Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi's views on race


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. Cúchullain t/ c 04:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi's views on race

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - POV pushiing article. Fails WP:NOR: Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. The latest in a long (deleted) line of such articles from the creator. The Kinslayer 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another inaccurate statement in a long list of inaccurate statements by Kinslayer who has an agenda in forwarding this deletion. So far the other article under the other name has NOT been deleted. So his claim that this is the latest in a long (deleted) line is just a deliberate attempt at maligning my reputation when in essence Kinslayer is just upset that this article is inconvenient to his sensibilities. Teabing-Leigh 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd provide examples, but they have all been deleted as was stated. I should know, I tagged them with speedy deletes. Just 2 to go now, and your fighting like billy-o. Wonder why your so desperate to have these articles here, while making no effort to actually read up on what would make them acceptable. But do keep talking, I find you amusing, like a monkey on a chain shuffling before an organ grinder. The Kinslayer 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There were no such articles. Infact I know you once claimed something about some historical figure's speech being copyrighted or something. Even that article is alive and well... Teabing-Leigh 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - this would appear to be an attempt to head off the deletion of Gandhi's racism (see above). BTLizard 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete if at all popssible per BTLizardStuartDouglas 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that this is remarkable. A sourced article based on fact is being "Deleted" because some people of a certain point of view don't like it. Poor Kinslayer is trying to imagine a conspiracy. 202.163.67.241 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, Mr. Teabing-Leigh. The Kinslayer 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr Kinslayer whats that- some sort of Orwellian newspeak from 1984? The whole masquerade seems increasingly like a scene out of 1984 and "Ingsoc". 202.163.67.241 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All I see is a certain kind of "contributor" has ganged up on this article, even though the article DOES NOT push a POV ... simply highlights an allegation- sourced and historically verified-  against a figure in human history who is no doubt an icon. Icons need to be investigated. If people think this is NOT sufficiently balanced, what is stopping them from contributing and changing it or its different version i.e. Gandhi's views on race. I agree that the name Gandhi's racism is not balanced and am open to name changes but there is absolutely no need to delete an article which quotes very valid sources like COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI. On other articles, we've seen one sided newspaper editorials being quoted as "sources". My fervent appeal to you is do the right thing. Don't delete it and prove that this Wikipedia thing is some sort of Orwellian experiment akin to 1984. Let the facts come out. (Since Kinslayer notified this post as "disruptive", maybe someone would like to explain what is disruptive about it? )Teabing-Leigh 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some of the language is mildly POV tainted, but that's easily fixed. The biggest problem is that it is original research. It cites text of Ghandi and makes arguements based on this primary source. That's OR, even if it accurately reflects the primary source. I also think that it is in some ways well done, interesting and deserving of encyclopedic treatment. It includes some "Further Reading" articles and sources. Can these be used as sources? Can the contributors remove the carefully referenced primary sources and tie the argument to the scholarly or journalistic secondary sources? Make the Collected Works "Further Reading." If so this article has merit. Kinslayer please watch that "Monkey on chain" and simular insults, especially if you intend to raise WP:CIVIL.Edivorce 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the sense of fairness sir. I will look to make changes accordingly. Teabing-Leigh 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for the same reasons as Gandhi's racism. This does indeed appear to be an attempt to head off the deletion of the content in the above referenced article.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is merely to the change the title from "Gandhi's Racism" to "Gandhi's views on race" which is more balanced. I haven't redirected the original article because it might step on some toes... Teabing-Leigh 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As per suggestions, I have REDIRECTED Gandhi's racism to Gandhi's views on race. Teabing-Leigh 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - problem is that redirecting it doesn't fix the content issue, it just puts it under a different name. It still suffers the same problems.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons as Gandhi's racism, still original research and full of weasel words. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the problem here is that it's basically a synthesis of Gandhi quotes, and that's being generous. To me it still looks like a random assortment of stuff Gandhi said. JuJube 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/Blank - Current article is rubbish and almost entirely WP:OR. I'd say nuke it completely, but there are sources and publications which have written on this very topic; the most obvious is Bullshit!, which covered the topic briefly in between discussing Ghandi's apparent enema fetish.  (Seriously)  If someone were to look for them there might actually be a useful article that could be written here, or at least a subsection of the Ghandi article. Regardless, I see very little useful information that could be salvaged here, other than the sources used.  --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentAmazing isn't it that Guardian newspaper, a best selling book by a historian, an American Congressmen, a Gandhi admiring pacifist and 98 volumes of "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" have been termed "bullshit". I find it a little strange that people here must not only "nuke" what they don't agree with even if it is sourced but also abuse others unnecessarily. Maybe someone ought to nuke such people instead... but I believe in free speech. 202.163.67.241 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Partial merge. The fact of the matter (as has been documented well on one side in this article) is that Ghandi spoke/wrote inconsistently with regard to his views of black African people. At times, his references were complimentary and as brethren in a struggle, and at other times, as this article documents, his references were decidedly not so. Currently, the Ghandi article itself barely touches this.  It mentions that some have seen his use of "kaffir" as a sign of racism, but then explains that it's possible he used the word in its non-racist connotation.  But there is more to the issue (both in arguing for racism and in arguing aginst it) than with which connatation he used the word "kaffir".  Certainly this article has unacceptable problems with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:AWW.  But given the sourcing, if the entirety of the issue were given a fuller treatment than currently found in the Ghandi article, it seems as though this article here has some of the basic raw material that would go in one side of that treatment. Of course, the other side and its correpsonding quotes from Ghandi would need to be present, also.  The Ghandi article is already fairly long, so in fact, that might even be an argument to keep this as a separate article under its current title, though with substantial revision to make it balanced, of course.Mwelch 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MWelch, I agree with most of what you say. However, I wish to point out that the term Kaffir was not even the issue. It was a generic term for black people. It is Gandhi's view that Kaffirs were off inferior genetic stock that is at issue here. 202.163.67.241 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is my point: that main article about Ghandi barely mentions this issue, and to the extent it does mention it, it does treat it as though the word "kaffir" is the only issue. That is why I feel the coverage of this issue in that article is inadequate &mdash; because there is much more to this issue than worrying about just the use of that word.  So I'd hope there would be some way to use what's in this article to treat the issue more substantively, rather than having to just throw the whole thing out.  I agree that the this article as it stands is badly flawed, and I'd agree that throwing it out would be better than letting remain as is.  But I'd like to think there could be a third alternative better than either of those options. Mwelch 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mwelch, as per your excellent suggestions, I have made substantial changes to this article. Please review and advise.... Teabing-Leigh 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. First of all, thank you for being receptive to the criticism about the article.  Under the principle of WP:AGF, it certainly seems to me that you are reading what others have to say and making an honest attempt at improvement.  Even though the creation of the article under this title has been criticized in the above discussion as an attempt to "head off" the other deletion, it's at least worthy of note that you appear to have made that move in direct response to the specific suggestion offered in the other debate that you do exactly that.  So please know that your efforts to bring things into line are appreciated.
 * With regard to the article as it stands however, the single greatest problem is a woeful lack of balance. Right now it's basically a collection of quotations that support the idea that Ghandi was racist.  Even with the excellent sources, simply stringing together a list of such quotes violates WP:NPOV in that it's still pushing a particular point of view.  If you review sections such as "Undue weight", "Fairness of tone" and "Balancing differing views" in WP:NPOV, you may begin to get a better sense of the fact that something can be 100% and indisputably factual, yet still be very much in violation of WP:NPOV.
 * As I noted above, there are also other quotes from Ghandi that in which he is quite complimentary of black Africans. One quote, in particular (and I'm afraid I don't recall off the top of my headwhere the specific reference can be found) that comes to mind is where he said of black Africans something like "You call them noble savages.  Noble they are, but savages they are not."  That's definitely not an exact quote, as I'm operating strictly from memory here, but it is an accurate paraphrase.  And my point is that any article trying to delve into this issue must include that kind of material also.  Just as thoroughly, meticulously and accurately researched as is your current material.  There is just no way around that.  There are some other points of conention in the article as it stands right now, also, but this is the primary one that (in my opinion) would have to be addressed, and addressed well, before it becomes worthwhile to start going into the specifics of the others.  Mwelch 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * comment Dear Mwelch,  Please advise me as to where I can find a citation for the said quote.   My aim and objective is to balance out the understanding of one of the most famous figures in World History and if this is coming out as POV ....  I'd like to change that. 202.163.67.241 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see you found it yourself. Once again, I thank you for another show of good faith.  You do seem to be genuinely trying.  What I'd advise you to do now is take advantage of the fact that there's no time deadline on this.  Don't worry too much about trying to save the article from deletion right now. Wikipedia has had inadequate coverage of this issue for this long; it's not going to be a disaster for it to go another week or two weeks, another month or two months. In anticipation of the fact that this AFD debate may not turn out in your favor, perhaps you might want to copy the page into your own user space and make it a work in progress.  Then you can have the time to continue to work on it to round it into shape.  Find other sources like the one you just sought out that give the view more balance.  And just as importantly, let the reputable and scholarly sources you find (on both sides) provide the analysis.  That's what other editors are referring to when they correctly point out that the article currently has original research problems.  You have excellent sourcing on the quotes themselves, and that is good.  But you are basically the one providing whatever analysis there is of those quotes . . . and that's not really acceptable.  You need to let your reputable, published sources do that for you (again remembering to always remain mindful of the "undue weight" and "fairness of tone" issues discussed in WP:NPOV).  For ideas on how to write more in that style, you might want to look at Wikipedia's featured article list and see if you can find one about an inherently controversial topic.  If it has attained featured article status, then you know other editors have approved of the way the both sides (or the multiple sides) of the issue are presented and balanced. Look to get your article written in a similar style.  Be in no hurry.  Really take the time necessary to get it right.  And then, once you've gotten it that way, you can look to re-introduce the topic to Wikipedia with a much better article.  We'll all still be here.  8-) Mwelch 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear mwelch, as with your other suggestions, I have taken note of these ones as well. Having looked at various featured articles and other content, I am frankly stumped. Many of them are much more POV than this article in my view. Furthermore, nothing in the article is my own analysis. Several books by very respectable publishers have come out on this issue and I have regurgitated their point of view. As the article stands now, I don't see any POV especially after the incorporation of the counterview. About the debate, I didn't know this is a vote... in which we might as well fold this up and stop wasting our time... I mean when there was a consensus on the planet that the earth is flat...  what could anyone have done? Teabing-Leigh 15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, of course it is up to you whether you wish to continue to pursue this or whether you feel you would be wasting your time.  I cannot speak to other editors' opinions but as far as what I see wrong right now it comes down to balance, (I'll admit right now I haven't researched this issue thoroughly, but my instinct is that I find it difficult to believe that just the quick mention and two quotes you've provided in the latter section is all that there is on the "other" side of the argument.  I could be wrong, but I suspect that if we start digging into books in the library, there might be more found to subject), and your analysis/original research.  I don't have time right now to track down FA's to offer for comparision for the overall writing style, but just with regard to a couple of things (besides the possible lack of balance) still in the article that still seem problematic to me, some examples would be:


 * "Whatever the truth, this (the 2003 statue controversy) sparked curiosity amongst many historians and academics to study in depth Gandhi's career in South Africa as a champion of Indian rights." (unsourced statment &mdash; not saying it isn't true, but you need to cite the specific source that backs it up.  What historians and academics were specifically inspired by this controversy to now take up this issue?)


 * "Calls to reinterpret Gandhi and his role in history came from several politicians and academics around the world. Earliest critics of Gandhi emerged from India itself. Renowned Bengali author Nirad Chaudhry, Secular humanist M N Roy and the principal author of Indian constitution Dr. B R Ambedkar vociferously attacked Gandhi and Gandhi's ideology." (unsourced statement that's not entirely clear on how it connects to the article's central topic &mdash; not saying it isn't true, but you need to cite the specific source that backs it up. What exactly did they say?  Was their criticism of his ideology related to their feeling that ideology was racist, or was it something else? And what is your source for their statements?)


 * "While Gandhi has generally be lauded for his role in inventing 'non-violence', his alleged role against Black people in South Africa has been overlooked." (That his role has been "overlooked" seems to be your analysis of the situation.  Original research.)


 * "Another notable view is that while Gandhi might have held these views in South Africa, his views evolved considerably after he reached the age of 60. The argument holds that for Gandhi to have merited the admiration of and to have inspired people like Dr. Martin Luthar King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, he must have made a clear departure from his previous views on the black race." (Again, since you provide no sources of anyone actually making this particular argument, it appears to be your analysis of the reason for difference between the earlier quotes and the later ones. I give you credit for being willing to articulate an "opposing" viewpoint, but your crafting of that explanation still is original research.) Mwelch 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mwelch,

On Point 1: Not my analysis. Have added a source.

On Point 2: Not my analysis. Have added another source.

On Point 3: This was in Gandhi's favor but I have added a source nonetheless.

Please point out further such examples which you may consider problems with the article. 202.163.67.241 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unless this is moved to Black Nationalist views on Gandhi's alleged racism. Baka man  15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Made more changes to incorporate Gandhi's later "evolution" with sources to bring balance. 202.163.67.241 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, rewriting for balance It's not original research, unless anything other than repeating other encyclopedias is "original research" (an attitude which would make Wikipedia a giant waste of space). The article is carefully sourced. Pragmatically, it will just keep coming back, & we can argue about it endlessly & waste more space on it, which is why I was leaning toward "Weak keep/merge." But, looking over it, I have come to feel more strongly that it should be kept. Considering its scholarly support; absent actual libel (which I don't see proven here) against Mr Ghandi, it has as much place here as various other small Ghandi-related pages. Complaining about the bias & then just deleting it solves nothing. Instead, improve it.Ventifax 08:19-08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any evidence that the topic itself is a notable subject, as opposed to merely being connected to a notable person.  Is there any history of substantial articles in reliable sources treating this as a notable topic?  Without such sources there's no way this can avoid being synthesis, POV, or both.  There is a controversies section in the article on Gandhi; anything sourceable from here could be included there, assuming the editors there agree on the value of the material. Mike Christie (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not Prometheus I have a problem with. It's Singh himself. He's a REALLY suspicious guy. NO neutral biographies of him exist, and the only picture of him looks like a bad Photoshop job. That's what I meant by "like a ghost". Virtually no informtion on him exists and he doesn't seen like the type of person a scholar or encyclopedia writer would cite. To add to that, he misleads people. Apparently, he claims that no photo of Gandhi exists in which he (Gandhi) is in the vicinity of a Black person. Regards, Belgium EO 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kill it. See comment below.
 * This looks like some kind of (bad) fourth-grade essay. Not only does it fail WP:NPOV, it has weird things, like badly placed colons and weird bolded conclusions which are NOT AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. I personally believe that, although I can see where these quotes could be seen as rude, Gandhi was describing the sorry state that South Africa's policies had left the Africans in, and that he did not want the Indians to suffer the same fate. Add that to the fact that the sources are dubious (Singh is like a ghost, Trinicenter can't be trusted as far as you can throw it and many webpages that call Gandhi racist contain racism themselves), the nigtmarish placement of random bolds, italics, and ALL CAPS, and forgetting (or perhaps purposely omitting) the reason WHY Gandhi beleved that Indians and Africans should be separate (for the record, it's because Indians, not necesarily including Gandhi himself, and South Africans generally had a mutual animosity. Gandhi was trying to PREVENT CONFLICT, as usual). And above all, this article puts words in Gandhi's mouth. Gandhi never actually used words like "superior stock", "incapable of being human", or even "I don't like South Africans". In fact one of the very quotes cited for this article states that he had nothing against them. All in all, this article is a mess. Delete it. Regards, Belgium EO 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK the article certainly needs clean-up. I started on that a little but just haven't had time over the past several days to continue.  If it stays, I will find some time at some point to resume.  But I'm sure all agree that if the article should be deleted, it's not because of things like colons or where the italics are, so let's put that aside.  Your explanation of Gandhi's thinking is not reason to delete the article.  It's actually good material (assuming it can be cited) to add to the article.
 * The bold-face summaries of ensuing quotes (what I beileve you're referring to in the complaint that the article puts words in Gandhi's mouth) are indeed problematic. Definitely needs to be a fix there, no argument.
 * But I think more to the core is your claim that the sources are not valid. This is the backbone of everything, so if that's true, worrying about the rest of the article is academic.  And, in my opinion, with regard to sources, things basically hinge on the Singh book. (I wouldn't presume to defend something like Trinicenter.)  You don't seem to find the Singh book an acceptable source.  Is there a reason why?  It's published by Prometheus Books, to my (admittedly very limited) knowledge, a reputable publishing company.  Is there something you know about Singh or Prometheus that would indicate that is not so?  There are other acceptable sources that make mention of the issue, like the Guardian article . . . perhaps one might want to argue for Grenier's column in Commentary magazine.  But when you get down to it, if that Singh book cannot be cited, then I'd agree with Mike Christie's concerns that there's really not enough other stuff to pull this all together in a coherent way without violating WP:NOR synthesis.  Is there any light you might be able to share on just why the Singh book would be considered invalid? Mwelch 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we know that gentleman's name? Cuz I gotta be honest wtih you . . . that guy doesn't look black to me.
 * Full disclosure: I am black.  My officemate is Indian.  I don't know any black person who, upon seeing me, would doubt that I am black. I also do not know any black person who, upon seeing my officemate, would think for a moment that he was black.  Like the man in the photo, my officemate has much darker skin than I.  However, like the man in the photo (as I see it), my officemate's features are not black.  Despite the skin tone, it's just not at all difficult to tell that racially my officemate is not black.  The photo is not of the greatest resolution, and the hat prevents a look at hair texture, which is definitely one of the primary visual differentiators between a black person and a dark-skinned Indian (though I'd note that the style of his hat is a fez, which is more consistent with an Indian than with a black South African), but from what I can make out in that picture . . . looks like the same situation to me.
 * Think M. Night Shymalan or Vijay Singh. I don't know what white folks think when they see someone with that appearance, but neither I nor any black person I know ever think for a moment that they look black, despite the fact that their skin tone is quite a bit darker than alot of "obviously" black people (like me).  I'd put the guy in the photo in that same category.  I might not be willing ot bet my house on it, exactly, but I'd wager that that guy is a dark-skinned Indian.
 * All that said though, whether that guy in the photo is black or not is really not a primary concern, I don't think. If he is, and somebody dug up a single photo of Gandhi with a black person in it, that doesn't invalidiate everything Singh says in his broader point.  Of greater concern is what you're saying about how there is just no info available about Singh. On the surface, I can certainly see where that might raise an eyebrow.  When I get a moment, I'll look into that.  Mwelch 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Following up on the concerns over G.B. Singh: Indeed, I don't see anything about him out there.  It would be nice to have some definitive background about him to which to point to help establish him, I'll grant.  But in the lack of any solid negative evidence against him, either, I can't say I feel all that comfortable with the idea of excluding his book for nebulous reasons, like he "doesn't seem like the kind of person" that should be cited.  Given that he is something of an unknown, I'd fall back on the publisher again.  Reputable publishers scrutinize the credibility of the authors they publish.  I do see information out there about Prometheus, and nothing I've seen suggests they are anything but a reputable mid-size publishing house.  Therefore, in absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that they have so scrutinized G.B. Singh, and we have to trust that they have done their job correctly in that arena.  It's just like how we are trusting that The Washington Post or The New York Times has done the fact-checking they're supposed to do when we cite one of their articles in making an assertion in a Wikipedia article.  And if the Singh book can be cited, then this issue can be addressed without it being original research.  Mwelch 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a bit surprised by Belgium since the article has been improved and there are no weird colons or bold citations left within or without the article Teabing-Leigh 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: It is Gandhi speaking of the superiority of IndoAryan and IndoGermanic stock not meTeabing-Leigh 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation of Gandhi's statement about the Indo-Aryan stock:

"A reference to Hunter's 'Indian Empire', chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the INDO-GERMANIC STOCK or, more properly speaking, the ARYAN stock We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race. "[9]


 * Why it should be kept.


 * Given comments by Mwelch, ventifax and other people ("merge"), it is clear to me that the article should be kept and I am open to all suggestions to edit and bring more balance to it..
 * Mwelch thanks for your changes and considerable improvement to the article.
 * On the issue of te source... the book (Gandhi behind the mask of divinity) by G B Singh, who is a retired colonel of the US army and who has passionately forwarded this cause, is a carefuly researched book that forwards a very plausible view. Prometheus Books is definitely a respectable publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/ ...  with many of their books as respectable textbooks in several US universities http://www.prometheusbooks.com/cat.html.
 * There are other books like "Gandhi we all know" which tracks the evolution of Gandhi and is generally apologetic of his racism.   Then there is Richard Grenier's famous "The Gandhi nobody knows"... but I am not familiar with the man's background.  As for Ungandhian Gandhi it traces Gandhi's myth as a saint-politician, kind of on the lines of Orwell's famous criticism of Gandhi.
 * Mwelch asked for Pakistani sources... In Pakistan, despite Gandhi's status as father of Pakistan's rival nation,   Gandhi is well respected not the least because Jinnah himself had paid glowing tributes to Gandhi on his death describing his death as a loss for humanity.
 * My own exposure to Gandhi's views on race and caste etc came through Gandhi's collected works and through a well researched article on the Indian website Sulekha... mostly during my undergraduate studies in the US. However.. the one Pakistani source which alludes to Gandhi's racism is Kamran Shahid's book Gandhi and Partition of India..
 * All in all, enough people have raised the issue of Gandhi's racism before me for this to merit WP:ORwhich it is not.
 * The article does not forward any POV but brings to attention a historical fact. It would be a point of view if the discussion did not mention that Gandhi's admirers seem to hold that Gandhi later evolved his point of view on race.   That is a legitimate counterpoint which has been added to the article.

Therefore I plead that the article should be improved and NOT deleted.

Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ADDED references by Dr. B R Ambedkar, a very respectable Indian politician, intellectual and the revered leader of all Untouchables. He also was the principal author of Indian constitution and India's foremost champion of the cause of abolition of untouchability. Teabing-Leigh 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Mr. Teabing, all you've proven is that you can write really long pleas not to delete stuff. I honestly don't see how Gandhi pointing out that he is of Indo-Germanic descent is cause to believe that he was racist. If that's logic enough to keep this article, then you should make an article yelling at me because I am of Swedish descent (I'm kidding of course). Also I don't see why you think Gandhi is describing ALL Africans here, when he could just as easily have been talking about the squalid conditions of SOME of them. In one of the very quotes you cite, he flat-out states: "we entertain no ill feelings toward them". He then goes on to say that there is little common ground between Indians and South Africans. This supports my assumption that he was trying to prevent conflict. And you're still putting words into his mouth. You still have that awfully-placed bolded passage that states he thought Africans were subhuman. He NEVER said that. He never said anything to suggest that Africans were anything BUT human. You have the right to dislike Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar has the right to believe that he did not do enough for Dalits. If you have to express your opinions by writing things like this, keep 'em off the wiki. My vote is still delete. Belgium EO 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. How the hell is this POV-pushing if it has 30 references?  The allegation made of Gandhi is a well-rehearsed one, and a very prominent one in the assessment of Gandhi's life, as demonstrated by the VAST number of sources on the subject.  Whereas "Gandhi's racism" clearly promotes the POV that Gandhi was racist, "Gandhi's views on race" is no more a POV-pushing article than Hitler's sexuality or George Washington and slavery.  Heck, what about the umpteen "Criticism of X" or "X controversies" articles, which must (by their very nature) deal solely with negative material.  This, on the other hand, allows a balanced treatment of an important historical subject, that has been the subject of a mountain of published academic research already. Bastin 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It has 30 references because people are trying to overcompensate for the fact that this article is a piece of garbage hinging on dubious sources and quotes that can be interpreted several ways. Belgium EO 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll accept that some of the 30 references are possibly dubious (for example, Gandhi's own statements cannot be quoted as evidence by themselves unless there is no doubt whatsoever as to what they mean). However, there are still over a dozen references without Gandhi's own work.  This is reflected by the massive literature on the subject of Gandhi's views on race.  Google 'Gandhi, racism', and one is not returned a list of sites praising his anti-racism work, but rather the contrary: 926,000 results, of which the first NINE all criticise Gandhi for being racist.  On the subject, books, newspaper articles, and academic journals abound.
 * So, clearly, there is a debate to be had, that is of historical and biographical interest. The refusal of the pro-deletionists to allow this debate to be aired reflects horrendous bad faith and a real failure to understand how to address these issues.  An article may be deleted for bias ONLY if it is inherently biased (e.g. "Gandhi's racism").  In this case (whilst some of the language and approach may be inappropriate), it's not inherently so, because it can quite easily incorporate evidence of his anti-racist positions.  If, that is, you lot can be arsed to do it, rather than defend hero-worshipping of a man that academics have no problem with questioning. Bastin 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete From the looks of it the Controversies section on the Gandhi main page covers these issues well enough and could be expanded if the authors of this page wish. At this point there doesn't appear to be enough quality content to justify a fork. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can be arsed to do it? Is that an insult? I don't see how nine out of 926,000 google hits are grounds for keeping an article. And I'm not hero-worshipping him, I can understand where people are coming from here, but this topic merits not its own article, but something in Gandhi's article titled "controversy over opinions on South Africans" or the like. This article is getting better, but it just seems that people are stopping at nothing to prove that Gandhi was something he probably wasn't. Belgium EO 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.