Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi's racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi's racism

Original research, POV title Alex Bakharev 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research. There exists legitimate criticism of Gandhi's racism. Please feel free to research this issue. Teabing-Leigh 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete, possibly merge. Abeg92contribs 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. George Leung 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. - Richard Cavell 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to a POV title, the article currently consists only of a collection of quotes (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). -- Black Falcon 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete origional research--Sefringle 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is completetly sourced and not a point of view per se... It seeks to bring in Gandhi's role in South Africa. I will improve it by the end of today ... give me time.

Since I have made several changes and improvements, please remove the "deletion" message from the said article. Teabing-Leigh 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Still just a series of quotes, and a hopeless failure of WP:NPOV to boot. JuJube 07:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without question this fails NPOV, and it has already been mentioned in the article on Ghandi. AniMate 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is not a point of view. You should not delete it if you even have an iota of integrity. 202.163.67.241 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge Sumarize, bring some of the verifiable material into an article that can provide context and counterpoints. If, ultimately, it's necessary to create a separate article about Gandhi's views on race, then spin it off into a more appropriately titled article such as "Gandhi's views on race." Be sure the context includes when and under what circumstances the statements were made, whether Gandhi's views changed through his life, and digest whatever published analysis and interpretation may exist, rather than providing bare context-free quotes selected to support a view of Gandhi as a racist. This can be improved.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) P.S., the comment on "integrity" above is inappropriate. It's fair to assume we all have integrity, but there is a disagreement on whether this article meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


The statements are not context free. Gandhi's views - if they changed later- must only be known to him because he did not publicly distance himself from his views. Every date has been given along with a proper citation from The Collected Works of Gandhi. The only reason this is becoming an issue is because Gandhi is the world's holy cow... so much for objectivity and balance.

That said I am open to this article being redirected to "Gandhi's views on Race". Teabing-Leigh 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Also... on second thought .... the more I read such pages where certain ethnic and national groups gang up to cover up facts of history, I begin to question whether Wikipedia is all I thought it was... instead of being a bastion of all points of view coming together to create objective truth... it is more like George Orwell's "1984" with its newspeak and editing and rewriting and ofcourse DELETING ... no wonder racists and casteists become egalitarian mahatmas only 60 years after their death... Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt - POV pushing, and violates WP:NOR in that Content should not be synthesized to advance a position which is exactly what is going on here. A much smarter move would have been to talk to people on Ghandhis article to find the best way to integrate a balanced and neutral version of is views on race. It is also worth noting that essentially the same article has been created by Teabing here, also of note is that this is not the first time this user has posted articles identical to this, which were, naturally, deleted, which is why I suggest salting. And with regards to the above 2 posts, may I remind you that WP:NOT a soapbox. The Kinslayer 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where has this author (i.e. myself) done this elsewhere. Gandhi's views on race was only put up because of a suggestion made above.

Well, I'd provide examples, but they have all been deleted. I should know, I tagged them with speedy deletes. The Kinslayer 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If you remember the titles, I think you can pull them up via the deletion log. ◄Zahakiel► 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This is just an essay, and not a very well-written one either. This could be Merged into the main Gandhi article if someone would rewrite it. StuartDouglas 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An essay that quotes very credible source: Gandhi's own Collected Works. I would reckon it is much more credible than many articles on here. 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Well we can agree to disagree on the quality of the essay, but the point is that Wikipedia is not a place for essays at all. Nothing personal and the same would apply if the essay was on your opinion on the sporting ability of David Beckham - it's WP:OR so not for Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete undue weight. Theoretically we should probably smerge and preserve the history, but this really is not one I would be happy leaving around as edit history. The claim of racism is minor, and to a certain extent founded on work by a very few individuals who have some kind of agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the claim of racism minor when it is directly from Gandhi's own collected works? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was going to argue for a re-write and title change but even with the sources this is, in its current form, a clear cut violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. The changes needed to fix the article's issues would result in a total rewrite and since the title needs to be changed anyway and there being no material here worth moving in whole, deletion is the obvious answer. NeoFreak 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So the allegedly racist views of a global icon is not "worth" preserving or discussing? I am afraid it is NOT a violation of WP:NPOV .... the article merely highlights Gandhi's allegedly racist views and quotes Gandhi's own works WITHOUT giving one's own opinion. Why is it that this is being deleted and not a thousand other articles which are more blatantly one sided and agenda driven? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing POV through exclusion of certain contextual facts. For example, 'Kaffir' was not the offensive term it is now in Ghandis time, which changes the context in which you claim he used the word. If your article was properly researched and sourced, this would have been readily apparant. The Kinslayer 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That is just not true. First of all the word Kaffir is NOT the issue here, his view that black people were savages and subhuman that is the issue. If you feel that "Kaffir" was not an offensive term then please provide evidence. However the issue here is NOT about the term kaffir which in any case in the modern terminology means non-Muslim and nothing else and is not applicable to the usage of the word Kaffir then. Are you saying that believing black people were subhuman was not offensive then? You may argue that and then in that case produce evidence for it. Teabing-Leigh 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to argue anything. Look at the consensus. I don't have to waste any more of my time talking to you. Oh and here's my evidence: http://www.eritreaplanet.com/literature/wl01/KaffirFolklore.htm http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/k/kaffirs.html http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/JUN_KHA/KAFFIRS_Arabic_Kafir_an_unbelie.html and Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa) The Kinslayer 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kinslayer: What PART of the word KAFFIR not being the issue did you not understand. The issue is Gandhi's alleged estimate of blackpeople as subhuman. As for consensus... there was a time when world over there was a consensus on Earth being flat... so what is your point? You think you can change the facts with consensus? In any event, I have made the clarification regarding the term "Kaffir" which is a non-issue anyway. Teabing-Leigh 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep going, your mildly entertaining me. The Kinslayer 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kinslayer,

Now I suppose personal attacks would be better than giving a proper argument as to why you think the article is balanced... still I have entertained your suggestion and incorporated it (despite the fact that your source didn't open).. simply because that is not the issue here. Teabing-Leigh 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware telling someone they are entertaining was viewed as a personal attack these days! I'll try and keep my personal lexicon up to date from now on. Thanks for pointing that out, it's how I learn. The Kinslayer 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Careful, you may just have 'admitted' to being one of us conspirators! The Kinslayer 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not interested in a pissing match with a little kid. I'll let the personal attacks go. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. However, I am now, so feel free to reply. Times dragging here in my office and I could use a smirk. The Kinslayer 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article now shows sources ... and I am willing to redirect it to Gandhi's views on race with any suggestions that maybe given. Teabing-Leigh 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete due largely to this being an essay and failing WP:SYN. The author has done a good job of writing an essay on the topic but as we all know Wikipedia is not a place for essays, it's a tertiary source of information. Arkyan • (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is merely a soundbyte. The article does not quote my personal view and has now been properly referenced. I am however willing to redirect it to another location. Teabing-Leigh 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Whether or not it is your personal view does not change the fact that the article is a synthesis of sources and constitutes original research. Have you read the guidelines at WP:SYN and WP:OR? Basically what this article has done is string together a bunch of Gandhi's quotes in an attempt to prove a point. The one reference of the Guardian is the closest thing that comes to actually attributing this article, but a single example of one group claiming Gandhi was a racist does not adequately source the article as a whole. Arkyan • (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't seen the new changes I have made. Teabing-Leigh 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually I just looked it over before I made the previous comment. The comment still stands. You have 1 reliable secondary source of someone calling Gandhi a racist and then go into a discussion of things he said that were racist. Break that down into points and you get "This group said Gandhi was racist, look at all the things he said that were racist, ergo, here is Gandhi's racism for you to see". We cannot make that kind of leap of logic on Wikipedia articles. It is STILL original research. Arkyan • (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


How would that be true since I have listed atleast four such sources?

  • Delete as OR as per above. Also, even in its rewritten form it also violates WP:WEASEL top to bottom ("Many allege...", "others are convinced...", "Historians have debated...", "Critics allege...". (Bracing myself for a barrage of flames.) - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- some of the most relevant quotes are already at the Wikiquote Gandhi page, and with a more neutral title. I was going to suggest moving them there, but I see they already are. NPOV is in part and importantly about setting forth facts (quotes) and allowing the reader to decide what they mean, not deciding for them. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge The article is sourced very well. I don't see how this article is a case of it's authors POV as it cites multiple sources (anyone who is pro deletion should specifically state why all of those sources are not reliable) or how the article contains Original Research as it is sourced.--E tac 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
comment Of the three "External links", two are to conspiracy-theory sites (Truth Seeker and Trinicenter), and the third is to an article from the (notoriously inaccurate) Guardian, which does not allege that he was racist but simply that he made some racist comments early in his life. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While the sources/quotes are real, defining them at racism is original research since no reliable sources do this.--Dacium 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Gandhi's views on race are surely notable; the Guardian is a highly respected newspaper; the book cited is published by Prometheus Books which seems to be a respected publisher (doesn't mean the book is "right" but it's not a vanity publisher); I'm not sure if a speech in the House of Representatives is considered inherently notable but could be considered so. The fact that this criticism of Gandhi exists is notable and should be included in the article on Gandhi. The existing Gandhi article has a strong POV the other way:) Hobson 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Salavagable contents into Critisism subsection of his articleRaveenS 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Though interesting, I dont see a page on Hitler's racism, Duke's racism, etc.Bakaman 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Just a thought, but I think an article on "Hitler's racism" would be extremely redundant. I'm not familiar with Duke... --Auto(talk / contribs) 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with heavy rewrite. Too much OR and POV as it stands now. Realkyhick 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


    • Comment As per many of your suggestions, I have made an effort to rewrite some parts of it lessening the "POV" to the best of my ability. Teabing-Leigh 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Title is POV and content is OR, based on editor's collection of primary source quotations. There might be a small portion in the top part of the article salvagable for a merge. More neutral phrasing won't change the fact that this is an essay, and it is currently a one-sided treatment. Djcastel 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly fails both WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Bryson 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Comment Have added an entire section on Gandhi's later "evolution" with sources. Now there is really no excuse left since the tone has been changed... but lets see what kind of sense of fairness you guys have.

  • Delete NPOV and OR override eveything else. GizzaChat © 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not sure what makes people think its in breach of NPOV, I have been unable thus far to locate any discussion anywhere to support this. Large number of references in article make OR claims redundant and unusual imho. Cloveoil 15:47, 31 March 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.