Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits by User:Stumink

User:Stumink has made several edits to the page, I have reverted few of his edits like this which he had removed saying that its untrue, here I removed few of the contents added by him like Gandhi's quotes because At first Gandhi shared racial notions prevalent in the 1890s explains it. I am sure a lot has been debated about this The user adds it here and removes the same thing from here. Just wanted to let the editors on the page know about it. I have also informed Stumink to discuss this on the talk page. Thanks--sarvajna (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There are several other edits like [1].--sarvajna (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I just thought there ought to be more discriptive wording. This generated conflict between these communities part should be removed because it is presented as fact when it is not a fact and it seems like it is there just to blame the british for communities own prejudices. The statement is probably is true though but is not factual as it is currently presented and not needed i think. It seems to be there in an attempt for to excuse Ghandi's own views at the time. That whole first part of the section just seemed that way tbh. Also why add imperialism instead of colonialsim. This word is not more correct. Ghandi is known for helping gain India's independence which is against colonialsim. Surely that word is better. Also imperialism here presented as a fact but that term is always a judgment call. Isn't colonialsim more apropriate and correct. Shouldn't there be a mention of his use of the word kafir because it is a commonly refered to word when people critisize or discuss his racist views in South Africa. Stumink (talk)

The first part of your objection is verifiable, Wikipedia:Verifiability states Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, coming to the your second point imperialism is policy of extending the rule of an empire over foreign countries while colonialism is a policy of extending the colonies or a policy by which the nation advocates its control over other nation. I feel that imperialism is better. If someone else thinks the other way lets revert it. a small advice consider archiving your talk page --sarvajna (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think 'imperialism' may actually be the better choice of word here. If the sentence were referring to either India or South Africa (rather than both), then British rule would have been the better choice. But, since the sentence refers to both countries, imperialism, as a reflection of the process of economic and political domination, is the more accurate word. BTW, how the heck did a section titled "Reactions to blacks" creep into the article? --regentspark (comment) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
no idea RP, this section was present since long, I guess it was included as a part of Gandhi's efforts in South Africa.--sarvajna (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Not that long. It was added in this January 2012 edit. The old text was much better. Looks like this article needs some work again. --regentspark (comment) 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think that sentence should be removed even if it is true or sourced. I just think it is uneeded and kind of there as an excuse for his views. I did not realize before that Imperialism was referring to South Africa as well, so it may be a better word choice. Imperialism is overused and a so often wrongly used term in my opinion though. Thanks for the reply Stumink (talk)

Name

Why isn't this article titled 'Mahatma Gandhi' in accordance to WP:COMMONNAME? Even the prelude of the article clearly state that he is 'commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi'.--Wester (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a failed move request somewhere in the archives. Take a look at that. --regentspark (comment) 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012

Mohandas karamchand Gandhi's Spiritual Sexuality !!

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html#access_token=AAADWQ6323IoBAHA4pNVq1LDZBLA2KQ05f49Lq72jIyEAY4E3p7qKzGz0LJhWzZAfdZBHZAThrsxLPHiqTESo1ZCrZBFFzKcUeC7pRMXiYZCoOZCcTZB0SdYVZA&expires_in=3602 Kazuban (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012

External link - www.shradhanjali.com Vimalpopat (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks more like a memorial site with little relevance to the subject matter, so Not done:. Please reactivate the request if my assessment was wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"See also" material - where to insert?

Gandhi as a Political Strategist (a WP article about a book by Gene Sharp) is a new WP article that I would have linked to in a "See also" section, if such a section existed in this article. Such an article may be of interest to readers of this Gandhi article for a variety of reasons, such as: 1) Coretta Scott King wrote the intro for the book, 2) Gene Sharp, the author, is widely regarded as perhaps the world's leading scholar on nonviolent struggle, and 3) Sharp, the author, has twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But where in this Gandhi article would a link to the book article best be inserted? I am reluctant to create a "See also" section just for this purpose.

Many thanks in advance -- Presearch (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT suggests to avoid "See also" sections. It suggests that interwiki links should be added in the article itself if appropriate. Hence feel free to add any suitable line regarding the book or the contents of the book or whatever you find appropriate. Then you can add the wikilink. The book is mentioned in References section, where i have now added the wikilink. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

hit count on his birthday a record?

Mahatma Gandhi is perhaps the most popular personality of this age, given that hit count on his birthday, 2nd October, touched more than 1,48,400 - perhaps the most ever. Hopefully the Wiki page presentation on Mahatma Gandhi was great for the occasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.103 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

name in Gujarati language "મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી" known as "મહાત્મા ગાંધી" rk (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done. The consensus is not to use any Indian scripts in these articles. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling correction needed

Under the heading "Gandhi and the Africans", "interest" is misspelled as "intertest". Nkdfun (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tito Dutta ✉ 02:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Celibacy

In this section isn't important to mention how old the girls Ghandi experimented with are, becuase it is quite relevant and important whether they were in there teens or thirties. 88.104.208.74 (talk)

Influence of Raichandbhai

This is left out in main page :- Gandhiji regarded Shrimadji as his friend, philosopher and guide. He acknowledges the debt he owes to Shrimadji in his recollections of his friendship with Shrimadji. From 1891 to 1901 A.D. for a period of ten years they were best friends.

Gandhiji says that most of his lessons for self-improvement and on truth and non-violence, he has learnt from Shri Raichandbhai. Raichandbhai is one of the three personalities that have much impressed his mind, the other two being the writings of Tolstoy and Ruskin's `Unto this last'. Bschandrasgr (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschandrasgr (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2012

gandhiji and a coffee drinker 202.88.150.6 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Torreslfchero (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. RudolfRed (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Untouchables

The position of Gandhiji on untouchability is highly debatable. The section Untouchables cites Guha [82] stating that "Ideologues have carried these old rivalries into the present, with the demonization of Gandhi now common among politicians who presume to speak in Ambedkar’s name.". These are personal views of Mr. Guha without any basis or historic information. I believe it would be better to cite Gandhiji's thoughts on untouchability ( http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap20.htm) and let the readers decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityadhoke (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead external link

The link to

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Light_Has_Gone_Out

is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.189.148 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that. I have removed it from references. Will try to add a new citation there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see, a citation is there already! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There's also an inline link to it (search for "Jawaharlal Nehru's address to Gandhi") :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.189.148 (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Removed that too! You can quickly find and tag all dead links of an article using this tool, (go there type article title and press enter) though you can edit this account to edit this article, a 4 day old registered account and 10 edits! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Segment

If Gandhi fought the Zulus under the British then why was he proclaimed a hero by the Africans?174.89.102.243 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

After the black majority came to power in South Africa, Gandhi was proclaimed a national hero with numerous monuments. also Robert A. Huttenback (1971). Gandhi in South Africa: British imperialism and the Indian question, 1860-1914. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-0586-0. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because Gandhi called for freedom, not slavery and colonialism unlike barbarian colonizers and enslavers.202.138.106.1 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

May I ask for a citation or reference as to when and how Ghandi called for freedom? 46.12.253.159 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
read the article -- or look at Anthony Parel Gandhi, Freedom, and Self-Rule (2000) online which looks at Gandhi's four meanings of freedom = 1) India's national independence, 2) political freedom of the individual, 3) freedom from poverty, 4) the capacity for personal self-rule. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012

Mahatma Gandhi is not officially "father of the nation". Kindly remove this term from the page. Please refer to the latest news available on Internet about this. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/gandhi-not-formally-conferred-father-of-the-nation-title-govt-242294 108.173.134.102 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. The article already reads "He is known in India as the Father of the Nation". The news you cite just clarifies that he isn't confered with this title officially. It does not however change the fact that people still know him as the Father of the Nation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
right. the text says nothing about "official." Wiki follows the leading Biographers and scholars--eg Wolpert ("he was called the Father of India"); Surendra Bhana, Uma Dhupelia-Mesthrie ("Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of India"); Somervill ("is considered the father of India."); West ("Ultimately Gandhi's actions helped create the unification of Indians, earning Gandhi the name 'modern father of India'"); Gupta's book = MAHATMA GANDHI: The Father of the Nation etc etc [https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=gandhi+%22father+of+india%22&num=10 see this link for cites). Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda around death of Mahatma Gandhi

How does a research article "Khan, Yasmin (January 2011). "Performing Peace: Gandhi's assassination as a critical moment in the consolidation of the Nehruvian state" (abstract). Modern Asian Studies 45 (1): 57–80. doi:10.1017/S0026749X10000223. Retrieved 21 January 2012" is cited here as reliable source. There is no such controversy/propaganda before 2011. A case of poor standards enforced just to further some propaganda on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.165 (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is in a peer reviewed journal so it is a reliable source. However, it doesn't seem that the idea is mainstream enough for an entire paragraph and we don't have a natural place for the impact of his assassination, so I've removed it for now. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
it's quite an important article by a leading specialist (Khan by the way was born in London, has a PhD from Oxford and is a professor at London University). The point is that the assassination & Gandhi's martyrdom became a powerful tool by Nehru & Patel to strengthen the new government. Other historians have mentioned this and Khan demonstrates it very thoroughly. The criticism (above) by 111.91.75.165 is incoherent --for some strange reason he calls scholarship "propaganda"-- and in violation of NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The source is reliable but, if it is to be included, then it should be rephrased so that it is not the viewpoint of one scholar. Are there other references that support her views?--regentspark (comment) 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
good point. I added Ramachandra Guha, India after Gandhi (2007) pp 37-40 and Sarvepalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru (1979) pp 16-17, who make the same basic point more briefly. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The other two sources mentioned above do not say anything about propaganda.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

  • In the section "Assassination" it read...."who held Gandhi responsible for weakening India by insisting upon a payment to Pakistan." Please add a footnote or something that speaks more about the payment. Like why it was made, what exactly was the payment, etc.
Rjensen, why is it changed to "guilty of favouring Pakistan"? Does the ref say such and not mention any payments? The ref to this line is "Gandhi 1990, p. 472". What exactly is this Gandhi 1990? I am unable to understand and locate any such ref below. Someone has meddled with these refs i guess. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
no payments were involved. Godse had tried several times over the years to kill Gandhi. David Hardiman (2003). Gandhi in His Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of His Ideas. Columbia U.P. pp. 174–76.
the cite Gandhi 1990 is a mess -- I think it means Gandhi, An Autobiography (1990) edited by Mahadev Desai Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In the section "Assassination" it read...."While India mourned and communal violence escalated". What communal violence? Were all communities fighting amongst each others?
  • In the section "Ashes" it read...."Another urn is at the palace of the Aga Khan in Pune (where he had been imprisoned from 1942 to 1944)." This bracketed line is a borderline WP:Original Research implying that his imprisonment had something to do with the urn. In case we are giving that impresion, it would be better to point out that his wife's and secretary's memorials are in this palace. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"communal violence" = large scale rioting/killing between different religious communities. Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay! So Jains were killing Jews. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In the section "Muslims" it read.... "By 1924 that Muslim support had largely evaporated." Why it happened should be stated.
the "why" doesn't relate to Gandhi --it's part of another story. see Khilafat Movement Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • In the section "Jews" it read.... "In 1931, he suggested that.. " and then the paragraph ends saying "By the 1930s all major political groups in India opposed a Jewish state in Palestine." Is there some chronological error here? Should it be "By the end of 1930s" or "mid of 1930s"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
By 1931 Gandhi and Congress opposed the Zionists. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


From this source [from FAQ section]

Let us not ignore selectively. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right unless there are standards in Wikipedia about hiding the part in bold above.

About communal violence, there are no random communal violence, and this atleast needs to be mentioned with clarity and linked. There is no general "large scale rioting/killing between different religious communities" which occurred in India at that time as the editor is saying. It was specific and with context.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

upwards of a million people were killed in communal riots involving Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. All the RS cover that famous story. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not a famous story, it is a tragic history. Instead of beating around the bush mention "communal riots involving Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs". One can not involve unrelated parties who do not riot by generalizing this.
Also note that part about 75 crore payments.111.91.95.40 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This article could be a bit hagiographic, maybe some criticisms from this article on his attitude to women should be included. [2] PatGallacher (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Aimee Semple McPherson's invitation to visit with Gandhi in 1935

Added a brief portion on Aimee Semple McPherson's 1935 visit with Gandhi(Followers and international influence). Biographer Daniel Mark Epstein notes Gandhi invited her to see him; and biographer Matthew Avery Sutton, writes about the visit as well-- the two populist leaders, McPherson and Gandhi, from opposite sides of the globe discussed Gandhi vision of economic justice for India and also her Angelus Temple's social activism in the United States. Known for her "cover to cover fundamentalism," yet avant garde approach in many areas, McPherson does not easily compartmentalize him as a Hindu, but as something more enigmatic. Seemed appropriate chronologically to place this after Albert Einsteins 1931 correspondence and before the 1936 Lanza del Vasto visit. According to Epstein, An eight page account in a book she later publishes, (McPherson, Aimee Semple, Give me my Own God, H. C. Kinsey & Company, Inc., 1936) records his responses to her questions fully and precisely. SteamWiki (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not important enough to include--of course there were hundreds of visitors. Sutton indicates that McPherson learned very little and did not understand Gandhi very well. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-evaluation / re-edit suggestions, reasons given

From what I gather, the Pope did not grant Gandhi an audience (http://www.academia.edu/1937868/GANDHI_VISITS_THE_VATICAN_an_inquiry_into_the_Popes_inability_to_grant_him_an_audience). Do we have other Protestant Christian leaders of McPherson's stature, especially a fundamentalist , who actually met with Gandhi in person, and came away with such respect for him?

Perhaps it could be re-evaluated Aimee Semple McPherson's importance of her visit, especially in regards to the international influence list of persons already mentioned in the article?

Where in that section there is included "Brazilian anarchist and feminist Maria Lacerda de Moura wrote about Gandhi in her work on pacifism, " It might be acceptable to reduce the earlier longer piece:

"In 1935, while visiting Bombay on a world tour to evaluate the social, religious and economic climates of many countries, popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson received a telegram from Mahatma Gandhi inviting her to visit him at his headquarters in Wardha. Gandhi explains about India's need for home rule and his vision of economic justice for India. He gives her a white sari made of the very same cloth he created from his simple wooden spinning wheel. (Daniel Mark Epstein, Sister Aimee: The Life of Aimee Semple McPherson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993),Epstein p393-394) McPherson was deeply impressed with Gandhi and admired the simple lifestyle of him and his followers. She thought he might secretly lean towards Christianity; his dedication possibly coming from catching "a glimpse of the cleansing, lifting, strengthening power of the Nazarene." (Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), page 233)"

to instead state this about McPherson:

"Popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson visited Gandhi in 1935. He gives her He gives her a white sari made of the very same cloth he created from his wooden spinning wheel. Deeply impressed with Gandhi's dedication and simple lifestyle of him and his followers; she included a detailed 8 page account of the conversation in one of her books, "Give Me My Own God." [1] [2]"

If even less detail is desired then perhaps:

"Popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson visited Gandhi in 1935, afterwards receiving a white sari as a gift from him. <add the refs>"

Note that McPherson, unlike Maria Lacerda de Moura, and several others in the international influence section, actually visited Gandhi, and received a precious gift from him, the beautiful white sari made from cloth he made from his own simple wooden spinning wheel.

If we need to establish the period importance of Aimee Semple McPherson, especially in relation to others on the list of those who referred to Gandhi, the following information may help may help:

Her serious biographers, (most notably Matthew Avery Sutton, , Daniel Mark Epstein and Edith L Blumhofer) are good sources of information.

(in the context of Sutton's biography)

-- Icon of early twentieth-century American religion and culture. (--Jon Butler, author of Becoming America: The Revolution before 1776)

--Embraced her role as a religious celebrity in an increasingly mass media-oriented age and steadfastly refused to be constrained by traditional notions of gender or sexuality. Americans of the 1920s and 1930s were fascinated by her, (Susan Ware, editor of Notable American Women: Completing the Twentieth Century)

--Her Foursquare Gospel helped catalyze a fundamental cultural realignment that brought Pentecostals and Evangelicals into the American mainstream, transforming American politics in ways that continue to write today's headlines.(--Bryce Christensen (Booklist 20070401)

--Substantive legacy--a politically powerful religious commitment shared by millions of Americans--rather than the legend of the self-proclaimed salvation-bearing empire-builder. (Peter Skinner (ForeWord 20070701)

--Important but enigmatic figure in American religious history. (Rev. Robert Cornwall (Progressive Christian 20070901)

(in the context of Epstein's biography)

--one of the best-known North American religious figures and media celebrities between the world wars. - Gary P. Gillum, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Ut.

(Other)

--During her time she was every bit as famous as any other person one could care to mention

--Atheist Charles Lee Smith indicated he has met and debated leading fundamentalists and Aimee Semple McPherson "is the greatest defender today (then 1934) of the Bible and Christianity."

--had profound influence on what women could accomplish especially in the area of religion and social activism. --Her church commissaries and soup kitchens fed and clothed as many as 1.5 million people, many during the US depression, while other agencies stalled in red tape or were otherwise ineffectual.

--She evolved her own denomination which today has 7-8,000,000 million members, with almost 60,000 churches in 144 countries. In 2006, membership in the United States was 353,995 in 1,875 churches.

--when she returned to Los Angeles, in 1926, from Douglas Arizona, after her kidnapping incident, 50,000 people showed up to greet her, more than for almost any other person before or since.

--At her funeral in 1944, forty five thousand people waited in long lines, some until 2 am, to file past the evangelist , where her body lay in state at the Angelus Temple. A Foursquare leader noted that to watch the long line pass reverently by her casket, and see tears shed by all types of people, regardless of class and color, helped give understanding to the far reaching influence of her life and ministry.

Thanks SteamWiki (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2013

Lizzieskye (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC) his favorite number was 8.4

Not done:···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 20:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

"Joseph Chamberlin" should be "Joseph Chamberlain" Herzig4 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! --regentspark (comment) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Celibacy

Change

In the 1940s, in his mid-seventies, he brought his grandniece Manubehn to sleep naked in his bed as part of a spiritual experiment in which Gandhi could test himself as a "brahmachari." Several other young women and girls also sometimes shared his bed as part of his experiments.[181] Gandhi discussed his experiment with friends and relations; most disagreed and the experiment ceased in 1947.[182]

To

In the 1940s, in his mid-seventies, Gandhi is rumours to have brought his grandniece Manubehn to sleep naked in his bed as part of a spiritual experiment in which Gandhi could test himself as a "brahmachari." Several other young women and girls also have been rumoured to sometimes have shared his bed as part of his experiments.[181] Gandhi allegedly discussed his experiment with friends and relations; most of whom disagreed and the experiment ceased in 1947.[182]. However, no substatial evidence has been found to support these rumours.

Kartgandhi (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the sources say that these are allegations and rumors rather than fact? --regentspark (comment) 13:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there is a new professional article, just published, that offers a novel interpretation of these spiritual experiments as actually being consistent with Gandhi's work to empower Indian women. And it appears in a prominent journal, Journal of the American Academy of Religion: Veena R. Howard (2013). "Rethinking Gandhi's celibacy: Ascetic power and women's empowerment". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 81 (1). Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Religion: 130–161. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfs103. ISSN 1477-4585. The abstract reads:
Scholars question Mohandas Gandhi's highly idiosyncratic practice of brahmacarya (celibacy) and his inclusion of women in his tradition-breaking "experiments." However, there exists no study that examines his methods as they relate particularly to Indian women's concerns. For Gandhi, brahmacarya was not merely sexual restraint, but comprehensive sense-control, which he believed was the source of moral power essential to addressing sensitive gender issues and serving the cause of women's emancipation. This article examines Gandhi's self-representation and public performance on its own terms, charting the evolution of his efforts to abolish customs oppressive to women, including child-marriage, subjugation to husbands, widowhood stigmas, gender inequality, and purdah (sex segregation). It analyzes Gandhi's creative use of celibacy and his authority as a mahatma to reinterpret religious norms and confront unjust social and religious conventions relegating women to lower status. Through his efforts he exhorted women to embrace their feminine power, a power actually authorized by their own religious traditions.
Given its source, I submit that this article's point of view should be briefly mentioned in the Celibacy section. --Presearch (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kasturba

This article makes no mention of the fact Ghandi refused to have doctors administer life saving penicillin to his wife Kasturba, who died shortly after this. The wikipedia article on her does mention this quite clearly. Note that Ghandi himself did take life saving medicine and underwent life saving surgery, even though he didn't "believe" in modern medicine. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had appendicitis he allowed British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of an appendectomy.)

There's no mention of his obsession with enemas, his apathy towards the black people in South Africa (when he was fighting for Indians to be recognized, he also volunteered Indians and got a War medal for helping the British, violent suppression of South African blacks), no mention of any quotes which mention he's okay with innocent blood being spoiled for his causes.

Why is there only passing mention of the Independence Massacres, in which more than 1 million Indians died in sectarian violence between Muslims and Hindus? And why is there no mention of Ghandi's response?

No mention of him writing letters to directly to Hitler, with content that would make a five year old seem delusional?

When Poland was attacked by the Nazis, Ghandi supported the Polish military resistance. Yet paradoxically he felt the Jews should either kill themselves or let the Nazis do this for them.

There should also be a mention that the movie "Ghandi" was in large part funded by the Indian government and the writing and filming process was checked at every stage by Indian officials, as a result of this the movie is mostly "propaganda" or a commercial advertisement for India, a white washing of Ghandi and India during the period he was active in Indian politics. For some odd reason there also is no mention of the historical accuracy of the movie in the movie's own Wikipedia article.

All in all this Wikipedia article is of very poor quality, even by Wikipedia's standards. There's a lot more nasty and delusional things Ghandi did and say that isn't mentioned in the article. A lot of them are mentioned in these articles:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-gandhi-nobody-knows/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/3/7/the-truth-about-gandhi-pbtbhe-movie/ http://www.gandhism.net/hisownwords.php 84.26.118.176 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

like many Gandhi critics, this one is obsessed with enemas. He should be writing more about them. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"pedophile" title does not match text of the section.

"Pedophile" refers to an interest in prepubescent children. The section in question refers to incest with a 17-year old (not prepubescent unless this young lady was highly abnormal). My interest is in accuracy. Either evidence to support an interest in prepubescent children should be included or the word "pedophile" should be changed. I don't care which occurs as long as it is sourced and accurate. Wickedjacob (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section. The text is not well supported by the reference and building an entire section from a single book makes no sense. If there are individual pieces that fit elsewhere, that's fine I suppose. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

Hi, I want you to change the following line "Gandhi was born and raised in a Hindu Bania community" link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi" He did'nt belogns to Banhia or Agarwal community. Agarwal's have 19.5 Gotra & he was none of them. Ref to a note "Vysyas are pride to say that Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi was also belongs to Vysya " & link "http://aryavysyas.srisms.com/ourhistory.html " it is confirmed that he belongs to Arya Vysyas community. Arya means Aryans & some how all indians are Aryans. Agarwal is one the community of Arya like Vysyas, not the part of Agarwal community. M.K.Gandhi was not a bania or agarwal

Kindly make required changes

Guptaseth (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I cannot make sense of most of what you are saying, but I am comfortable removing "Bania" from the lead section since it is unreferenced and is not mentioned anywhere else on the article. I have no prejudice against an editor in good standing re-inserting the name if and only if it can be properly referenced. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Not done: Mahatma Gandhi was born in a Modh Vania community, which is a part of Bania community spelled Vania in Gujarati. (See early life section) - please note that Gandhi surname itself means a trader, shop-keeper in Gujarati, which is an occupational surname. I have reverted the edit- also added Britanica.com reference. Further, refrences can also be found - (1) [3] (2) [4] if someone wants to add more refs. --Jethwarp (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove or Separate Tewari Democracy Views from Swaraj, Self-Rule Section?

This part of the last paragraph from Swaraj, Self-Rule appears out of place: Tewari argues that Gandhi saw democracy as more than a system of government; it meant promoting both individuality and the self-discipline of the community. Democracy was a moral system that distributed power and assisted the development of every social class, especially the lowest. It meant settling disputes in a nonviolent manner; it required freedom of thought and expression. For Gandhi, democracy was a way of life.

Since one could easily argue that self-rule conflicts with democracy (ex. a majority voting to inflict tyranny on a smaller minority), I'm not sure the entire quoted section even really makes much sense, but this is a different topic. I would suggest either removing this quoted portion entirely, moving it to another section or even to it's own sub-section (Tewari's Opinion). In addition to the conflict in meaning, it is defining the term democracy and asserting a view (possibly) not directly attributable to Ghandhi. Garoad (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved. There is overwhelming support for a move. Therefore the only question is to what new name. I feel that "Mahatma Gandhi" has the greatest support, with "Gandhi" as the next best.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

----

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi → Mahatma Gandhi – Although this has been chewed over at some length before, oddly enough it has never been the subject of a formal move request. With such a major figure the common name trumps other considerations. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note previous discussions of Mahatma vs. Mohandas and a collection of Page names of Gandhi articles in other encyclopedias. —  AjaxSmack  21:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Pakistani usage of "Mahatma," I notice 9580 Google hits for 'Mahatma Gandhi' at Dawn (newspaper), a newspaper founded by Jinnah, revered as the founder of Pakistan. And only 464 for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" Clearly even official Pakistan is not averse to the word "Mahatma" - and even finds "Mahatma Gandhi" a preferred usage to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" by a margin of 9580/464 or about 21:1, very similar to the ratio of 25:1 observed in Worldcat titles (see comments above). Wow. This ostensible impediment to "Mahatma" certainly seems to dissolve upon closer inspection. -- Presearch (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting thought, but the lack of specificity seems a problem. If we followed this logic, we'd seemingly end up with pages called simply "Nixon" (which now redirects to Richard Nixon), "Reagan" (which now redirects to Ronald Reagan), etc. I don't think that would be an improvement. --Presearch (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a thought that would occur if "Great Soul" was not in conflict with WP:HONORIFIC, which is presumably why no real encyclopedia uses it and why Hindi wikipedia doesn't use it. This kind of titling could only be used for mega-notables, such as Napoléon Bonaparte is at Napoleon. Admittedly Rajiv and Indira and more notable than the other six Napoléons. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:Honorific allows for "Mahatma"; it says "There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa." Rjensen (talk) (talk | contribs) 08:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that's exactly the problem. Mohandas Gandhi gets 118,000x results vs 3,890,000 - apart from 100% of the encyclopedias. It's 32-1 but we can't claim that "the name is rarely found without it", if we do this we are basically disregarding WP:HONORIFIC for WP:COMMONNAME, which is okay as long as we admit it.
FWIW Britannica has Blessed Mother Teresa (Roman Catholic nun) - wildly honorific - but her Albanian name Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu is unpronounceable/unrecognisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Simply Gandhi: I already commented in support above, but I think simply using "Gandhi" would be better. If you refer to Gandhi, everyone knows who you're talking about. No further disambiguation is necessary. It is probably the most common name, and avoiding the unnecessary honorific is a good idea. (It's already a redirect.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Same thing if you say "Obama", but that doesn't mean we title his article that way. The man had two given names, not just a surname. If we're not going to use the honorific, then we certainly shouldn't omit the man's given name! Powers T 01:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The point of view expressed by Powers resonates with me as well, so I have just struck through both of my prior position declarations and I now plan to just withdraw from this conversation to let other people sort it out. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and a comment - Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhiji (or Gandhi) are the most common names of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi --sarvajna (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Mahatma" is an honorific and should be dropped unless "use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable", per WP:HONORIFIC. Clinton's article isn't titled "President Clinton", is it? Every other encyclopedia includes "Mohandas" as part of the name and "other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register", per WP:UCN. My first choice is Mohandas K. Gandhi. This is how he is given as author of his autobiography, so I assume it is what he wanted to be called. to be called. Update: I support just plain Gandhi as well, as several other editors have now suggested. The problem with including "Mahatma" in the article title is that this confuses the reader into thinking this was part of the subject's name, or at least some sort of nickname. Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that President is a honorific, also Bill Clinton's article is not named William Clinton.-sarvajna (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You know that "Mahatma" is a title, whereas Mohandas is the subject's given name? The "Bill Clinton" analogy has been used repeatedly in this discussion, and it suggests that editors do not have a complete understanding the issues involved. Kauffner (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Let us also consider a statement already discussed which is ignored here "There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa.". Let us be aware if this too.111.91.95.82 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support — Our article on Bill Clinton isn't entitled "William Jefferson Clinton", it's just Bill Clinton. We do not refer to Prince as "Prince Rogers Nelson" in the title; we call him Prince (followed by the word "musician" in parenthesis, so as to distinguish his name from its other definitions). Therefore, it makes sense that the title for this article should also be the name most commonly used to identify the subject: Mahatma Gandhi. That said, I oppose simply renaming the article "Gandhi". Doing so would brush aside other significant figures in Indian history who share the same surname, such as Indira Gandhi or her son Rajiv. Having "Gandhi" remain a redirect to "Mahatma Gandhi" with a note at the top of the article leading to the surname's disambiguation page is what I'm most comfortable with. Kurtis (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support The article is about Mahatma Gandhi. Who is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi anyways? The page should not even have a link from "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".111.91.75.62 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you are serious, "Mahatma" is a title or honorific, not his name. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the name given to him by his parents. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Let us not get into this who is serious and who is not if no one mentions how many times such arguments are made to change title of page Mother Teresa article. Without statistics it means nothing. One can not be unaware of this and then talk about seriousness. WP:COMMONSENSE.111.91.75.16 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons stated above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Kurtis. -- Khazar2 (talk)
  • Oppose; titling an article with the name (not title) by which the person was best known is the way we title articles. Only if the name is unrecognizable (or ambiguous) without a title do we add the title. Mohandas Gandhi would be fine. Powers T 01:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This is already explained earlier. Most of the world knows him as Mahatma Gandhi. Other factors for 'Gandhi' already considered.111.91.75.72 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC. I agree with powers above. Mahatma is not a good idea because it is both an honorific as well as unnecessary for disambiguation (Gandhi already redirects here and is the commonname). Gandhi would be the simple and appropriate title. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional note: A quick search of JSTOR shows that 'Mahatma' is rarely, if ever, used by scholarly journals where he is almost always referred to as Gandhi with the assumption that no reader will ask "Which Gandhi?". cf. this article titled "Gandhi and Lincoln" by Rajmohan Gandhi. To the extent that we should be looking at scholarly work, Mahatma Gandhi is a poor choice of title. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
"There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa.". So this position does not hold.111.91.95.82 (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The key word is rarely. Mother Teresa is never used without Teresa but Gandhi is often used without Gandhi. For example, one wouldn't say "Teresa was a great woman" but one would say "Gandhi was a great man". Look at the many examples of Gandhi without Mahatma on JSTOR or even Maine Gandhi ko Nahin Mara. The comparison with Mother Teresa is flawed. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I count over 8,300 scholarly studies in JSTOR that used "Mahatma" --of which 95 articles and 56 books using the term were published in 2011 and 2012 alone. That's plenty of support. Rjensen (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Those are mostly incidental. I find only 139 with Mahatma Gandhi in the title and many articles (admittedly this is not a exhaustive thing) make only a incidental reference. For example, in the Rajmohan Gandhi link I cite above, Mahatma is used twice: once in a reference and one in a quote. Gandhi's grandson apparently doesn't see the need to add a Mahatma in front of Gandhi. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
So your point is that Gandhi should be the title of the article? --sarvajna (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That is what I think. Gandhi already redirects here and, generally, when a more concise title is a redirect, that's what we should use. --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Rajmohan has a conflict of interest and might be just being humble by not using "Mahatma". Also since when did we start using titles of non-critical films for gauging in such matter? In that case we should also look at what text-books in India refer to him as or what bloggers and twitters use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The point of the "non-critical film" is that a reference to Gandhi is recognizable as being to Mahatma Gandhi. A reference to Teresa, on the other hand, is completely ambiguous. Using Mother Teresa as a reason to rename this article Mahatma Gandhi is ridiculous (with apologies to the IP). --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Rajmohan's reticence can be explained by the fact that grandpa didn't appreciate being called "Mahatma." This is from [http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-The-Story-Experiments-Truth/dp/1481076043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8 Gandhi's autobiography]: "Often the title [Mahatma] has deeply pained me, and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me." (p. 5) Kauffner (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That is the likely reason. I didn't want to bring this up because we're not really supposed to care what about his likes or dislikes but I don't think Gandhi, were he alive, would !vote support for this move request! --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Gandhi used "Mahatma" on the title page of his English-language books (eg Mahatma Gandhi, His Life, Writings and Speeches (1918)); and scholars prefer it today, such as A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography about Mahatma Gandhi (2007); Social And Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (2006); The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi for the Twenty-First Century (2008); Mahatma Gandhi: Proponent of Peace (2010); plus the major recent biography Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India by Joseph Lelyveld (2011). [http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=mahatma&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&field-p_n_condition-type=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=After&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=2007&sort=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0 see Amazon.com --it gives 200+ books]] using it in the title since 2007.Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Rjensen, no one is saying that Mahatma is not used a lot, it is. The point you're missing is that Mahatma is not used exclusively enough for the honorific to be a part of his name. Gandhi is just as recognizable. There is absolutely no point in listing titles with Mahatma in them because there are hundreds of other titles without Mahatma, and quite a few articles where Gandhi and Mahatma are not used as a name in the text itselfl (cf. [5], [6] and doubtless many more). The exception in WP:Honorifics is very clear Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it (emphasis mine). Gandhi is very often found without the Mahatma attached and therefore adding Mahatma in front of his name is not a valid exception. --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
RP, i will take this discussion to a seemingly off-track now. On one hand you are looking for an article that uses "Indian English" and on the other hand you are opposing something that Indians commonly use in their English. Don't you think this is the right article which if modified somewhat would replace the Taj Mahal example? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a bit off track but ... I'm not comfortable at all with this idea of Indian English because it is not at all well defined. But, even if that were not the case, there are plenty of Indian scholars and writers who don't automatically (both my examples above are by Indian writers) prepend Mahatma to Gandhi so this is definitely not an example of Indian English usage. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I meant to make the same "that the name is rarely found without it" bolding earlier and forgot to.
Dharmadhyaksha, I don't think anyone objects to the concept of Indian English here, and I myself noted that Talk:Taj Mahal is bizarrely lacking a Indian English tag, but the issue of the honorific here isn't as simple as "majority" sources, we don't always follow majority sources, ...and WP:COMMONNAME, although it has a bit too much of a populist tilt for my liking in its current edit status, nevertheless still defers to other elements of WP:CRITERIA to which honorifics is related. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The ratio of titles with Mahatma to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which it is currently, is the point of discussion here which is huge. The current title makes little sense. It also satisfies WP:HONORIFIC in exception clause, which is why the exception clause is present right there. It is not a question of "not used exclusively enough" as it is mentioned without exhaustive, and not partial, statistics. Also words like "for my liking", "I'm not comfortable", etc. are meaningless here and can take discussion off-track dispute a clear many people preferring "Mahatma Gandhi" option. The editor "In ictu oculi" has added vague statements like "isn't as simple as" without explaining anything.111.91.95.78 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There are different policies on wikipedia, the naming policy of other encyclopedias might be different.--sarvajna (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. But if there are more than a dozen good encyclopedias which contain the name in that format, and we want to differ from it, there'd better be a damn good reason for it; I do not see a compelling reason to prefer the proposed name over the existing one. MikeLynch (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Not always and this is definitely not a standard on wikipedia to rely upon. Other reasons as per discussion.111.91.75.180 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. My Oppose still stands. MikeLynch (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Also note Britannica's title for page Mother Teresa as Blessed Mother Teresa link:| link.111.91.95.22 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted. But Gandhi's page on Britannica still retains the full name, and since that is directly related to this discussion, I will let my opposition stand. MikeLynch (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That makes no sense, are you saying that you will support a move of Mother Teresa to Blessed Mother Teresa because that is what Britannica uses? Britannica has one policy to naming the article on Mother Theresa while some other policy to name the article of Mahatma Gandhi. I don't think we should look at Britannica to name the articles here on wikipedia --sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not recall saying or implying anything of that sort. I do not know what Britannica's naming policy is; all I know (and see) is that Britannica's page on Gandhi has his full name as the title. A part of our naming policy states that it is useful to look at what quality encyclopedias name their articles, and that is one of the reasons on which I base my opposition. As far as your opinion on the policy goes, you are welcome to discuss it either on my talk page, or at the relevant discussion forum. I shall be happy to present my views on policy there. Have a good day. MikeLynch (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no confirmation that other online encyclopaedia could be a mouthpiece of the Vatican or may be biased by Christian nomenclatures and over-enthusiastic Christian users that may dominate editor base - thereby making a lot of content look biased as well. Looking at the example of britannica, it does not look like britannica or such encyclopaedia have any standard at all for title. The behavior shows clear bias for Christian saints, as 'the blessed' title shows for the page of Mother Teresa(nothing bad in it other than lack of standards); and therefore such method of looking at other encyclopaedia may be just to get an initial hint as these have been around since long. Other than that such standards of looking at other online encyclopaedia may make even this discussion biased and therefore any importance placed on that clearly misplaced. "I do not know what Britannica's naming policy is" coupled with uneven naming convention pointed out by many editors itself makes this clear.111.91.75.224 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. MikeLynch (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not talking about the naming rules/conventions of other encyclopedias. Maybe they are flawed, maybe they are not. My point is clear: Many quality encyclopedias name their articles on Gandhi in a certain way, and Wikipedia policy says that it is useful to consider that while deciding on an article name. You may think my comments are misplaced, I do not. I trust the closing administrator to weigh my comments (and yours as well) appropriately. My comments are directly in relation with the Gandhi article, and shall remain so. MikeLynch (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per all the reasons stated above. --SoniaSingh04 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment JSTOR results:
  • ((Gandhi) AND (Mahatma)) full text search: 7.555 results. (I.e., the text contains both Gandhi as well as Mahatma, but not necessarily together)
  • ((Gandhi) NOT (Mahatma)) full text search. 28,061 results (i.e., the text contains Gandhi but not Mahatma).
  • (((Gandhi) NOT (Indira))) full text search. 27,439 results (i.e., very few results are about a Gandhi who is not the Mahatma).
  • ((Mahatma)) full text search. 8,537 results (i.e., the word "Mahatma" is in the text).
  • ((Gandhi)) full text search. 35,616 results (i.e., the word "Gandhi" is in the text).
  • The results clearly indicate that there is no basis for an exception to WP:HONORIFIC. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Indira is not the only Gandhi. Rajiv, Rahul, Sonia and many others --sarvajna (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
True, but I doubt if they'll have much of a presence on JSTOR! But will check in a bit. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) full text search returns 24,096 results. Will add more Gandhis if you like but this seems fairly conclusive to me. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about titles here, and a Jstor search shows 139 titles with Mahatma and Gandhi. against only eight titles with Mohandas and Gandhi. That proves that "Mohandas Gandhi" is is rarely used in the titles of scholarly articles.Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the fact that the honorific is not used enough for this to be an exception to the guideline. We don't use honorifics unless we can't avoid using them. In this case, we clearly can avoid using it and so we should. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the evidence-gathering here is forgetting that Gandhi is a very common name. When one does a JSTOR search on ((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) you get 23,000+, but when you do a search on ((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) AND NOT ((Mohandas) OR (Mahatma)) you still get 16,995. Some of these have titles like "Marx and Gandhi" and are referring to Mahatma MKG, but others are such things as technical reports by authors such as Ramchandra Gandhi, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Ajay Gandhi, Krishna Gandhi, or others. Let's remember that Gandhi is a very common name. --Presearch (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"Mahatma" is not the sort of honorific that the editor had in mind who suggested a rule about honorifics. As far as I know, it is only been used for one person. So I think excessive reliance on a rule that was never designed for a situation like this is out of place. I suggest people contributing to this debate read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means the rules of Wikipedia are customs or standards that derive from actual editing experience – and no one has previously edited an honorific that applies to one and only one extremely famous person. T instead, as wP: honorific demonstrates, the guideline is designed for words derived from a title, position or activity, such as The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable; His Holiness and Her Majesty. etc Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Worldcat: hit count comparisons. Regarding the admissability of "Mahatma" as an honorific, it is also informative to compare the Gandhi usage issue with examples on the WP:HONORIFIC page, such as Father Coughlin, about which WP:HONORIFIC says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (presently at Charles Coughlin)...".
   Now whereas JSTOR is scholarly usage, Worldcat reflects broader usage, and may be more relevant for communicating with Wikipedia readership. In Worldcat, a search on ti:Father Coughlin gives 249 records. A search on ti:(Charles Coughlin) -ti:Father gives 58 records that use the man's first name and do not use "Father." Thus about 1 title out of 5 avoid "Father" for "Father Coughlin," whereas I logged evidence near the very top of this thread that "Mahatma Gandhi" outnumbers "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in Worldcat titles by about 25:1 (more precisely: 3537/143). Interestingly, despite 1 in 5 Coughlin entries not using "Father," the Wikipedia community had no problem with using "Father Coughlin" as the title of his page... and in fact even holds that usage up as an EXAMPLE of a situation when an honorific "may be included" in the page title. Since stand-alone Gandhi is a much more common name than stand-alone Coughlin, I think there is a much stronger case that the honorific "Mahatma" is needed for adequate specificity. On the other hand, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to using stand-alone "Gandhi." --Presearch (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - move to Mahatma Gandhi, as it is the most commonly used name for him. Note- Mahatma may be honorific but it is not a title of honor awarded. I would like page to be named Mahatma GandhiJethwarp (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm a little surprised this is controversial so I had a good look at the oppose votes. There seem to be two arguments. One is the claim that Gandhi is the common name, and that this is the primary meaning of Gandhi. That may have been true once, but now that the unrelated Nehru–Gandhi family has produced two Prime Ministers of India also named Gandhi, it's no longer true. The other is the claim that there is a Wikipedia rule banning the use of honorifics. In fact MOS:HONORIFIC explicitly allows it in cases such as this. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment : Well most of the evidence provided by the editors who are opposing the move are the something that should be used in text. Also is Mahatma Gandhi the most common name for roads, hospitals and other institutions or is it Mahandas Karmanchand Gandhi ? --sarvajna (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait, so you refuse to consider what other encyclopedias name their articles because "the naming policy of other encyclopedias might be different", but happily point out of the names of roads and hospitals to forward your argument?—indopug (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Using google knowledge gragh: On searching "http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&q=Mahatma Gandhi" the right hand side shows the knowledge graph panel(by default, if not disabled) with title as "Mahatma Gandhi". The contrast to first hit on this wikipedia page, with title "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is unquestionably remarkable. More on google knowledge graph | link. This also indicates that the current title is misplaced and of course is against WP:COMMONSENSE. 111.91.75.27 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Is anyone defending "Karamchand"? I think we can all agree that part needs to go. Kauffner (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Simplified Gandhi -- it seems like we're going around on a couple of different variations, and it seems everyone believe that the commonname is preferred. From the information provided above, and the fact that Gandhi is already a redirect here, that we should simply rename this to simply Gandhi and move forward. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per regentspark and the basic arguments made above: (1) It's an honorific or title, so we should try to apply WP:HONORIFIC and other relevant standards. (2) The subject himself didn't approve of the honorific! (3) It confuses English-language readers as to what Gandhi's name actually is. (4) Redirects already exist for the proposed title. (5) The existing title doesn't make the page at all difficult to find and the proposed title doesn't make the page easier to find. Holy (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
(1,5) are discussed earlier. Points (2,4) are irrelevant. (3,5)-incorrect assumptions without any sources.111.91.75.36 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm registering my Oppose vote with reasons that refer to (or expand on, or restate) earlier points, not attempting to make new points that stand on their own, fully fleshed out. I may counter: (a) "Points (2,4) are irrelevant": You have cited no sources and made no arguments to substantiate this claim. (b) "(3,5)-incorrect assumptions without any sources": You have cited no sources and made no arguments to support the assertion that these assumptions are incorrect; as to "without any sources," I did not intend to provide a fresh list of arguments, fully sourced and explained. (c) "(1,5) are discussed earlier": Yes, and I agree with them; apparently, you don't; so, what's your point? Holy (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
HolyT when you make some point, the onus is on you to provide sources not someone else who says that you are wrong. If you think that "Mahatma Gandhi" will be confusing title for English language readers, please provide sources for that also for your other assumptions. --sarvajna (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Obviously HolyT has got no links even now for his views. So it is others who have to show rudimentary courtesy and ask how (2,4) above are relevant, how (3,5) are assumed arbitrarily without giving any proof, etc. About (1,5) there are enough points discussed by others using the same WP:COMMONNAME which you have cited to oppose however. Hopefully HolyT is not misleading the discussion here with his misunderstanding and lack of enthusiasm to not cite reliable sources does not help his position at all.111.91.95.197 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Compare with U Thant if not anything else. WP:COMMONNAME clearly overrules any suggestions that we have to be "correct" in titles. Peter Isotalo 06:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:MoS and current usage. Religious titles derived from formal initiations or high hierarchical functions usually make it to the article's title, e.g. Pope John XXIII, Swami Vivekananda, or Mother Theresa; but this is not true for low-ranking or less known clergy, such as priests or lamas. On the other hand, titles resulting from popular veneration or extolment are inconsistent, e.g. {Saint} Francis of Assisi and {Saint} Paul the Apostle -- but Saint Andrew and Saint Peter. Though WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence, the cases of the Christian apostles show that this is not strictly followed. The honorific Mahatma is the result of popular extolment, but also one with religious meanings. I strongly suggest we request debate and clarification at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, which will then guide us on this particular move regarding Mahatma Gandhi. 98.234.105.147 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Let us not measure greatness of Mahatma Gandhi by narrow focus on religions, which seems to be the case many times including the next discussion with heading "Aimee Semple McPherson's invitation to visit with Gandhi in 1935" where mention of Pope and some other fundamentalist Christians come in to bias the article with Christian fundamentalist focus and viewpoints. For the record - Mahatma Gandhi himself said that God has no religion - the point being that such discussion are misplaced on this page on Mahatma Gandhi. He was himself not a Christian fundamentalist nor Wikipedia has such policies to view any discussion exclusively in that narrow focus.
Special treatment of Christian apostles within Wikipedia - detailed discussions on which is avoided by 98.234.105.147 as to why these are treated unevenly -as also page Mahatma Gandhi should not be defiled with such tangential discussions as well; or titles like 'Blessed Mother Teresa' in Britannica outside Wikipedia, should have no affect on this discussion at all whatsoever. That Mahatma is popular should suffice here as per WP:COMMONNAME. However there is strong probability that this will occur again and again and again without anyone getting this simple message across.111.91.95.37 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is that the common name is also a religious word, which implies a certain spiritual status (saint, mahatma, mewlana) that is impossible to verify. Hence the request for debate, consensus and guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: is WP:COMMONNAME appropriate in the case of Gandhiji? What about the Christian apostles? What about {Mewlana} Rumi? Why do the patriarchs of the Catholic Church have the title in their names at Wikipedia? What about leaders of smaller religious organizations, such as {Satguru} Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Saiva Siddhanta Church? --- Personally, I adore, respect and revere Gandhi, but my opinion that is he is, indeed, a mahatma carries no weight here; that is why we need guidelines. 98.234.105.147 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this matter better be taken up at that page, not here. This discussion can not be held hostage to some other futuristic discussion. We have WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC for this discussion.111.91.95.63 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per arguments made above and innumerable discussions before. Despite its common use, "Mahatma" is not his name, it is an honorific. That other encyclopedias name their articles "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi" should be an indicator of the way we should go. Also note how the articles aren't named Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel etc.—indopug (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As per WP:HONORIFIC, "honorific is so commonly attached" should not be misinterpreted even when clarified within the standard clearly; as also absence/lack of standards in other encyclopaedia should not be ignored (example Blessed Mother Teresa or Jesus Christ) in spite of mention by many editors. In fact Mother Teresa is also mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME as well. By standards of WP:COMMONNAME & WP:HONORIFIC Mahatma as in Mahatma Gandhi stands out as clear common name as well as honorific.111.91.95.237 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Also Mahatma Gandhi is more common name for public institutions, roads etc. There are not many Pandit Nehru roads or colleges or Universities. But we have a lot of Mahatma Gandhi Road, college even university also public schemes like Mahatma Gandhi NREGA--sarvajna (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote above to a similar comment you made, why would you look at roads and government-schemes as indicators of what this article's title should be, but completely disregard the unequivocal consensus of other encyclopedias'? :)
Yes, other encyclopedias differ from ours, but surely our article-naming policy will have more in common with theirs than with road, hospital and welfare-scheme agencies?—indopug (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry I had not checked your comment above, you can check the article of Mother Theresa in other encyclopedias, its named as Blessed Mother Theresa or something like that, when we can differ from other encyclopedias on a few articles then why not this article? Also I replied to your comment because you gave an example of Pandit Nehru and I just wanted to tell that Pandit Nehru is not as common as Mahatma Gandhi. The roads and colleges were an example to show that "Mahatma Gandhi" is more common that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Not sure why you felt that my argument was strange. --sarvajna (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Vehement plea for consistency I support Mahatma Gandhi if, in order to include the frequently used honorifics, we also rename other pages to Saint Francis of Assisi, Saint Paul the Apostle, Avatar Meher Baba, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami and so on. If a consensus is reached against it, I strongly support stripping the honorifics off of Saint Andrew, Saint Peter and many, many others. 98.234.105.147 (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The support for "Mahatma Gandhi" is what matters here, the rest of the message has to do with discussions on other pages. There is no connection here.111.91.95.157 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The concern is that, by using a honorific that implies spiritual status, Wikipedia is not-so-subtly endorsing that particular belief unless there is a clear rule covering all cases -- hence the need for unified guidelines, which are way overdue. 98.234.105.147 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is already guidelines for Christians Saints etc so why this aversion now suddenly? That is not related to this at all. Endorsing 'spiritual status' directly/indirectly does not mean endorsing religious belief by Wikipedia by any standards in general and in particular for Mahatma Gandhi. These sudden conditions are misplaced here. Hopefully this does not have to do with fringe cults who claim whole and sole propriety of souls, heavens and hells and, subsequently in that order, also want to pat themselves by exclusive rights in pushing Mahatma Gandhi's soul in some definite positive manner to hog limelight. For the record, Hindus believe in reincarnation and not pushing and pulling souls post-mortem in general if it matters here.
A clear rule elsewhere for all generic cases have much to do in other places and not this discussion.111.91.95.112 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That is what happens when standards are not applied uniformly for other pages and then consensus is not formed using the same excuse of standards are not applied uniformly at other pages. That makes no sense at all.111.91.95.157 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move away from "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". The middle name Karamchand doesn't seem to disambiguate him from anyone, and while it's precise, it's much less common than either "Mahatma Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi". This sounds like "William Jefferson Clinton" to me, and we just don't do that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The move is for Mahatma Gandhi which is the most common name.111.91.95.61 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:HONORIFIC clearly states "honorific is so commonly attached to a name" which matters here. WP:HONORIFIC does not refer to other encyclopaedia at all. It is WP:COMMONNAME that mentions of other encyclopaedia these lines:"The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name, or the trademarked name" - clearly therefore Mahatma Gandhi stands as per WP:COMMONNAME; WP:COMMONNAME then states "Other encyclopedias may be helpful...". The whole world knows Mahatma Gandhi as can be seen in the discussion also. Note the may be part here which implies it is not the only mandatory binding condition if at all. Read the whole section of WP:COMMONNAME well.111.91.95.61 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Question/Request : is there a way we can stop the bot from archiving this discussion, I am sure this move request will take some more time --sarvajna (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    Shouldn't be a problem. If more than 30 days go by without a comment (hard to imagine!) and the request stays unclosed, we can probably take that as a no consensus to move the article. (I've added a do not archive until note for the next two months anyway. If it does close, please remove it.)--regentspark (comment) 22:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Gandhi would be even better, but the proposed title is an enormous improvement over the current unrecognizable and unnatural ("Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with") title per WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC ("Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. "). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

change is article

in a book it says he marched from Sabarmati ashram to Dandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.8.198 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi’s views on birth control

Are Gandhi’s view on birth control (“criminal folly”, leads to “sexual perversion”, “Sex … is meant only for the act of creation”), notable? While clearly he did much for the women of India, such a position would be considered seriously flawed by many today (and even then, see the contemporaneous response from Margaret Sanger, below).

An excerpt from an essay he wrote in 1939, and from a response by Margaret Sanger:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/18/mahatma_gandhi_birth_control_is_criminal/

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/18/margaret_sanger_birth_control_is_freedom/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwessel (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit request

The third paragraph is somewhat deferential, rather than factual. In particular, the line 'His chief political enemy in Britain was Winston Churchill, who ridiculed him as a "half-naked fakir."' is a naive misrepresentation with an inaccurate quotation. The full quotation [wikiquote] is 'It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.' The term "half-naked fakir" does not appear explicitly. Moreover, the sense of the full quotation is different: Churchill is saying that Gandhi is merely 'posing' as a fakir, is acting beyond his status and is being disrespectful.

In the context of the paragraph, a better sentence would be: 'Winston Churchill, who was critical of Gandhi's approach in the 1930s, considered his apparent humility to be disingenuous.'

DisiDimmi (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

the solution is to drop the quote marks. The image of half-naked fakir is very famous and is used by many scholars-- it is exactly what Churchill meant. Rjensen (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Marked as answered. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Gandhi's parents' religious affilations

  • The lead stated that The son of a senior government official, Gandhi was born and raised in a Hindu Bania family, however, the reference (Britanica.com) provided states that The Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi belonged to a Gujarati Bania caste. The reference does not state whether he was born in hindu Bania or jain Bania.
  • The Early life and Background section states that His father, Karamchand Gandhi (1822–1885), who belonged to the Hindu Modh community, served as the diwan (chief minister) of Porbander state, a small princely salute state in the Kathiawar Agency of British India. There are two inline citations for this.
    • The first one (Majumudar (2005), pp. 27, 28) does not state anything about his father being from a hindu modh family.
    • The second one (Schouten (2008), p. 132) seems an unreliable source for information on Mahatma Gandhi. The title of the book is Jesus as Guru: The Image of Christ Among Hindus and Christians in India and the book says that his mother was particularly devout hindu. This contradicts another claim made by the article that his mother was a devout Jain who make Gandhi take the vows infront of a Jain monk.
  • Another line states that His mother, Putlibai, came from the Pranami Vaishnava community, but the source does not have a page number with it.

I am removing the dubious claims for now. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I just added back his Mother's info, not the caste thing but just her name. -sarvajna (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a good source by two leading scholars that cover the Mother-as-Jain and the Father as Modh Baniya at Susanne Hoeber Rudolph; Lloyd I. Rudolph (1983). Gandhi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma. University of Chicago Press. p. 17. Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Gandhi was a Hindu by his own admittance in his bio...so please stop this POV pushing ............I have added back claims about him being a Hindu and Modh Bania casteJethwarp (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

putlibai, mother of gandhi

Putlibai, mother of Gandhiji, was from a Pranami Vaishnava family and not Jain. There are some editors, (a lobby of Jain pov pushers) who are constantly removing this fact from the article. I have added back the info from old versions. However, Putlibai, was influenced by Jain monks in her life and used to visit them but she adhered to Hindu - Vaishnava philosophy in home and life. Obviously, that is why Vaishnava jana to was favorite bhajan of Mahatma Gandhi, a devotional song her mother used to sing. Jethwarp (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

just see google book searh [7] for the refs and even Gandhi in his book My Experiments With Truth as his mother, Putlibai, was a Pranami. Mahatma says, it is "pranami is a sect deriving the best of both the Quran and Gita, in search of one goal - God". Jethwarp (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The links talk about the mother's family origins those are not the issue--it's the religious values she imparted to Gandhi that is the topic. the RS say she practiced Jain and taught her son Jain and often had Jain leaders at the house. Her ancestry is a different issue. see Susanne Hoeber Rudolph; Lloyd I. Rudolph (1983). Gandhi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma. University of Chicago Press. p. 17. alsdo Uma Majmudar (2005). Gandhi's Pilgrimage Of Faith: From Darkness To Light. SUNY Press. p. 44. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Putlibai & Gandhi's family were liberals as far as religious practice are concerned. As I said in above para, she was influenced by Jainism & used to visit Jain monks and vice-versa. But at the same time she also adhered to Vaishnavism and Pranami practices at home. As far as Mahatma Gandhi is concerned, nowhere in his autobiography has he mentioned that her mother taught him Jainism. Jethwarp (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I just went though above tow refs cited

  • Gandhi's pilgrimage of faith says - Gandhi wrote in Harijan (December 8, 1946).

    Ahimsa was also the chief glory of Hinduism as highlighted in Hindu epic Mahabharata.

    However, the observations about Putlibai - are not words of Gandhi but seems to be observations or original research of author.
  • Gandhi:The traditional roots of charisma : says in clear terms ...followers of vaishnavism a bhakti path....they strictly adhered to social and ritual requirements of Brahmanic Hinduism. Jain ideas and practice influenced Gandhi through his mother... (but at same time also mentions).... Gandhi's mother descended from Pranami sect followers of whom were forbidden addictive drugs, tobacco, wine, meat and extra-marital relations. (pg 17-18)

As I said earlier, Putlibai may be was influenced by ideas of Jainism but that does not mean that she was not influenced by ideas of Pranami or Vaishana religion in which she was born. Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

One more observation in my opinion Gandhi's Pilgrimage Of Faith: From Darkness To Light written Uma Majmudar cannot be taken as a RS. Because, she weaves her words in to book so intricately that it seems to be words of Gandhi. She has written book only with Jainisam point of view.

Just giving one example: She quotes Gandhi wrote in Harijan (December 8, 1946).

Ahimsa was also the chief glory of Hinduism as highlighted in Hindu epic Mahabharata.

and then writes only in Jainism and Buddhism nonviolence was to be strictly observed by all. (but again to be on neutral) says gandhi gave new meaning to age old concept (read ahimsa) of Hinduism, Jainism & Buddhism. So in a way she says that Ahimsa is a concept of all three above mentioned religion and not only Jainism.

Again in ref to Putlibai she says she practiced Jain ideas of --- asteya (non-stealing), sunrita (non-greed), Brahmacharya (abstinence) and aprigraha (non-possesion).

Now, see

So the claim by the author of above book Uma Majumdar are clearly biased and written with Jainism point of view and not neutral, that is what I feel. Because all these ideas are common to all religions of Indian origin.

Jethwarp (talk)

  1. ^ Daniel Mark Epstein, Sister Aimee: The Life of Aimee Semple McPherson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993),Epstein p393-394
  2. ^ Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), page 233
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_11&oldid=1140426635"