User talk:Niranjanmehta

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi‎, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to discuss the issue of the article talk page, but please do not repeatedly add dubious information that is contradicted by reliable sources already cited in the article Abecedare (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia,

You accepted as a valid source that "Mahatma" name was given to Gandhi by Rabindranath Tagore and you are accpeting that information from a book that someone else has written. The authors who have written the book do not have any documentation to prove the date and location of this magnificent event. I have a document that shows that Gandhi received his name of Mahatma before Tagore. Whereas, I have document, location and date. Our document has been accpeted and is on display by the most prestigious authority on Gandhian history, the Rajghat Gandhi Museum, New Delhi, India and supported by the Government of India.

You can view the document (Manpatra) at www.kamdartree.com, it is written in Gandhi's mother tongue, Gujarati.

I would like to provide you with more information in regards to authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjanmehta (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia article content is based upon what published reliable secondary sources say, and as far as I have seen, all such sources on the subject claim that Tagore gave (or popularized) the title of Mahatma for Gandhi. I have seen the website you [at www.kamdartree.com linked to], but unfortunately such family/community websites are not regarded as reliable sources on wikipedia, and we would need a secondary source to confirm the claims you wish to include. If you have such sources, we can certainly discuss them, and add a short note to the article, if needed. It would be best to continue this discussion at Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi so that other interested editors can also participate in it. Cheers and welcome to wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I also request you to have the same yardstick for the information you are accepting from the author. Does he provide you with any document, date, or location? Just because his work is published commercially, does that mean that the information has become authentic? Our website, where we have authentic records with place and date is considered as a family website with solid proof of what we have been trying to rectify. We want you to ask the author whose work is cited to show you the proof. We have been trying, for the past three years, to get proof of documentation from the publishers, unfortunately, they have been unable to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranjanmehta (talk • contribs)


 * Niranjan, unfortunately we on wikipedia cannot do our own historical research or verify/interpret primary documents. Instead we rely on what experts in the area have published. You will be better off presenting your documents and evidence to some university professor or researcher who works in the area; if they end up verifying your claims and publishing it in some scholarly journal, we can add that to our articles. PS: Don't forget to sign your post on user and article talk pages by appending 4 tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your messages - this will automatically add your name and and a timestamp to your comments. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Our documents and information is being put on display in the most authentic place, in regards to Gandhi's history, the National Gandhi Museum, Raj Ghat, New Delhi +91 11 2331 1793 and +91 11 2331 0168. I also have letters from the Directors (Dr. Y.P. Anand and Dr. Varsha Das) of the Museum, which I can e-mail or fax you. But the present source, which is considered is not the authentic source as they do not have relevant documentation. I do not think it is necessary for me to get this work published, when the documents I have, have already been accepted by the Directors of the National Gandhi Museum of India. Please, let me know how I can send those documents to you. Niranjanmehta (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Niranjan, as I said above we do require published sources as sources on wikipedia (see WP:RS), and while your offer to email documents to me is appreciated, it does not help in writing the wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I truly respect what you are doing. If Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya accepts that he does not have supporting documents for his claim, then what will you do? We have already contacted him to provide us with all information and asked him how he has come to the conclusion that Tagore was the first to call Gandhi "Mahatma." We are waiting for his response. Niranjanmehta (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhattacharya is hardly the only author who attributes the title to Tagore. There are dozens of sources, which say that Tagore conferred/popularized the title. For example:
 * Selected letters of Rabindranath Tagore by Rabindranath Tagore, Krishna Dutta, Andrew Robinson
 * The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence by Anthony Read, David Fisher
 * The essential Gandhi: an anthology of his writings on his life, work and ideas
 * Saints and Virtues by John Stratton Hawley
 * ''Gandhi, by Geoffrey Ashe
 * Recritiquing Rabindranath Tagore by S. K. Paul, Amar Nath Prasad, Amar Nath Prasad
 * Now it is certainly possible that these and other sources are simply repeating a popular story; but if you want to change the conventional wisdom, you will definitely need to have the evidence examined by scholars in the area and the new attribution published in a reputable peer reviewed source. None of this can be settled on wikipedia, which as an encyclopedia, simply summarizes what secondary sources on the subject say. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you are taking the time to find the truth and integrity in all this. You have said very well that many of these authors are repeating a popular story. Again for the past three years I have been trying to get in touch with authors like Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson, but none are willing to provide information to back up their hypothesis. And I also assure you that when you contact all the above sources and question them about the date and place of the documents, none will be able to provide the information. Since you are a research scientist, none have mentioned the date or place in any of their works. If they were right, then the National Gandhi Museum would not have displayed our documents, Tagore's documents would be on display at the museum. These authors make a living out of their books, I am a third generation Gandhian breed and my grandfather and father have died for Gandhian beliefs and I will do my best to rectify this untruth. Lastly, but very true, Wikipedia is available so that truthful information is freely available, not controlled by encyclopedias like Brittanica. Niranjanmehta (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I reviewed a few of the books that have been mentioned above and so far I was very disappointed with the standard Wikipedia is applying in this issue.

In "Selected letters of Rabindranath Tagore" by Krishna Dutta and Andrew Robinson, on page 158, letter number 94, it clearly states that Gandhi did not meet Tagore in his visit to Shantiniketan also the date of meeting is uncertain (as shown by the author). In the footnotes, notation number 2, Gandhi frankly states that Tagore was not present and that the word "Mahatma" was not used at all during this interaction. It also states that when Mr. Andrews submitted his letters for publishing he changed the word "Mr." to "Mahatma," sometime in the 1920s, and there is no copy of that letter available in the book. Whereas, on our website, we have the original documents clearly showing the date and place (which is January 21, 1915, at least two months prior to Tagore's encounter with Gandhi.) There is also pictures of all those who attended this event, www.kamdartree.com. These authors should not be referenced, or you must ask them for the copy of the letter in their book or de-list their citation.

In "The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence" by Anthony Read, David Fisher on page 154, last paragraph, it says that Gandhi first met Tagore when he went to Shantiniketan to drop off the Phoenix boys (please read the entire paragraph), this entire section contradicts what the first authors have written. The first authors say Gandhi never met Tagore until late March 1915, here this author says they met before that and that there was "mutual admiration." No dates are provided or physical records of that meeting. Even in "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi," Gandhi himself has stated that he met Tagore in late March 1915. Again, more emphasis is being given to people who have not thoroughly done their research and you are asking me to go to these people who obviously have their facts mixed up!

In "The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of his Writings, Work and Ideas," by Louis Fischer, only 72 pages of his book has been posted online. I have ordered this book through the library, but in the meantime please remove his citation, because he most probably got his story from the above authors.

In "Saints and Virtues," by John Stratton Hawley, page 189, in paragraph "The Emergence of a Saint," he has clearly copied the work of Anthony Read and David Fisher. He later questions the fact of whether Tagore gave Gandhi the name "Mahatma," because they never met until late March 1915. He even says that is not clear when Tagore called Gandhi "Mahatma," again making my point that in fact it was not Tagore who gave Gandhi the name, but in actuality it was "someone else" (page 189), Nautamlal Bhagvanji Mehta, Jetpur, Gujarat, Kamri Bai School, Jan 21, 1915.

In the last book "Recritiquing Rabindranath Tagore," page 79, second paragraph, how can you consider this a a valid source, when the author is only stating his opinion. Again, there is NO PROOF that Tagore gave Gandhi the name "Mahatma." It seems as though there is an emphasis on copying, without even taking the effort to verify this information or actual proof of documentation (which I have been trying to tell you, but as it is not published by people who copy each other and probably don't even understand, let alone speak, Gandhi's mother tongue, understand his culture and heritage are give priority status.) You are accepting these ignorant people who can't even provide verification, and telling me to go to these people who obviously lack understanding to certify my document. My document is already a historical document on display at the National Gandhi Museum, New Delhi and I am trying to correct this error by making it available to the masses.

For your information, the National Gandhi Museum, is the most prestigious museum on Gandhian heritage, preservation of documents and photographs, and they have the finest Gandhian scholars who know Gandhi's mother tongue, every step of his life, and they have direct access to the people who were involved with Gandhi. Those are the people who have accepted our documents as AUTHENTIC and have again displayed it at the National Gandhi Museum.

I also request you to immediately write a letter to those authors asking them to provide documentation of their statement, please question them about how they came to the conclusion that it was Tagore who gave Gandhi the name "Mahatma," I assure you none will be able to provide any evidence, because they are copycats or lack truthfulness in them. When they cannot provide documentation, please remove their citation from the page and please use my original citation (Nautamlal Bhagvanji Mehta was the first to use the term "Mahatma" towards Gandhi and a link to the website which contains a digital copy of that document). I strongly feel that if Wikimedia wants to maintain its integrity, in regards to Gandhi, there is no better source than the National Gandhi Museum archives and Navjivan Press, as these are the most authentic sources, no other. Niranjanmehta (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for your response. Niranjanmehta (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Niranjan, as I have mentioned before, on wikipedia we rely on secondary sources, and do not get involved in examining primary documents or asking book authors for proof. Therefore you examination of the references I listed is misplaced on wikipedia - as I suggested above, you are free to publish your results in a scholarly journal, after which we will be in a position to cite it. Barring such a publication, wikipedia cannot help establish "truth" and right great wrongs. If you want other opinions on this issue you can post a (brief) query at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I doubt you'll hear anything different. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate your advice. Could you suggest some scholarly journals whom we could approach in California? Also, could you please remove the citation? Because if we get our work published and then change the citation, the previous author may come and re-change it again, making it a never ending process. And if we get our work published in the newspaper, will you accept that as a reliable source? Niranjanmehta (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Niranjan, I removed your query from WP:RSN, since if you post 15 kilobytes of text, no one is going to read it and answer you. Instead, if you wish, you can summarize your query in 2-3 sentences and post it there (something like, "Is X website a reliable source for stating "blah blah blah"). I should inform you though, that you shouldn't really expect a different answer from the one I have given you above.
 * As for publishing your research; I am not sure which academic journal would be relevant, and frankly if you haven't published any academic article before and are not familiar with their standards, simply writing to a journal is not going to be fruitful. Instead your best chance is to get some researcher in the area interested in your claim, who can examine all the historical evidence and publish the conclusions. Abecedare (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks Niranjanmehta (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)