Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

The sources in the lead

Various editors, who espouse some version, near or distant, of a Hindu nationalist-viewpoint have been changing the text in the lead that has been in place for upward of ten years. It is a given of modern Indian history—as displayed in this sourced lead—that Gandhi's last fast before his assassination in January 1948 was undertaken to pressure Indian nationalist leaders, especially those in the conservative pro-Hindu wing of the Indian National Congress, such as Vallabhbhai Patel. Gandhi wanted them to stick to the promise of handing over the assets of the recently decolonized British India that were owed to Pakistan and at the time were being held in India, where the main institutions of the colonial state had been located.

As you might have seen above, I had added dozens of scholarly sources (that those who know my edits) I add with the greatest rigor. Using that the excuse that the lead was too long, these editors first removed the sources, but without summarizing their content anywhere else in the article (i.e. to affirm the WP principle that the lead is a summary style precis of the article). Then as the lead appeared to be arbitrarily written, they began to have their way with the rigorously sourced content. I cannot even edit with the "inuse" tag in place, so inveterate they are in promoting this POV. Most had barely edited the page before—dropped out of the sky as it were. Please help. I am at my wits end. @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, Johnbod, Doug Weller, Sitush, Bishonen, Drmies, Valereee, and MelanieN:

Surely, this is not what Wikipedia should be about. Contrast this with Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829, where too I added sources (earlier this morning, in fact). The other editor built on what I had done. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A number of editors, except you, have already shared their views and found the removal of this information to be an appropriate step. Why you are starting this new section when this is being already discussed for months at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Misinformation on lead? Who is exactly espousing some version, near or distant, of a Hindu nationalist-viewpoint? First read WP:ASPERSIONS and then read this earlier message of mine. I am the one removing Hindutva POV here.

None of your sources: 1) have addressed the debunking of this claim, 2) provided proof that Gandhi made the demand.

If you are really serious about this dispute then continue this at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Misinformation on lead or otherwise move this discussion below Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Comments continued. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In your last edit, you changed:

The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan, which the Indian government, had been resisting. Although the Government of India relented, as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims, spread among some Hindus in India.

which had been in the article for a very long time and indeed had been there in your own previous edit of a few days ago (see here) to:

The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, led to the belief on (sic) some Indian Hindus that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defense of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims.

Do you see how silly your last revert was? How would the last of these by some magical happenstance of being the last lead to an accusation of resolute defense of Pakistan and Indian Muslims? You don't even think your sentences through!! You made that last edit. On you lies the WP:ONUS of making it bear some consonance to your own previous edit. The buck, my dear @Abhishek0831996:, now stops with you. Please also don't brandish WP:ASPERSIONS lightly. It seems to be the latest arsenal in the revamped, slightly more sophisticated, Hindu nationalist attack on Wikipedia. The mere fact of saying that edits bear some similarity to Hindu-nationalist POV is not casting aspersions.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"last of these" refers to what is already described in the earlier sentence "he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence".

It still makes no sense for you to mislabel my edits as ideologically driven especially when I am removing the misinformation. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Those sentences had been in the article since 2013. Gandhi being Gandhi was edited by all manner of experienced WPians, including many administrators, with not a single objection, until you and your newly-found cohorts-in-ideology parachuted into the article recently.

(Among the editors who had edited the article many times before you were: admin RegentsPark in September 2013; admin SpacemanSpiff in October 2013; admin Abecedare in October 2013; Nikkimaria in October 2013 (whom I forgot to ping (apologies @Nikkimaria:, especially as she began the latest attempt to improve the article)); historian @Rjensen: also in October 2013 and 195 edits thereafter; (later to be admin) Vanamonde93 in July 2014; even Randy Kryn of recent-edit-war-fame in October 2014; Kautily3 in July 2015; admin Titodutta in February 2016; @Ms Sarah Welch: in June 2017 ... and that is just a smattering of the thousands of edits since 2013. Please view the part that they have played in the creation of the article, not authorship, which has no meaning on WP, but the sheer number of their edits

So that silent majority which pays little attention to the endless back-and-forth has no say in the matter and you with your newly-found zeal amid a record of two edits—one of the day before yesterday, which had the abhorrent, "the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan, which the Indian government, had been resisting. ...," and the other of the hour before the present one, which did not—both deletions, and rank 1,149 have everything? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:CCC. Your explanation is beyond inadequate in the light of the very long discussion in the above sections that completely went against you.

Read WP:FOC. This is not the right venue for discussing the unrelated content history of this article. This page is for resolving current disputes. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If there was consensus to change

Version A: The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan, which the Indian government had been resisting. Although the Government of India relented, as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defense of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims spread among some Hindus in India.

to

Version B: The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, and led to the belief on (sic) some Indian Hindus that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defense of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims.

in that discussion of many months ago, then why did you not change it then? Why did you wait until July 21, 2023 for an editor who was not a part of the discussion to make a perfunctorily defended edit with summary,

"removed incorrect information in lead and edited for brevity (although a four-month talk page discussion is still in progress this obvious incorrect characterization of the goal of Gandhi's fast should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice as fact"

and then dig your heels in? Your contributions to the Mahatma Gandhi page, need I remind you, are in the nature of two edits: one made on July 20, 2023 and the other on July 22, 2023, the first in the nature of a deletion to reduce the prose size, and the second to edit war.

Indeed your own edit of July 20, 2023 had Version A. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&Fowler, you seem good faith invested in your point of view, and have mentioned my edit a couple of times, so I'll try to explain again. Gandhi did not list the money in his seven reasons for his fast. That should do it right there, he did not say he was doing it for that reason. In nonviolence nothing is hidden, so Gandhi was fasting for exactly the reasons he said and nothing more. The distribution of the funds seems to have occurred as a byproduct of his fast, but not because of any do-or-die extortion on Gandhi's part. The parties involved with the money may have thought he was extorting them, probably misled by their own thoughts or the opinions of others. But saying in Wikipedia's voice that Gandhi had an "indirect goal" implies a hidden agenda, a concept which does not have a foothold in a correctly run nonviolent action. When it comes to nonviolence Gandhi has to be taken at his word or, in this case, his lack of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia what matters is not what Gandhi said, but how the reliable sources interpreted his actions. Do you realize what kind of rigorously sourced sentences you had removed in your casual edit with edit summary, "removed incorrect information in lead and edited for brevity (although a four-month talk page discussion is still in progress this obvious incorrect characterization of the goal of Gandhi's fast should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice as fact"? We are talking over nearly two dozen scholars, including a dozen of the finest, who did not mince their words, did not pussyfoot around with "implicit" or "indirect." They were clear that getting the Indian government to give Pakistan the cash assets was a direct goal. These are authors of major text-books published by academic publishers and used around the world:

Please note that were are talking about a combined Google Scholar Citation Index of 42 + 1579 + 65 + 965 + 1470 + 560 + 261 + 613 + 53 + 928 + 439 = 6,975. It is true that Stanley Wolpert and Judith M. Brown view the payment of cash assets to be an outcome, not an explicit goal, but they are in a minority (with Google Scholar citation index 560 + 1,348 = 1,898')

I think @Randy Kryn:, you don't appear to be practising the very non-violence you are both so ardently championing and perhaps less than accurately attributing to Gandhi. Gandhi was both a spiritual and political animal. His ouster of Subhas Chandra Bose was not entirely transparent. He accurately viewed Bose to be harmful to the Indian National Congress's goals (both as a result of Bose's ambivalence about nonviolence and his tendency to veer toward authoritarianism), but once having come to that determination, Gandhi used back-channel political means to oust Bose. It was ruthless. It took two years. When Bose died in a plane crash, Gandhi wrote to a mutual friend, "Bose has died well. He was a patriot, but misguided." That is not exactly the kindest assessment of a man who was an immensely popular president of the Indian National Congress

I think also both you, Randy Kryn, and @CapnJackSp: are being less than generous when you respond to my reliably sourced edits with what are personal musings. Please read WP:TERTIARY, in particular, WP policy: Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. I have produced such textbooks above. Many are used in the FA India. You don't seriously think that if I receive this accolade on the FA India, and this on the FA Darjeeling, I don't know how to source accurately, reliably, and with due weight? If I were you, Randy Kryn, I would self-revert that edit. That would be the honorable thing to do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Replying here since I was pinged.
I appreciate your accolades, but I dont think those are of any value wrt whether or not you are right in this instance. You did some good work earlier, bravo, but that does not mean you can brush off concerns raised by others.
I also dont agree with some of the rather weird ways you have used to denote the weight of sources.
Not going to opine on the issue itself (whether or not getting money to pakistan was an intent of the fast or not), as I have yet to dive into that matter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many things that are falsely attributed not only to Gandhi but also to other giant figures like Lincoln, Voltaire and many others.

But when the claim or say misinformation (such as the payment thing here) has been already debunked by reliable sources then you are required to provide the counter instead of repeating the same sources that have merely made the mention of the false claim. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources that match the Google Scholar citations (see above) of Burton Stein, David Arnold, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Percival Spear, Dennis Dalton, Leonard A. Gordon, Sumit Sarkar, Ainslee T. Embree, Carolyn Elkins, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Lloyd I. Rudolph, [ Ian Talbot], [ Ian Copland] that together are nearly 7,000, i.e. they have been cited nearly 7,000 times in scholarly publications? Do you have sources that have been cited in the featured article, India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article now nearly 19 years old?

Actually, Judith M. Brown (Beit Professor Emerita of Commonwealth History at Oxford), thinks that the implicit goal of the fast was indeed to pressure Patel, the conservative in the Indian National Congress who was sympathetic to the Hindu right. Says Brown:

Despite and indeed because of his sense of helplessness Delhi was to be the scene of what he called his greatest fast. The fast was his answer to helplessness, the last weapon of a true satyagrahi, where the violent man would use a sword. His decision was made suddenly, though after considerable thought – he gave no hint of it even to Nehru and Patel who were with him shortly before he announced his intention at a prayer-meeting on 12 January 1948. He said he would fast until communal peace was restored, and real peace rather than the calm of a dead city imposed by the police and troops. Patel and the government took the fast partly as a condemnation of their decision to withhold a considerable sum of money still outstanding to Pakistan as a result of the allocation of undivided India's assets, because of the hostilities that had broken out in Kashmir; it seems that Mountbatten had invoked Gandhi's support on this issue. The Mountbattens actually visited the fasting Mahatma as a symbol to the world that they supported him. But even when the government agreed to pay out the cash, Gandhi would not break his fast.

Brown states that Mountbatten had invoked Gandhi (in the meaning of cited, posited, or appealed to Gandhi) in support of this course of action. In other words, it was implicitly made known to the government was Gandhi's position was on this issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem quite knowledgeable about Gandhi, which is helpful to Wikipedia and its articles. Nonviolence, maybe not as much (harkening back to your claims that "nonviolence" and "nonviolent resistance" mean the same thing). The major nonviolent activists were not nonviolent in their personal lives, just ask Mrs. Gandhi, nor did they claim to be. Sinners and skalliwags, the same as the rest of us mortals. But they had learned to be nonviolent, and the importance of staying nonviolent, in their public actions. Most politicans wouldn't understand their motives, they had no life experience with these personality types. Not to get into a four-month discussion with you, but please understand that the above quote shows no indication that Gandhi had a hidden motive or agenda, nor was fasting to extort money. As you quote, "Patel and the government took the fast partly as a condemnation of their decision to withhold a considerable sum of money..." - they "took" it as, meaning they were reading into Gandhi's actions based on their own understanding of the world. Gandhi pronounced seven reasons for which he was fasting, and those were the only reasons. Your quote concludes "But even when the government agreed to pay out the cash, Gandhi would not break his fast." - he would not break it because the money had nothing to do with his fast. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)#What is historical scholarship? :

Historical scholarship is a group process by a community of experts on a specialized topic of historiography, who read and critique each other's work. Material submitted for scholarly publication is vetted by editors and outside advisers. Scholarly books typically have a page or more of acknowledgments naming the people who assisted in finding, and evaluating sources, and helping the author avoid mistakes. Editors give a high priority to ensuring that the authors have dealt with the current standard scholarly historiography on the topic. A submitted paper or manuscript that is unaware of major relevant scholarship will be sent back for revision, or rejected. Scholarly books are reviewed in the history journals, with the goal of evaluating the originality and contribution, and pointing out misinterpretations or mistakes. The results of the scholarly process appear in numerous forms: Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian. ...

I have listed 18 major historians of modern South Asia. Together, as I've stated above, they have been cited nearly 7,000 times in other scholarly publications. Judith Brown, whom I added at the very end was an after thought as I had originally included her in the list of two that did not mention the cash assets owned to Pakistan as an implicit aim of the fast, which upon re-reading I did. But there are 17 other historians of political scientists in my list above. They are quite explicit. These include, Barbara D. Metcalf, the Alice Freeman Palmer emerita professor of History at the University of Michigan and past president of the American Historical Association, and Thomas R. Metcalf, the Thomas R Kailath emeritus professor of South Asia at the University of California, Berkeley. They are authors of one of the most widely used textbook in modern Indian history, (A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 3rd edition, 2012), have been reviewed dozens of times in scholarly history journals. Not one reviewer has objected to their characterization:

Just before his death, Gandhi made one last decisive intervention in the Indian political process. By a combination of prayer and fasting, he forced a contrite ministry to hand over to Pakistan its share of the cash assets of undivided India, some 40 million pounds sterling, which had so far been retained in defiance of the partition agreements.

An argument about authors is not between you and me, but the reviewers of their works. I strongly encourage you to present reviewers, not your own arguments. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Do any of them quote Mohandas Gandhi as saying or writing that the indirect purpose and goal of his fast was to make sure money changed hands? If not, and maybe I missed it in your worthwhile defense in the several discussions above, then it certainly does not belong in the lead of the Gandhi article. At best it is guesswork, by Gandhi's people, by political officials at the time who spread and probably acted on a hunch and a rumor, by later historians and learned professors, and while widely discussed, as you've quoted, it cannot be set in stone in Wikipedia's voice unless Gandhi is directly quoted from an extremely reputable source. Especially not in the lead. Because if such a quote doesn't exist, we have his seven reasons, which, if a primary source, is a pretty major primary source Enough to leave it out of the lead. You asked me to revert my edit, sorry, I can't do that, because I do not purposely add incorrect information into Wikipedia (the cat thing was a hopefully one-time exception) and unless you can show a newsreel or a tape-recorded quote from Gandhi himself, I cannot, as a principal, add it back, and would regard his seven stated reasons as his sole reasons (your quote above actually proves that, when the government was surprised that Gandhi didn't start eating when they agreed to fork over the money). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

>>> "Money changed hands?"

OK @Randy Kryn: I will take this issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Please note the response above admins: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Vanamonde93, and El C: who have edited the Mahatma Gandhi page during the period from 2013 until a few days ago when the reference to the cash assets owed to Pakistan was very much present in the lead

Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) removed it in this edit of 21 July 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the direct quote? Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to say that part of the reason Gandhi was doing this fast was to make sure that money was given unless that was backed by reputable sources in Gandhi's own words. Especially in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You may make that argument at WP:RS/N. All the very best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

PS The same applies to you @Abhishek0831996:, it is not enough to write:

>>> "But when the claim or say misinformation (such as the payment thing here) has been already debunked by reliable sources then you are required to provide the counter instead of repeating the same sources that have merely made the mention of the false claim

Per WP:DUE

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So, Abhishek0831996: Do you have any commonly accepted reference texts of a majority viewpoint, or prominent adherents of a significant minority viewpoint? If so, what are their names and in which scholarly publication did they write this critique? Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, much of this disagreement centers on one word: goal. Wikipedia cannot say the payment was in any way Gandhi's goal. Why not just change "indirect goal" to "indirect result"? That seems accurate and well-sourced. Why are you insisting on using the word "goal"? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be your disagreement, but again, you need to produce scholars who have disagreed in the fashion you have or have presented an argument emphasizing result. When 17 major historians and political scientists make the payment of cash assets to Pakistan to be a very purposeful aim of Gandhi's fast, I shall certainly not be second guessing them.

There is a reason that sentence had been in the article's lead for ten years. It's a long time. It was edited during that time by many experienced South Asia hands. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The same applies to @Aman.kumar.goel and Capitals00: who have edit-warred around this issue, though I might have misunderstood Capitals00's rationale (in which case I apologize) Please clarify that you do not consider the collapsed list of 17 scholars above to reliably and with due weight make the case for the inclusion of the text that was removed by user:Randy Kryn in this edit, so I know what the various positions are before I move the matter to WP:RS/N. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Misinformation can be removed just anytime.

Why you are asking others to "produce scholars who have disagreed" with your views? See Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Misinformation on lead where more than enough sources have been provided that debunked your views. In response, you have provided nothing substantial but only repeated yourself.

You will benefit from reading WP:STICK. Capitals00 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You can make that case at WP:RS/N. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RSN is for asking "is this source reliable?" Its not for asking "is this source enough to ignore the dispute surrounding a false claim?" Capitals00 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem, aside from not implementing the easy solution of using the word "result" instead of "goal", may have been that after my edit was reverted by someone it was allowed to be removed again without the entire dispute being decided by an administrator. I was pinged to have a look at the dispute and made a decision to remove the information in Wikipedia's voice that the payment of the funds was one of Gandhi's reasons for fasting without Gandhi himself being quoted as saying so to someone. As far as I can tell he never did, and the payment is not among his seven stated reasons. I was reverted and didn't remove the information again, but others did, several times, and hopefully, with the page blocked from edits, administrators and reliable source page editors can sort this out. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators don't resolve content disputes. That is what RS/N is for in its de facto version for comparing the heft of the sources. I've been there several times before. People there are experienced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

And thereafter [that is what] (<---added 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)) formal RfCs are for which have been advertised in WikiProjects History, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

But RSN is only for checking the reliability of a source, not for checking the authenticity of a particular information.

You can try RfC though but until the conclusion you will have to abide by the existing consensus. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Oh I definitely will go to WP:RS/N first to see someone there defend the sources in your opening salvo of 5th March 2023, someone, for example, who will take up the mantle of saying that: A Testa Setalvad of google scholar citation index 1 fame is just as reliable as Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf of citation index 965 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone at will RS/N will contrast your B Chunilal Vaidya, author of The Truth Behind the Assassination of Gandhiji of Google Scholar citation index 0 favorably with Burton Stein and David Arnold of Google Scholar citation index 560 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, nobody is disputing the reliability of the sources. We are only disputing the authenticity of a particular information because it has been disputed by enough reliable sources. Just more hits on Google Scholars are irrelevant to this dispute. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I very much am saying your sources are unreliable, unfit for consumption on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If hits on Google Scholar were any relevant then the Time magazine (which does not attribute the demand to Gandhi)  is ahead of any sources you are citing when it comes to Google scholar hits. To say that all of these sources are unreliable then you must carefully read this section on WP:TE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Not Time magazine, but that article in the magazine. It has Google Scholar citation index 0

I request that you not argue without knowledge of what it is we are arguing about. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps someone at RS/N will say that C: Nagendra Kaushik, author of Mahatma Gandhi in Cinema, published in 2020 by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing," which has nothing to do with scholars at Cambridge University and with Google Scholar citation index 0 will contrast favorably with Rotem Geva's 2022 book Delhi Reborn: Partition and Nation Building in India's Capital published by Stanford University Press and with already Google Scholar citation index 2 not to mention a 2023 scholarly review by Stephen Legg, Professor of Historical Geography, University of Nottingham, which begins,

In this exceptional piece of historical scholarship, Rotem Geva walks the reader through a harrowing Indian landscape. The five substantive chapters take us from the dreams about, and campaigns for, independence in India’s colonial capital, to the violence that shattered many of these dreams in August 1947, when Pakistan was partitioned out of India and hundreds of thousands of refugees migrated to new countries, and cities. ... The fifth chapter demonstrates how reluctant the new national government was to give up the authoritarian and surveillance mechanisms of the colonial state, although the influence of the Hindu right within the first Congress government meant that communists and socialists were more harshly policed than the militant Hindu RSS. This was even after the latter had been banned over its connections to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in the city in January 1948. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC) scratched (06:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC))

This review is not even close to discussing the misinformation in question that Gandhi made the demand, let alone fact-checking the misinformation. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I made an error. I mistakenly thought I had included this book in the list of 17 in the collapsed list above. I had not. Apologies. I am scratching it. It should have been contrasted with: Ian Copland, India 1885-1947: The Unmaking of an Empire, Routledge, 2001, Google Scholar Citation Index 53, says, "Gandhi was adamant that the debt to Pakistan had to be paid, and in January 1948 he announced that he planned to embark on another indefinite fast to ensure that the Indian government fulfilled its legal and moral obligations. The Mahasabha and the RSS denounced this plan as tantamount to treason. In the early evening of 30 January, as he addressed a prayer meeting at Birla House, New Delhi, India’s prince of peace was shot and killed by a member of an RSS splinter-group, Nathuram Godse.

It is way past my bedtime. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is yet another source that only repeats that problematic claim instead of fact-checking it or providing any evidence behind it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps per the importance of reviews in WP:HISTRS, someone at RS/N will contrast another source in your opening salvo of 5th March 2023: D Dilip Hero, whose book, The Longest August: The Unflinching Rivalry between India and Pakistan was reviewed in the New York Times by Declan Walsh, using these words among others:

“The Longest August” — a reference to the month in which India was partitioned in 1947 — also squanders the rich material at its disposal. The narrative is unwieldy, often plodding, in places, with long lists of events that lack even a sprig of analysis to draw them together. Efforts to personalize major figures can come across as clumsy, even unkind. He describes Indira Gandhi’s face as “a cross between the refined, sinewy features of her father and the bloated visage of her mother.” Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Pakistani leader, is a “prematurely balding man with a sharp nose in a buttery face.”

favorably
with Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph's In Pursuit of Lakshmi: Political Economy of the Indian State, Google scholar index 1,470 which states: Patel was not a committed or convinced secularist. His call for Muslims to pledge their loyalty to India as a condition of citizenship after partition, his one-sided defense of Hindus during the communal rioting and carnage that accompanied partition, and his refusal to honor India's commitment to turn over to Pakistan the assets due it were the occasion of Gandhi's last fast in January 1948. The riots in Delhi abated; Patel, after being told by Gandhi on the verge of death, "You are not the Sardar I knew," turned over the assets and deferred to Gandhi's call for brotherhood and forgiveness.. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all reviews of the books are required to be positive. The review by NYT is not discussing this dispute so it is not relevant here.

What we all know is that the dispute is valid and it has been highlighted by a good number of authors. Unless the dispute can be addressed by the sources, in support of your views, then only we should be doubting the disputes. For now, there is no source that is addressing this dispute in favor of your views. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I will attempt to extract at RS/N the judgment that your authors don't meet the standards required in WP:HISTRS, and therefore are unfit as ripostes to the 17 scholars (with quotes and combined Google Scholar citation index 6,995) in the collapsed list above. As Dilip Hiro's book is not scholarly, it has not been reviewed in scholarly journals. It has been reviewed in newspapers, not just the NY Times, quoted above, but also the Indian newspaper, Indian Express, whose review begins with, "Why did Dilip Hiro write The Longest August? This is the question that starts bothering the reader within the first 50 pages of this 503-page book. And it is not answered even when she finishes the book. Hiro has written 34 books so far, with one — and sometimes even two — books coming out every year. Unlike some of his earlier work from the 1990s, this book does not have anything new to say on the subject."
or the Pakistani newspaper Dawn whose review of Hiro's book concludes with these words:
Ultimately, this is a frustrating book. That it inevitably falls short of its ambitions should not be surprising given that it seeks to distil over a century of animosity and rivalry into just over 400 pages. Its problems are compounded by its lack of fresh ideas, its regurgitation of well-known facts, its rehashing of established nationalist tropes, its exclusion of deeper explanations, and its distracting tangents into the realm of speculation. Hiro writes with skill, and The Longest August is an accessible read, but its failings make it difficult to recommend this as anything more than yet another generic account of the Indo-Pak relationship." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That has no connection with the false claim that has been similarly rejected by other reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Only sources count, not generic language. Please name the sources (with Google Scholar citation index) that together match the reliability of Percival Spear, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Burton Stein, David Arnold, Judith M. Brown, Ainslee T. Embree, Denis Dalton, Leonard A. Gordon, Lloyd I. Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Hermann Kulke, Caroline Elkins, Sumit Sarkar, Dietmar Rothermund. The total Google scholar index of their books which were bing cited in the lead is 6,995. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Which of these sources are addressing the debunking of this misinformation? Judhith M. Brown said that the demand was a misunderstanding and Gandhi was never concerned about paying the amount owed to Pakistan but over restoring "communal peace". That is clearly against your point of view. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Tweaking the lead and restoring the sources in the Partition and Independence section

Dear @Randy Kryn: As a last attempt to achieve a consensus on this page before I take the issue of the reliability and due weight of @Abhishek0831996:'s sources to WP:RS/N, I have tweaked to sentences in the lead to accommodate your cogent point about not speaking in Wikipedia's voice. I have moved the sources to the Partition and Independence section, and have added the source Geva (2022) (footnote 181, here), which takes a viewpoint similar to yours, but still the minority viewpoint in the reliable scholarship. The lead now reads: "In the months following, he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence. The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, has been interpreted by many historians to have had the underlying goal of pressuring India, especially its home minister Vallabhbhai Patel, to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan from its share of the former imperial treasury. Although the Government of India soon relented, as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims spread among some Hindus in India. Among these was Nathuram Godse, ..." I hope this will be acceptable to you. That the majority of the 18 cited historians have made this interpretation is undeniable. Three of the five sources presented by Abhishek0831996 are neither reliable nor of due weight. I want to prevent a visit to RS/N which will only bear this out. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

PS @Randy Kryn: This by the way is not a minor point, undeserving of a mention in the lead. Gandhi was praised then and has been praised since for upholding universal moral values in the face of the pressures of aggressive nationalism, championed in newly post-colonial India by Vallabhbhai Patel and others in the Congress Party increasingly in sympathy with the Hindu Right. Patel had been a disciple of Gandhi from the Kheda Satyagraha of 1918, the first in Gandhi's India campaign. A 30-year friendship. much older than Gandhi's with Nehru, was at stake. It was no mean thing to have preferred the right action to the expedient. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, although still not needed in such detail. I'd prefer a simple "resulted in" rather than unneeded extra wordage in the lead alluding to it as one of Gandhi's goals. But yes, all I was personally concerned about was adding an extra and hidden goal to Gandhi's seven stated goals for going on the fast. Thanks for the ping and your continued attention to detail. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: How about: The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, has been interpreted by many historians to have pressured the Government of India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan from the former imperial treasury. The belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims spread among some Hindus in India.? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The sort of information is entirely WP:UNDUE for the lead because there is no evidence that Gandhi made this demand and it's clearly a creation from later years. Lead is not supposed to include dubious information. Capitals00 (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• "majority of the 18 cited historians have made this interpretation is undeniable"? I can cite more than 100 scholars who say Voltaire made this false quote. It won't become right. If you are going to attribute it as "many historians" then you are only setting a bad precedent for not only this article but also others. Overall, this claim has no effect on the biography of Gandhi. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why not just: "The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when Gandhi was 78, indirectly resulted in the Government of India paying cash assets owed to Pakistan from the former imperial treasury." The seems entirely accurate, fair, and hard to find fault with. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• That is certainly better. Capitals00 (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit of 11 July

Hello @Ayubist: You may not have known this, but in an edit of 11 July 2023, you took out the carefully placed citations in the lead which had supported the lead's sentences, clauses, phrases, and, sometimes, even single words, and moved them to various parts of the main body without, I'm afraid, the same careful regard to placement.

Thus B. R. Nanda in the lead sentence was meant to support the label "lawyer" in the very short description of Gandhi (lawyer, anticolonial nationalist, political ethicist, ...). That was the reason the citation was chosen from Nanda's article in Britannica, another tertiary source; for tertiary sources indicate due weight. You have moved the citation to the end of the sentence about Gandhi completing his law degree in London, which was not the point B. R. Nanda was making; he too was offering a short description of Gandhi in his lead sentence. Similarly the reference to Rajmohan Gandhi's book in the first paragraph was about the word "Mahatma" being first applied to Gandhi in South Africa, not about the meaning of "Mahatma," which seems to be its current function.

You may not have known this, of course, but the lead was not a summary of the article as it ideally is. Rather it was a reliable template of due weight which awaited expansion into the article. That is the reason the citations had quotes. They were placed there so that they could be summarized in various relevant parts of the article.

For now, may I request that you restore the citations in the lead except, of course, those currently in dispute. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Dr Besant

)Annie Besant, Gandhi's early compatriot and Indian Home Rule leaguer, is commonly called "Dr Besant." (See, here on the website of the theosophy-inspired boy's prep school in California, and here) in an obituary in Australia. @Qwerty12302: removed the "Dr" in a picture caption on this page—most likely for the correct reason, i.e. titles are inadmissible in page names. I have temporarily reverted the edit so we can have a discussion on her title. Do we have any evidence that she received a doctorate in any field? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Copying the message I just wrote on your talk page:

Re this: as per MOS:DOC, "Dr." should not be used unless it is a part of a "pseudonym or stage name" under which the subject is more widely known; this does not seem to be the case with Annie Besant, and so "Dr." should not be used. Unless you object, I will re-remove the "Dr."

--Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 14:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please do, but the question remains: Did she have a doctorate in the first place? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not know the answer to that, and should perhaps rather be discussed here. --Qwerty12302 (talk | contributions) 14:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)