should be covered in the article. Adding something to the article about how these came about, who is making the claims, and how or if they're substantiated would be useful. If some of the claims were to become better sourced at a later time, they could move out of 'controversy', but to pretend there isn't controversy is to impart a bias. BillMcGonigle 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghandi's racism has also been discussed in an episode of Penn & Teller. If this aspect of Ghandi remains segregated in the criticism section than the artcile might be de-featured for comprehensiveness and neutrality.--BMF81 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trimming bottom sections
Hi - my removal of data from the "legacy" section reflects 4 main concerns (a) this article is too long, (b) no need to list so many statues of Gandhi and (c) the films/video games etc. is all too new and overplayed in importance. "Gandhigiri" deserves one sentence - the rest belongs to the article on the film itself. Also (d) the film poster and postage stamps are to be used to describe the stamps/film in question, not Gandhi - this is a "fair use" issue. Rama's arrow 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW postage stamps aren't a copyright issue: they're specifically excluded from copyright law. See below for a solution to the cultural material.  Durova  18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Mahatma Gandhi
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Misnamed
Shouldn't the article use his real name, instead of his nickname? 24.227.116.226 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mahatma is a title, not a nickname. Jachra 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly misnamed. Yes, Mahatma is not a nickname, but it is also not a title. It is an honorific given to him by those who revered him. I personally happen to agree with those people, but my personal opinion (and yours) is irrelevant. It is clearly an honorific and is therefore not NPOV. It should not be used in the title of the article.

Going further, the page about Bill Clinton is not President Clinton and the page about Martin Luther King, Jr. is not Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. or Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., both of which will just get error pages on Wikipedia. Just like President Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton redirect to Bill Clinton, Mahatma Gandhi should redirect to Mohandas Gandhi. But the page title should be his name, just like everybody else on Wikipedia. --anon 01/19/2007


 * Agreed. Let's move it if there are no justified objections. Ahudson 16:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See also this page: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma_vs._Mohandas. Note that the title of this section is "Article Misnamed," not "Change Mahatma to Mohandas everywhere it appears on Wikipedia." The latter is just silly. On that talk page people argued that Mahatma Gandhi is like Mother Teresa. That is not an accurate comparison. Mother Teresa is like Pope John Paul II. Mother and Pope are titles, not honorifics. We should leave all the text asis and simply rename the page. If you disagree, let's rename the Harry Houdini page to be The Great Houdini (and not only does the latter not link to Houdini's page, it links to some other page, about an obscure book published 55 years ago) and the James Randi page to The Amazing Randi. Once you start down the slippery slope of using non-names, where do you stop? --anon 01/19/2007

So who decides? Either this page becomes Mohandas or we have a very large list of other pages that we have to rename. To name a few: There seems to be a consensus on both this and the archived discussion page that the man's name should be the page name, and a small number of people arguing otherwise. A number of people have said it is not NPOV to name the page Mahatma. If a sizable number of people feel the title is an honorific, these people are right that it is not NPOV, even if there are some people for whom, personally, it is not an honor. You might discount one person's opinion, but you have multiple people's opinions here. Let's respect those opinions.
 * William the Conquerer (or William of Normandy, if you prefer, but not William I of England -- nobody calls him that!)
 * Peter the Great
 * Ivan the Terrible
 * The Great Houdini
 * The Amazing Randi
 * Chairman Mao
 * Le General (Charles de Gaulle)
 * The King (Elvis, of course)
 * The Greatest (Muhammad Ali)
 * The Great One (Wayne Gretzky or Jackie Gleason -- we can flip a coin)


 * Use redirections --vineeth

That misses the point. You should read the prior discussion before responding. The redirect should be from Mahatma Gandhi to Mohandas Gandhi, just like there is a redirect from William the Conquerer, the common term, to William I of England, the official name of the page and a name that virtually nobody uses to refer to the guy. Mohandas is his name. Mahatma isn't -- it is Sanskrit for "Great Soul"... (read more at Mahatma).

There are two clear choices. 1) Leave this page and rename many other pages to use the most common name for the person as the page name, or 2) rename this page to use Mohandas Gandhi's real name (perhaps with his middle initial, as the convention elsewhere). Is there anyone with a clear argument for leaving this page and renaming the pages listed above (and probably many others)? If you have such an argument, now is the time to step forward.


 * ^^^^^ Please see Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma vs. Mohandas for previous discussion on this. ^^^^^
 * WP:NAME gives Wikipedia's policies on these matters ("a clear argument").
 * (Please also take a look at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.) -- Writtenonsand 12:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Truth is God and Faith in God.
Gandhi was not awarded Noble Prize. Is there any relation between Truth, God and Noble Prize? vkvora 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe racist reasons why he never got it. But also he himself was extremely racist against Africans.  Also, various people, including Freud, accused him of pedophilia.. which, as you mentioned it, has its own rather substantial relationship with men of god.. maybe more in christianity and islam than hinduism, which is more open sexually, but never underestimate the perversions of the powerful.  JeffBurdges 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Few years back letters were published regarding why he did not get a noble prize. He was nominated three times I believe and the third time he was going to be awarded but he died by then.  Previous two times his nomination was rejected because of a combination of various reasons such as 1) Their were some violent incidents that came up during the freedom movement and the committee was unable to differentiate between the two and 2) The usual systematic bias that takes place when the entire committee consists of people from one region.  --Blacksun 18:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what you're trying to point out Vkorva2001. This is a bibliographical entry on Ghandi thus must contain as many aspects of him so it should contain his Beliefs and his Legacy which I think are both important. And why does everyone feel the need to say the same argument over and over again, he's a pedophile/racist. Good for him, if you can't think of a real argument against putting the information displayed here then just shut up. Such fallacious arguments are simply a waste of time to read. --Guruparan 03:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Toilet stuff missing from Principles
As I understand it, Gandhi wrote extensively about excrement, latrine cleaning, and enemas (cute quote "The bathroom is a temple. It should be so clean and inviting that anyone would enjoy eating there"). Can anyone who knows about such writings add a subsection to principles? JeffBurdges 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All this was mainly done to raise the status of India's depressed classes and draw them into the freedom struggle.
Can we really speak to Gandhi's motivation for leading his life in such a manner? If there is a legitimate source for this claim then obviously its fine, but if it is simply speculation, however well founded, it should be removed.Trojan traveler 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret Atheism and sexual promiscuity?
I read in A.J. Jacobs' novel The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World (good book; read it) that Gandhi practiced secret atheism and was at least a little sexually promiscuous in his youth before he fully embraced religion and a life of being good. I didn't see any of this in the article, and I don't have the book on me at the moment so I can't make sure my memory isn't fooling me, so I thought I'd run it past people on the discussion page before it got included in the article. The Know-It-All has a second-hand account of Gandhi's life (the facts are taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica) so that can probably be used as a reference. If you back these claims, please feel free to edit the article accordingly. Thanks! --pie4all88 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Gandhi nowhere mentions about secret atheism in his autobiography, but yes he does admit that because of the bad company during childhood days he consumed meat and landed with a brothel, but no such bad thing happened, more details here. He does admit of his carnal lust during his teen days here. I suggest you to read the The Story of My Experiments with Truth, he does not hide anything in this book, but I feel that claiming gandhi to be sexually promiscuous is simply blowing things out of proportion. Having said all these, he completely becomes a celibate later on... --vineeth 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The autobiography page linked above gives no evidence whatsoever of sexual promiscuity. We must remember that this is his private thoughts, and thoughts are not promiscuity. The article, to be clear, tells a story of Gandhi wanting to have sex with his wife while massaging his sick father's feet every night, and then feeling guilty when his father died after he had gone to his wife and waken her up. Besides that, even the thoughts acted out are not promiscuity. Having sex is not promiscuity, especially with your marriage partner, and your father dying does not make it any more so. Moreover, this all seems like perfectly normal behavior to me, and may even be evidence of a LACK of promiscuity.


 * Ah, thanks a lot for the response, vineeth. --pie4all88 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone suggests that Gandhi was an ascetic, it may be useful to note that he was the father of three sons.

Mahatma Gandhi on the Bhagavadgita

 * GITA ACCORDING TO GANDHI I think this to be important for the mainpage.
 * Austerlitz 88.72.14.143 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning this wonderful commentary. I have a copy of the Desai edition of it and will add a mention of it in the main article. Buddhipriya 06:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wats up ppl. Gandhi is a great leader. Isn't Gandhi suppose to be spelled like Ghandi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.67.169 (talk • contribs) loser lol

Its Gandhi, not Ghandi. Shahab 16:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion to add in sentence within Gandhi's Principles "and ends" after the word extremes
Theresanother 12:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)It's my personal opinion that the sentence "applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their most logical extremes" could be mistaken in ways that do not accurately demonstrate Gandhi's character. Therefore, I request that we add "and ends" after the word "extremes."Theresanother 12:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Some of the text has been copied and pasted from this website: Most Notibly the Photograph from 1899 of Ghandi in the Ambulance Corps is Plagiarized.
 * http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Mahatma_Gandhi

I also Found some Plagiarized text from this page too: --Wiki Bender 04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/10/23/stories/2005102300210300.htm

God?
Why does the last part of the intro saying that his teachings inspired civil rights leaders include God?

Terrifying Angel 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Struggle for Indian Independence
I have added citation requests on the following sentences: Is this true? If so, he certainly changed his opinion before and during World War II. nirvana2013 12:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "As he had done in the South African War, Gandhi urged support of the British in World War I and was active in encouraging Indians to join the army."
 * "His rationale, opposed by many others, was that if he desired the full citizenship, freedoms and rights in the Empire, it would be wrong not to help in its defence."

Yes, this is true, it is in his autobiography; you're right, though, it should be appropiately cited. 132.216.13.4 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Brendon

Gandhi was an anarchist
Gandhi was an anarchist! He wanted to build a stateless society in India after its independence. See: http://calpeacepower.org/0201/PDF/was_gandhi_an_anarchist.pdf Shahab 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. His vision was very similar to Christian anarchism. nirvana2013 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mahatma
The term Mahatma was one that Gandhi was not fond of as he felt it placed him above the rest, perhaps Mahatma Gandhi should redirect to Gandhi and Gandhi contain this article, especially as Gandhi is shorter and thus easier to find.

Gotskills22 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many people with the name Ghandi, and so it would not be correct to move this article there. As someone said earlier in the talk page, Mahatma is a title; however, none of the other biographies have their title in the article title, so I don't know what's going on here.


 * Along that vein, I propose that we move this page to Mohandas K. Gandhi, and turn this into a redirect. Any objections? Ahudson 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See the section on this page called "Article Misnamed". BillMcGonigle 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Error of Fact
In line no. 27 it has been qouted that the Dandi March was an open call for the British to quit India in the year 1942. According to my knowledge the Dandi March started the Civil Disobedience and took place in 1929.I sincerely hope that the editor will take notice of this error and correct it immediately.

--Kartikeyrinwa 14:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Kartikey


 * Actually, the main article on that says it was in 1930 (see Salt Satyagraha). I'll review that article and correct this section as needed. Ahudson 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't know who wrote that but i think its a bit wierd considering the good gandhi did, it doesn't really matter if he was transsexual or not so i think maybe you could include some of his work like making the salt etc. for people looking for information

Importance of journalists and Ghandi's embrace of journalism in his movement
I should preface this post by saying that I don't know much about Ghandi. Before I saw the 1982 film I knew only that he was important in the India independence movement, believed in non-violent resistance, and fasted a lot. Something that I noticed in the movie was the importance of journalists and news in his movement. He seems to have published some sort of journal??? and embraced journalists of all stripes---and I have no doubt they were instrumental in the success of his movement.

I am suggesting a short mention of his use of the press at least in the South African section. I think that it is worthy of inclusion because of its importance in the success and widespread effectiveness of his movement.

---Madison Underwood madisonu@gmail.com 4:29 AM Jan 18 2007

Language pettiness
Could we swap the “alternate name” in the summary box to “alternative name”? I know Americans struggle with these two, but still, it would look better. 88.110.97.3 17:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
In the infobox, why is the native name in Hindi and not Gujarati? -- Wolf talk 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Assassination question
There is a paragraph at the end of the section on his assassination that doesn't make any sense to me: Bharat owed to Pakistan a debt of 55 Crores whereas Pakistan owed to Bharat a debt of Rs. 300 Crores. Government had already decided to recover Rs. 245 Crores from Pakistan. Gandhi began a fast unto death and made Pakistan free of debt of Rs. 245 crores it owed to India on the basis of which, Pakistan managed to attack Kashmir for the first time after Independence! Nathuram Godse then slayed Gandhi on 30th January. Shri Ram Manohar Lohiya said, "Nathuram's way was wrong, yet the reasons for his agitation were right and factual. The egos of leaders especially those of Mahatma's are terrible!" The interesting point to note is that Nathuram Godse was himself a Satyagrahi and an ardent follower of Gandhi's Harijan seva. He had actively participated in inter-caste Marriage and functions of Dalits. He was in short a Satyagrahi and a Dalit Activist.[17] I don't know much about this subject, so I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable to render an agreement. I just wanted to point out something that seems really out of place. feb. 23, 2007 The page linked to is severely POV and in any case the information about his assasin should be on its own page. I am removing this until someone can add a more authoritative source for the Rs. 245 Crore claim. I might add that using "Bharat" when discussing India in English is very bad form. I am reverting. Viz 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did Gandhi lead campaigns for "the increase of poverty, the imprisonment of women..."? This seems to be vandalism that has been missed. --naryathegreat | (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

about 3rd para of Early life section
The age 8 years mentioned in 3rd para of "Early life" section is to be changed to 18 years. 195.150.224.71 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

criticism
i'd like to add an external link but the article is locked. i would like to have an inter-page link from the criticism section to the external link. can anyone tell me why the page is locked to me? anyway, here is the link: http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt i hope someone else will be able to link this article with the wiki article. the article is a very worthwhile read and well written. i'll be damned if the writing style fooled me into thinking it's all true without being so--it's so authoritatively and well written. an amazing article of criticism   69.105.39.16 20:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)jj      3/12/07

Woven with a charkha? No.
"Making his own clothes—the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl woven with a charkha, he lived on a simple vegetarian diet." -- Um, one spins with a charkha. One weaves with a loom. -- Writtenonsand 00:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. However using handlooms Khadi was also manufactured in Gandhiji's ashrams although it is unclear if Gandhiji himself played a part. See this link.--Shahab 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just clarifying the vocabulary. :-). -- Writtenonsand 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fake Photos
Some of the photos of Ghandi when he was younger on this page look like fakes. Where are they from?


 * What pictures do you mean specifically?--Shahab 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

i have a question. what kind of technology was available to ghandi in his time period?

74.128.172.184 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)andy

Irish Accent?
Does anyone know if it is true that Gandhi spoke with an Irish inflection due to being taught English by an Irish missionary priest? --Frenk Melk 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if that was discovered to be true, it is not very significant considering that his accent would have still been more "Indian". Interesting point you raise however. In some aspects the Irish and Indian accents are similar, such as both using /eː/ and /oː/. GizzaChat  © 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, judge for yourself ! Hear this 1931 audio clip. Abecedare 07:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ANTI-GANDHI NONSENSE
Most of this "discussion" page is infested with tabloid-esque allegations of racism and paedophilia without any evidence.My inclination is that it is being written by ultra-cynical teenage atheists who cant except that a religious man could be such a fine moral role model.I think I will have to create an article called the "Atheist Taliban" after reading this tripe.

Honest Agnostic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.101.213.232 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC).


 * As long as it's just on the Talk pages and not in the actual articles, it's not a real problem -- the Talk pages are a place for people to present their questions or problems, so that the articles can be made better. I.e., if somebody presents a silly accusation on the Talk page, then somebody else might add a good cite to the article showing why accusations of that type are silly. (Conversely, if critics have good evidence that they're right, then this probably should go in the article.) I don't think that Gandhiji himself told his critics to "shut up" -- he listened to what they had to say, and then patiently explained why he was right. :-) -- Writtenonsand 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

this gy is completely corect- Marine14 Gabe Piuleac

Site of assassination
I'm confused. This article says Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated at Birla Bhavan, but the sources I've read said he was shot while walking in the garden behind the Gandhi Smriti in New Delhi. I was about to link a photo I took of the purported assassination site, when I was stopped in my tracks after reading this. Could someone with more knowledge about this please clarify? (The Gandhi Smriti assassination site photo is here).  JGHowes talk  -  00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is correct. The photograph is also correct. How is this possible? Because Birla House (or Birla Bhavan) is the name of the place and Gandhi Smriti of the autonomous Gandhi propogation body(which has its campus located in Old Birla House, 5 Tees January Marg, New Delhi.) Cheers.--Shahab 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up, Shahab. I've edited this article, and also Birla House, accordingly  JGHowes  talk  -  21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Sentence
At about the 25% point thru the article, is found the following sentence. What does it mean? "He did not disagree with the party's move, but felt that if he resigned, his popularity with Indians would cease to stifle the party's membership, that actually varied from communists, socialists, trade unionists, students, religious conservatives, to those with pro-business convictions." I think there must have been some meaning intended, but sometimes sentences get too convoluted. Friendly Person 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence probably refers to his resignation in 1936 (not the one of 1934) when he felt that his popularity was stifling the diversity of membership in the popularity and points of view varying from him were not getting a chance in the party due to his strong grassroot influence. See this link. Cheers--Shahab 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

His statements
Can I put his famous statements somewhere? For isntance:--Shoons 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An error does not become truth by rason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained. -Gandhi
 * A good idea is to add quotations to wikiquote. They can be accessed by the sisterlink in the external links section of the article. Cheers--Shahab 11:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not know such Wikiquote exists. Thanks! --Shoons 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section
it seems that the criticism section needs clean up and structure. it is very poorly written/organized. Also, there are a lot of criticisms and unflattering facts about ghandi that are easily available to find and cite, but are strangely lacking from this page. I do not want to make myself entirely responsible for tracking them all down, so could the Editors please help in adding this information and tracking it down, please? One thing that is disingenous about some of the editors of this page is when they revert and delete information they know is true but is merely not cited well enough. I ask all Editors to not do this or to at least give an account of themselves when deleting such information. if there is information that is widely known, you ought to place a citation needed in the appropriate place. this is the proper wiki ediquette.

Also, can we come to a consensus on the validity of using the straight dope as a tertiary source? it is highly regarded as a fact-checking publication and taken to be the last and difinitive word on any subject its researchers touch. the internet publication of the Straight Dope does not cite its sources, but this does not preclude it from being cited as a reputable source. Itsnoteasybeingbrown 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that this a Featured article and we have to particularly diligent in maintaining/improving its standard of sourcing and writing. Also, as per wikipedia's policy on verifiability, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."
 * Language, such as "He has been criticised as unashamedly self-contradictory, and has been criticised for his stance towards military service (he enlisted more than once in the British Army, receiving the rank of Sergent-Major)", clearly fails on OR and NPOV grounds, and is a misattribution since the cited source  (which would hardly be considered authoritative in this regards), says nothing about this being a purported criticism.
 * Also straighdope may be an appropriate source for a stub level or beginning article, but is certainly not appropriate for a subject on whom (conservatively speaking) hundreds of books, and thousands of essays have been written. I would highly recommend that you find better sources for your content, phrase your edits in a more encyclopedic and neutral language and preferably discuss significant additions on the talk page before making the changes. Regards. Abecedare 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IT seems to me that everyone who works on the Gandhi article is intent on keeping criticisms of Gandhi hidden as much as possible. I understand that editors who wish to improve an article are responsible for citing sources but what i'm asking for is help in doing that because i simply don't have the time.  I know that many of you know that many of the things i listed in the criticism section are valid: Gandhi was a Sergent-Major in the Army and participated in 3 conflicts on the side of the british; Gandhi also paid extreme attention to feces and enemas, and also slept with naked young girls.  he also was hypocritical about modern medicine and let his wife die by not allowing her penicillin.  we know this.  why does the criticism section lack this information?


 * I AM ASKING EDITORS to not delete information that is common knowledge. common knowledge on wikipedia does not need citation.  I MUST ask editors to not delete common knowledge ESPECIALLY when reputable sources definitively confirm it.  I am ALSO asking that something come from the talk page.  it seems that all critical points raised in the discussion page come to nothing, for example, the Kemal Attaturk subject ought to be mentioned in the article, yet no editors felt the need to pursue that topic in discussion.  i suspect that no one who edits this page has a stomach for saying anything that might reflect badly on gandhi, regardless of truth.
 * (and by the way, it is not a violation of NPOV to say that gandhi was unashamedly self-contradictory, since from the account i read, gandhi was not ashamed of being contradictory. it is simply unreferenced.)
 * I can understand the preference to flush out things in the talk page. but there should not be much more time passed that the article lacks criticisms that are common knowledge. Itsnoteasybeingbrown 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What follows is text that i think would be a good basis for the beginning of the criticism section; what follows is how i wrote it to begin with, but my main source was a very famous article by Richard Grenier (a very prominent NYT film critic at the time (1983)); the article is called "the gandhi nobody knows" and it details the problems with "gandhi" the movie, and the contradictions, hypocrisies and general not-widely-known facts about gandhi that reflect badly upon him, especially in western eyes. the article was extremely long, and was first published in "commentaries" and can be found in paperback book form. the entire text can be found on the internet and i provided a link to it but someone deleted it from the links section, probably without realizing what it was--just realizing that it was negative. The article is written very well and for anyone who would like to add or subtract from this criticism section in the main article, it should be considered required reading. Anyhow, this is how i wrote the intro for the criticism section:


 * There are numerous criticisms of Gandhi; they range from personal habits to the necessary implications of his philosophy, to the certain actions he took, to assessments of his character. His supporters are also criticised for the way they portray him in media, such as in the film "Gandhi," as presenting a fictionalized picture.
 * Criticisms of Gandhi's personal habits include what is seen as a fecal fixation by some (by some accounts he wrote more about feces than he did about Indian Independence), and he regularly slept with naked young girls (ostensibly for no other reason than to test himself)[35].


 * Gandhi's philosophy is criticised as simplistic and inappropriate in most of the situations Gandhi tried to apply it to, such as the holocaust and Hitler's attempt to invade Britain, or the prospect of invading Japanese. The philosophy of nonviolence, it is argued, does not work against an enemy who is eagerly genocidal, such as the Nazis were. Gandhi's recommendations to Britain were to let Hitler take over and do what he wanted because "Hitler is not a bad man." Views such as these cast doubt for some on Gandhi's judgment, since the ramifications for taking this advice probably would have been catastrophic for the world.


 * Gandhi's character is criticised on numerous grounds. Some argue that the less Gandhi knew of something the more obstinant he was in believing his opinion was correct, for example, Gandhi believed he was a nutrition expert yet knew nothing of vitamins or almost anything of the nutrition research that had been conducted during his adulthood. He is criticised as having little care, or even outright racism against black South Africans, and for most of his life, the Untouchables similarly. He has been criticised as unashamedly self-contradictory, and has been criticised for such contradictions as his views on whether or not to use modern medicine (siding one way when it could have saved his wife's life, and the other way when it was his own), his stance towards military service (he enlisted more than once in the British Army, receiving the rank of Sergent-Major[36]), his advice towards others, and his attitude towards bloodshed and civil strife (such as his appeals for violence during partition despite his nonviolent philosophy). Gandhi is also criticised for appearing to refuse to have a relationship with anyone who would not put themselves in a position of discipleship to him, and for possibly disliking and treating his immediate family harshly, and for what is argued to be very bad judgment inherent in some of his advice to others.

thoughts on improving this? By the way, the first thing someone deleted from this writing was that Gandhi's portrayal in the media by his supporters is criticised--Grenier does this, and so this is the easiest thing to cite. Also, the last thing to be deleted from this text was that Gandhi's character was criticised. once you read the article you'll see that Grenier (and even DeParle in the rebuttal essay to Granier) does that too. i read Jason DeParle's essay and thought it was good too, but it seemed to second-guess Granier's intentions to be worse than is justified--it villified a group associated with the author to villify the author--, and was not nearly as well written. i would be happy if DePearle's article is referenced/linked too.Itsnoteasybeingbrown 10:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean this article:

http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt


 * It looks like a film review and it looks like his opinion rather than an article which is sourced. I don't think it could be used as facts but maybe a paragraph could be written which states that this is the opinion of Grenier. -128.97.145.160 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the charges of Gandhi's racism are being watered down in the controversy section. this is repeatedly removed: However, many black South Africans accused Gandhi of racism Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: "Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves."

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the "raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness". Mywikieditor2007 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Name me a famous person from that era from whom we can't cerry-pick allegedly racist quotes. Give it a break.   Jim 62 sch  23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've found that a good rule of thumb when it comes to historical figures is "no matter who they are, somebody thinks they were racist" or "if they were opposed to WWII, somebody thinks they're a Nazi" (Gandhi is one of these; see also Pius XII, Charles Lindbergh). Belgium EO 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

pee drinker?
so should we add the fact that he drunk pee? the dirty bastard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.49.194 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * first of all, drinking pee isn't so bad: it's sterile, but yes, gandhi did drink cow pee, which he thought had healthy property. i would say this would not be important enough to put into the article, except that gandhi considered himself a nutrition expert, and it is a criticism that people have made of him that he didn't know what he was talking about on subjects of nutrition, therefore this might be appropritate under the criticism section.  you would have to cite the critic, though.Itsnoteasybeingbrown 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Change the Flag appearing beside "Place of Birth"
Kindly change the "Australian Flag" appearing beside the "Place of Birth"
 * Take a closer look. It's not the Flag of Australia at all. In fact the pictured flag was the official flag of the British Raj. This signifies that Gandhi was born in British India and not in the modern republic of India (of which there was no concept at that time). Cheers--Shahab 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Error (quotes)
Can you please fix this grammar error that is in the document. Go to the place where it says Assasination as a heading and go to the place where it talks about his last words and the next paragraph has a no quote in the beginning but a quote at the end. Here is what I am talking about. This is the paragraph with the mistake in it.

Friends and comrades, the light has gone out of our lives, and there is darkness everywhere, and I do not quite know what to tell you or how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the father of the nation, is no more. Perhaps I am wrong to say that; nevertheless, we will not see him again, as we have seen him for these many years, we will not run to him for advice or seek solace from him, and that is a terrible blow, not only for me, but for millions and millions in this country."[16]

---cheers lucky333123 23:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing quotes
Thanks for fixing the quotes problem.cheers

---cheers lucky333123 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Resurrecting a dead horse and beating on it
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume8/j8_2_1.htm

This is a link that seems to be a valid journal article referencing Gandhi's paedophilia. Can someone who's more involved with this article than I am include this information objectively? Any objections to including this if I eventually decide on doing it myself?

Cheers! Viggyjiggy 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation
I am replacing this phrase with Mohandas Gandhi Cheers! Viggyjiggy 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Organizations is spelled wrong
Organization was spelled wrong in the Followers section. It was spelled "organisations". Just thought you guys should know.
 * Neither spelling is incorrect. See this. In accordance with wikipedia guidelines the spelling established by the first major contributor should be followed. So there is no reason to change the spelling. Cheers--Shahab 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang man they have a bunch of rules on Wiki.... Last time I help, but thx anyways Lol

gahi said dont

School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP)
On January 30 every year, on the anniversary of the death of Mahatma Gandhi, in schools of many countries is observed the School Day of Non-violence and Peace (DENIP), founded in Spain in 1964. In countries with a Southern Hemisphere school calendar, it can be observed on March 30 or thereabouts.


 * DENIP: School Day of Non-violence and Peace
 * DENIP: School Day of Non-violence and Peace, abstract

--Ayounali 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

i thought wikipedia WASN'T the place for hagiographies
i'm a little surprised to see such a minuscule criticism section. here are some points that should probably be added: -because of his dislike for western medicine, Gandhi forbade his wife to take penicillin, even when absolutely necessary, because it would be administered with a hypodermic needle. he didn't have any qualms, however, with his own treatment with quinine and operation for appendicitis -gandhi disowned his son harilal because he disapproved of the woman he married. when his son manilal had an affair with a married woman, gandhi called for her head to be shaved in shame. -in order to test his celibacy, gandhi had attractive young women lie naked beside him, this was because he deemed his wife too unattractive for the task (all of this without even touching on the insanity and irresponsibility of absolute pacifism as an ideology) -with reference to the holocaust, gandhi told his biographer in 1946 that "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." (Fischer, Louis. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Harper, 1983. Page 348.

These points are discussed, with references, in Derrick Jensen's Endgame Volume 2, and on this website: http://www.triviahalloffame.com/gandhi.htm

--74.97.142.249 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to add information on the above, it should be from sources which followVerifiability and Reliable sources.


 * As for the Fischer quote, the entire context should be added to follow Neutral point of view. The quote given above is a small portion of a larger section found on pages 346-348. Here is the context. Fischer begins with "Harijan" 1938, quoting Gandhi as stating: "My sympathies are all with the Jews" (346) and "The Jews of Germany can offer Satyagraha under infinitely better auspices than the Indians of South Africa [...] I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them and lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading manhunt can be turned into a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. The German Jews will suffer a lasting victory over German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted  the latter to an appreciation of human dignity" (346). According to Fischer, Gandhi was attacked by the Nazi press for stating this (p. 347). Gandhi further argued "to be truly non-violent [...] I must love my adversary" (347) which Fischer then interpreted this to mean that "The Jews should pray for Hitler" - Gandhi argues that "If even one Jew acted thus, he would save his self-respect and leave an example which, if it became infectious, would save the whole of Jewry." (347) Fischer next states that these comments were criticized - offering the example of an intellectual known to Gandhi and the "Jewish Frontier". Fischer states: "Jewish Fronter, a New York Magazine, riddled Gandhi's proposal in March 1939 and sent him a copy. He quoted at length from the attack. 'I did not entertain hope...that the Jews would be at once converted to my view,' Gandhi replied,' I should have been satisfied if even one Jew had been fully convinced and converted....It is highly probable that as the [Jewish Frontier] writer says, 'A Jewish Gandhi in Germany, should one arise, could function for about five minutes and would promptly be taken to the guillotine.' But that does not disprove my case or shake my belief in the efficacy of non-violence. I can conceive the necessity of the immolation of hundreds, if not thousands to appease the hunger of dictators...Sufferers need not see the result during their lifetime....The method of violence gives no greater guarantee than that of non-violence....' Millions sacrifice themselves in war without any guarantee that the world will be better as a result or even that the enemy will be defeated. Yet who does not fiercely resent the suggestion that anybody die in deliberate non-violent sacrifice? I mentioned the subject to Gandhi in 1946 when Hitler was dead. 'Hitler,' Gandhi said, 'killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany....As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." (347-348)--Classicfilms 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Classicfilms, by adding more onto the quotation i offered, it didn't really do much to change the nature of the quotation. I wasn't attempting to make like Gandhi was an antisemite in any way, but just the flaws in his completely pacifistic world view.


 * At the very least, the controversies that were aroused that you mentioned should be referenced in the article. The problems Derrick Jensen (a notable author) has with many of Gandhi's actions and views should also be given at least a mention, as the author devotes nearly a full chapter in his book toward this end.


 * He posits, and I also find, that to make a statement like that is to blame the abused for the abuser's actions; that if only the Jews would have given themselves up to death more freely that the Nazis would have changed (that if only abused children/rape victims would not fight back, their abusers would realize the wrong in their actions).


 * I feel that adding a short (1-3 paragraph) entry to the controversy section based on at least the controversies you mentioned and opinions i mentioned is reasonable and I hope to do it soon when I have more than a few minutes. What do you think?


 * Also, given that the Hindustan Times is already being used in the article, I trust its veracity has been accepted here. The website i provided sources this publication and so i think the facts that relate to it (those relating to Gandhi's children) can be safely published. I will work to make sure the publications it mentions regarding the other facts are verifiable before I implement them into the article. Thanks --74.97.142.249 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and willingness to develop a section which does need work. I (and other editors here) don't object to the adding of material as long as the edits follow Wikipedia guidelines listed above. The "Hindustan Times" was used to discuss the reaction to the statue of Gandhi. However, quotes from Gandhi should be cited from a primary source which this newspaper is not (books on the subject are best, and it's good to use the work of more than one scholar if possible). So if Jensen quotes Gandhi, it would be better to look at the primary sources used in his book and use those sources for the quotes. In other words, it's fine to use Derrick Jensen's book, but the information should state that this is Jensen's POV and that he devoted a chapter of his book to it. Also, please give the page numbers so that the edits can be verified. As for the quote, it is important that it is discussed within the full context of Gandhi's vision of Satyagraha- you can quote here that Jensen feels it is a flawed vision - the full quote at the very least should be used here to comply with NPOV - which is Fischer stating: "Millions sacrifice themselves in war without any guarantee that the world will be better as a result or even that the enemy will be defeated. Yet who does not fiercely resent the suggestion that anybody die in deliberate non-violent sacrifice? I mentioned the subject to Gandhi in 1946 when Hitler was dead. 'Hitler,' Gandhi said, 'killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany....As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." Thanks for your work and I look forward to reading your contributions. -Classicfilms 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One more point - if Jensen quotes from one of Gandhi's old newspapers such as "Harijan" etc. as Fischer and others do, it's fine to use Jensen for the quote. Just state that it is from "Harijan" (or "Indian Opinion" etc.), list the date and that it has been reprinted in Jensen. -Classicfilms 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.
Nothing major, but I noticed that in the introduction that Martin Luther King Jr. is cited as being inspired by Gandhi. While under the heading "Followers," Martin Luther King is cited as a follower of Gandi, and a leader of the American civil rights movement. I'm not sure if this was intentional or it's just simple mistake.

Recent auction of letters by Christies
The Christies have recently said they will be auctioning Mahatma Gandhis seven-page letter on July 3 but later withdrew their plan. Can some one add some coverage on this.

Influences
Shouldn't a note be included about the general influence he received from Tolstoy? More here...