Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2025

[edit]

Add pronunciation correctly as pronounced in India correctly by all as /Rspl.: gahndhee/ /IPA: gɑːnðiː/ . 2409:40D5:1071:6438:F0EF:847:D725:B67D (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That English pronunciation is already there. Pronunciations in other languages aren't necessary for this English Wikipedia article. Yue🌙 08:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disillusionment of Gandhi

[edit]

The version previous to my edit has no specific source. Please allow my edit as all the information is complety based on louis fischer book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=1275375353&oldid=1275373244&variant=en Mohit Dokania (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this discussion to the talk page. To start us off, if the information is sourced from the Fischer book, then you should be citing that book, not sources like www.gandhiworld.in which are not themselves reliable sources. Can you find the page numbers in Fischer that support what you want to add? Opolito (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Opolito yes, I had also added the fischer book reference with page numbers in my edit. I have cited the websites as other sources. The previous version of my edit shouldn't be allowed as it's the personal unsourced opinion of some wiki user. Mohit Dokania (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the version prior to my edit shouldn't be allowed Mohit Dokania (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Opolito Please allow me to revert. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The version prior to your edit appears to be well sourced. Your version, on the other hand, is mostly sourced to various gandhi pages which are not reliable. Please explain what part of the previous version is "the personal unsourced opinion of some wiki user".RegentsPark (comment) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark I would like to clarify that all other sources I referenced are intended solely for supplementary information. You may remove those references, but please ensure that all information is still attributed to Fischer's book.
Additionally, I want to reiterate that the idea that the lack of support from the British after the Zulu Rebellion disillusioned Gandhi is not supported by the source provided in the previous version. l Mohit Dokania (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohit Dokania: The text you removed is clearly supported by the cited text (Arthur Herman, p 281). RegentsPark (comment) 22:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly cite the sentence or sentences that you claim bolster Gandhi's disillusionment following the Zulu rebellion? Mohit Dokania (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the paragraph beginning with "As he read aloud a lengthy statement..".[1] RegentsPark (comment) 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark Here's the quote “he read aloud a lengthy statement, a kind of summary of his life up to that moment. He told how, step by step, he changed from being “a staunch loyalist” to “an uncompromising disaffectionist and non-cooperator.” How he had learned in South Africa that he had no rights because he was an Indian. How he had tried to change attitudes and the law by volunteering for service in the Boer War, and then the Zulu rebellion, and then the Great War. And how his hopes for “full equality in the Empire for my countrymen” had been dashed first by the Rowlatt Acts, then by the Amritsar massacre and the crawling order.” "full equality in the empire" implies loyalty was still asserted until amrit massacre and subsequent events.
Nowhere it's attributed to zulu rebellion. As I have also presented the satyagrahi quote in my edit written after a short period of time by Gandhi himself.
Again, That notion is baseless and should be removed. Mohit Dokania (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Fischer's book on Gandhi was published 75 years ago. Gandhi is one of the most written-about topics of scholarship in post-colonial India. When authors such as Judith M. Brown, B. R. Nanda, Joseph Lelyveld, Ramchandra Guha, and especially, Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed authors of the prize-winning, The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire, Stanford University Press, 2016, are available, not to mention introductory textbooks on Indian history read around the world, there is very little that going back to Fischer will rake up. Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:TERTIARY (for the role of introductory text books in matters of due weight. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Please don't overlook the flaws in the previous version that I mentioned. If any information sourced from Fischer's book is inaccurate or contradicts other reliable sources, you can challenge it separately. However, reverting the entire edit is unwarranted, as is allowing the claim I removed. Mohit Dokania (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that Louis Fischer, essentially, cannot be used today, another than to provide a vignette that illustrates something of due weight stated by a modern source. The fact that the version in place was not perfect, has no bearing on this. The WP:ONUS (please read it) is on you to make the case, sentence by sentence, on the talk page and seek consensus for it. It is Wikipedia policy. Also, old, much-traficked, vital articles such as Gandhi cannot be written by making one large addition of more than 3.5kb with an opaque edit summary, "Adding authentic data." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi&oldid=1290878600"