Talk:Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Anti-Gandhi propaganda

This article seems to have been written by member of some anti-Congress group such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or Khalistan. The book was trashed by almost every reviewer, except some BJP-RSS-Bajrang Dal members and Khalistani groups and their supporters. While the author of this article has written a lot about the statements from fascist Hindus or Khalistani supporters like Ed Towns, it doesn't mention anything about hundreds of secular reviews which dismissed the book as propaganda. I will add some of these reviews to balance the article. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, just by using "secularist" adjective by you with anybody's name does not prove them secularist. You are involving in allegations here without providing any concrete data. Just because some article or fact does not suit your POV it cannot be declared to be written by RSS and Khalistani groups. Please note that you are alleging this on the author of the article as well without any logical data. --Roadahead (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More biased editing from anti-Congress groups

The anti-Congress BJP-RSS extremists and Khalistanis are now trying to remove any mentions of criticism of this book. A user called Roadahead removed the entire criticism section saying that "please do not put vague comments by anybody; reivewers need 2b credible".

This is so ridiculous! Two of the critical reviews are from peer reviewed journals, and one is from a well-established newspaper. How is American Humanist Association's The Humanist less credible than a politician like Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada? How is The Kansas City Star less credible than "Dr. Baldev Singh", who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source?

I think people who don't know how to properly spell "reviewers" and "to be" don't know of things like American Humanist Association. Or maybe they are just trying to censor any criticism of the book.

I request the moderators to keep a watch on this article to prevent BJP-RSS and Khalistani extremists from manipulating it to suit their own agenda. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back dear IP address. First off Dr. Baldev Singh is a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents to his name. He is a well known researcher on Indian and Sikh history along with other theological studies and has several published papers to his name. You have very conveniently tagged him as "nobody", Khalistani and BJP-RSS supporter. You may have dislike for these groups but please note that wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta. Then you allege that congressman Edolphus Towns is not credible and reviewer and his mention of the book in the US congress is not worth mentioning, thus portraying the proceedings of US congress not worthwhile to mention. Please do not bring the Indian Congress versus BJP-RSS fights to wikipedia as its not a soap-box. Thanks --Roadahead (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh are not credible. I just asked how are articles from journals and newspapers less credible than these. I did not remove the references of Edolphus Towns and Dr. Baldev Singh from the article, but you removed all the references provided against the book. Before advising me ("wikipedia is not a place for guess work and personal vendetta"), why don't you look at your own actions? Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group? If not, why did you remove the references? You didn't even initiate any discussion on the talk page. You just removed them, saying that they need "2b credible". The references were provided using appropriate templates, with all kinds of details, including publisher's name, time of publication, author etc. If you have subscriptions to online libraries, you can enter all the details provided in the references and read the articles. As an example, you can find the The Kansas City Star reference on Newsbank. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP address, perhaps you are not even understanding/reading your own words. Please note that you have said in your comments above -"...Dr. Baldev Singh, who seems to be either a BJP-RSS or a Khalistani anti-Congress source" without any knowledge about the reviewer and his credibility. Then you alleged that "...Edolphus Towns, who made a lengthy rant against Gandhi in Congress, because he is financed by Khalistanis in US and Canada". Both these baseless allegations from you come for what purpose? Are you not trying to say that they are not credible? Or are you just involving in guess work? Later, you proceed with your guess work by asking irrelevant questions like "Are you a publisher of the book? Or are you related to the author, or some RSS-BJP-Khalistani group?". Please note that one of your reviewer Williams, Xavier has no credibility at all, in his own words on the review that you are pushing onto wikipedia he says, "I am not a student of history and so am not in a position to give a real picture of Gandhi.". So what makes Williams, Xavier a credible reviewer of a 20 years of research work which has all its sources very well cited?. Later, Xavier in the book review that you are using says, "Khuswant Singh, a turbaned Sikh from the same community as G.B.Singh, has also written a defamatory treatise on Gandhi.". Here Xavier reflects his assumption that G.B. Singh wrote this book because he is also a Sikh. Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog, its an encyclopedia and reviewers of a book are expected to have some credibility to their name.--Roadahead (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Xavier's review lacks addressing the issues and the facts presented in the Book. Instead of arguing the facts of the book, Mr. Xavier resorts to ad-hominem attacks and emotional outbursts. He attacks the Author because of his religion. This is not a Book Review but racist Gandhi Propaganda. It seems Mr. Xavier hasn't even read the book. Mr. Xavier's source should be removed on the ground of violation of Wikipedia Guildelines. Princhest 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should remove this article, since it is anti-Gandhi propaganda. It seems Mr. G. B. Singh hasn't even read the vast amount of Gandhi literature, most of which reflects his secular views and empathy for all groups, including Blacks and Dalits. In his book, Mr. G. B. Singh resorts to biased outbursts (he uses words like "Hindu propaganda" - this reflects his assumption that Gandhi 's followers are only Hindus, while Xavier is a Syrian Christian). Anyway, in case religious extremists from RSS and Khalistani groups still find some excuse to remove Xavier's source, I've added some more credible sources.

By the way, what makes Mr. Xavier any less credible than Mr. Baldev Singh, when it comes to Gandhi? It was published in Midwest Book Review, a reviewed publication which is not affiliated to Congress, Gandhi, or Indian government. On the other hand, Baldev Singh's review was published on SikhSpectrum, which has pro-Khalistan bias. Moreover, you (the two users whose only edits are heavily biased against Gandhi) argue that Xavier is not credible because he is not a student of history. How is Mr. Baldev Singh, a retired pharmaceutical scientist with more than 100 patents, is more credible when it comes to making historical or political commentary. According to you he is a "well-known resarcher", but I can't seem to find any evidence regarding the same. He has no history or politics related publications in reknowned peer-reviewed journals. He doesn't have any books related to this topic, published by non-Khalistani sources. It will be my pleasure to remove Mr. Xavier's review, if you allow me to remove Mr. Baldev Singh's review as well. Thank you very much (formerly IP address). SecularForces (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh one more thing - if Mr. Xavier is anti-Sikh, Mr. Baldev Singh is also an anti-Christian. From his review: "The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth." These are typical anti-Christian, anti-secular views of facsist RSS members and Khalistanis. SecularForces (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Baldev Singh

Mr. A. S. Aulakh (Roadahead) has removed Xavier William's comments published in a reputed publication. At the same time, he insists that Dr. Baldev Singh's comments should remain in the article.

Why such double standards, may I ask? Dr. Baldev Singh is just a retired pharmaceutical scientist, not any academcian or historian. Have his publications on history been published in any reputed journals (by reputed, I mean really reputed, not minor pro-Khalistna publications like Sikh Spectrum)?

My contention is that either both the citations should stay, or both the citations should be removed. They are of equal credibility or no credibility. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!. You have still not changed your style of jumping to assumption based conclusions. How is Sikhspectrum "pro-Khalistna" now? We have already had a long discussion above where you are firing one allegation after another. Do you have anything to say other than what we have already discussed above? --RoadAhead ^Discuss 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting back to the earlier version (that was arrived by my cleanup of the POV of a sockpuppet's edits on this article). Please do not just keep removing, moving, reverting information on Wikipedia without discussion on such topics. Feel free to drop me a note when you are ready for discussion. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Towns remark

I think there's something wrong with the timing of Towns' remarks. He starts with "Madame Speaker" but that statement is supposed to be a part of the 109th United States Congress, but the speaker of the house was Dennis Hastert. It wasn't until the 110th United States Congress (in 2007) that Pelosi took over (making the "Madame Speaker" line make sense). Suggestions? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked the congressional record and I found this particular speech of Rep Towns in the 110 session. Thanks for pointing it. I have corrected it now. Princhest 20:42 25 February 2008 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhest (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

References needed not Propaganda

The following comment is false and lie pertaining to the reference of Thomas Clark and seriously violates the POV guidelines of Wikipedia. Clark no where has mentioned in his book review about the lobbyist relating to Indo-American relations and neither he labels this book as propaganda.

"The book has been touted by political lobbyists in the United States who are opposed to Indo-American relations but has been criticized by numerous academics as "one sided", "crude", "inflammatory", "propaganda" and "deplorable ignorance". We will have to take this out.

Princhest 10:32 PM, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning /Watch [| User:Goingoveredge]

The editor Goingoveredge is really going over the edge in his/her propagandist approach and is involving in entirely baseless claims with no substantiations in attempt to create negative image of the author. Particularly, the following edits from this user are worth to show this: -

1. [[1]]

Contention: How did the editor decide that the category should be "Anti Indian Sentiment"?

1. [[2]]

Contention: Baised. Violated NPOV.

1. [[3]]

Contention: This is editor's deliberate attempt to enforce his/her own POV. He deletes an appropriate observation of Williams write up which lacks proper credentials of a review or critique.

1. [[4]]

Contention: Absolutely baseless! The editor has crossed all limits of ethics by this edit. He/she can be charged under the law for created hatred against the author. Can the author substantiate this claim? If not he should banned from editing wikipedia because his/her intentions are quite clear to anybody with decent understanding of Indian politics.

I'll be leaving a message at user's talkpage as well.

Regards,

--Roadahead (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Warning for user: Goingoveredge

For the edit [5]

Please stop vandalizing the article with your unsubstantiated claims and false data. --Roadahead (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Goinoveredge is violating all rules of Wikipedia. The hostility here shown by him is deplorable.

Princhest (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing user: Goingoveredge's reverts and edits

I'm removing the edits and revert as you have not responded to my posts on the talkpage above. If you feel that your edits are correct, please substantiate them in accordance with wikipedia policies. --Roadahead (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

I've edited the article a little -- it still remains protected, so that you folks can cool down and use the time to read some Wikipedia guidelines and polices. Please keep these things in mind:

• This article is not a hate site for the book. Please don't turn and twist the references to describe the author as an advocate of Khalistani separatism, or Ed Towns as an "Indophobic" who "advocates in the fringes of the US congress who desire discrimination, violence and genocide of Indians". Unless you've some good references, please don't add unsubstantiated claims like "the book has been touted by political lobbyists in the United States who are opposed to Indo-American relations".
• This article is not an advertisement for the book. Please don't add loads of quotes from the book or its reviews to impose your point-of-view on the reader. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Gandhi, but this version of the article is clearly an example of badly-written propaganda.
• The edits involved here seriously need to read WP:NPOV and other policies, and understand that Wikipedia is not a place to impose your anti-Gandhi or pro-Gandhi viewpoints on others. If you want to bash or praise Gandhi, please use a blog or a forum. As WP:TIGERS says, the problem here is that "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral."
• In my opinion, the 12-hour block on the three users involved here was fairly justified -- all three seem to be single-purpose accounts involved in contentious edits involving propaganda. Please note that calling Gandhi a pedophile or other editors 'Hindu propagandists'/' will soon get you blocked from Wikipedia.

Also, some of the references are wrong or do not contain the text that they are supposed to support. I have removed such references. For example, the 50 Things You're Not Supposed to Know by Russ Kick reference states the page number as '137', but the book has only 128 pages. The only Gandhi-related thing that this book talks about is his refusal to let his dying wife take penicillin and it's on pages 55-58. Similary, The Age reference doesn't mention the book or the author. I have also removed irrelevant links related to Subhash Chandra Bose -- nothing to do with this book. utcursch | talk 09:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, you are guilty of compositional fallacy when you say "all three seem to be single-purpose accounts involved in contentious edits involving propaganda.". Can you now help me understand where I've pursued propaganda?. That aside, Wikipedia does not prohibit single purpose contributions as many people are specialists of a single topic only and many others move slowly from one topic to the other. You have very quickly noted what's being said about Gandhi and Hindu's and warned other editors with banning. However, you have conveniently left out user: Goingoveredge's calling other editors "terrorists", "secessionists", "extremists", "bigots" and what not. This editor went onto calling the author of the book as "terrorist". I see no waring from you to him? Can you explain this cherry picking by you while exercising your administrative powers? Instead, you went onto catering to user: Goingoveredge's POV and right after he pointed you to this page and gave you the link to what he thinks is "authentic" you quickly jumped in and froze that article to that edit. For all those hours you froze the article the authors name was tagged with "Khalistani" seccessionist by user: Goingoveredge. By your actions you have silently promoted that edit involving name calling. Now you have come back and revised the article which is again not justified. For example, you have deliberately magnified criticism of the book and placed it before any other positive review while simultaneously compressing any positive review. Moreover, you have maintained some "Xavier's" ad hominem attack filled review which has no credibility to be on wikipedia. Did you notice that Xaviers has no credibility on history and he accepts that in the same personal attack filled review that you have maintained? You have neither responded to my first objection (your talkpage) nor have changed your way of dealing. Again, I not find your exercising of admin powers are neutral or exemplifying wikipedia policies. --Roadahead (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely happy with the recategorization (I mean, the book is pure Khalistani Communalist revisionism and propaganda and should be catted as such, per WP:SPADE it does not behoove us to wikilawyer over this) I am generally satisfied with the presentation at the current version, noting that the lead should mention the scholarly consensus behind the dismissal of this piece of trash.Goingoveredge (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, Let me allow to question that why have you have allowed hostile hate against Sikhs by allowing users Goingoveredge to call them terrorists without giving any warning to the above user Goingoveredge. Now, is this Hindus supporting Hindus against the author who is a Sikh which you don't want to call Hindu Propaganda? It is simple and complete bias to allow an opinion of POV that aims communal hatred against Sikhs which is a neck deep in India and is being allowed to be propagated under your nod.Views can be different but lets not suffocate others with brute force. Princhest (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge, You are entitled to your views but not propagandistic hate. If you want to discuss the book, let do it but we need to present the contents of the book before we can do that right? I hope you can get over the grudge and come on common grounds to start a fruitful discussion. Princhest (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Goingoveredge does raise some valid points, but his obvious emotional involvement is not helping. I mean, we get it, he is anti-Khalistan. Sou could he please stick to remove the WP:UNDUE pro-Khalistan stuff, but refrain from indulging in equally UNDUE counter-propaganda. We are only interested in WP:RS here. This is Wikipedia, not some "communalist" virtual battleground. WP:TIGERS cuts both ways. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Racist review

Does this non-notable and (frankly sick and disgustingly racist, where he compares Hindus to Nazis) review by a non-person [6] with no sholarly or academic credentials in the field of history or any subject relevant to Gandhi (he's essentially a pharmacist and , by the looks of it, a Khalistani crank) notable in any sense of the word as it is interpreted on wikipedia? People who compare Muslims to Nazis are denounced as "Islamophobes" and never included on wikipedia. Why should this?Goingoveredge (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge, Hitler is considered a trendy tyrant in India. [7] I think you are probably refering to this statement "Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti-Semitism was to the Nazis." This statement is on P 235 of the book and given by Beverly Nichols in her Verdict on India. It is not the statement of the author or the above reviewer you mention. It is comparison of Untouchability present in Hinduism to racism NOT Hindus. Are you mad because you want us or world to not discuss the practice for Untouchability and Gandhi's emulation of it? All religions are subject critical scrutiny. I think, you should get a copy of the book and read it before making gross generalizations. Moreover, you can't get away when the so-called Hindu Nationalist groups openly endorse Hitler and his policies in India. Just silencing others by attacking them with ad-hominem attacks is simply NOT going to work. We question racism and let me ask why are you protecting racism? No body is saying Hindus are racist but the element of racism present in practice of Untouchablity which was emulated by Gandhi can't be ignored. You specifically compare Sikhs with "terrorists" bombers" 'cranks" and yet blame others of comparing Hindus to Nazis when they are not. You should leave the individuals alone and discuss the philosophy of caste and Untouchability and Gandhi's emulation of this. Princhest (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss the points presented in the book and not restore to vilification of Sikhs. Princhest (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that User:Goingoveredge purpose is to choke the discussion on Gandhi and his alleged racism here. The User:Goingoveredge can't provide any reasonable input for the discussion on the above topic and restores to villifying racism against Sikhs, deleting responses and vandalism of articles to make his point. Princhest (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The website that the Khalistani revisionists cited (countercurrents.org) is a hate site that touts holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 (see this, this and Wendy Campbell. Thanks for destroying your own credibility. This is a standard tactic among Khalistani revisionists. Comparing Hindus to Nazis all the while allying with Neo-Nazi groups themselves (like they did in the UK with the British National Party([8]). Kind of like the criminal who cries "thief", don't you think?Goingoveredge (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In my view, user: Princhest is responding back to the views and allegations of user: Goingoveredge. I don't think that user: Princhest's reply above is either off the topic or delete-worthy. However, the comments above by user:Goinoveredge, where he is using the words "crank", "bigot", "racist", "non-person", "sick", "disgusting" etc. are totally unwarranted. I'm totally surprised how his behavior is going unnoticed continually on wikipedia? --Roadahead (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called WP:SPADE. Call a spade a spade, and a crank a crank. Again, to paraphrase WP:TIGERS, articles on militant extremist revisionists need not be written in collaboration with militant extremist revisionists.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

you are misusing WP:SPADE. It's ok to call a crank a crank, but this doesn't cover "sick", "non-person", etc. Goingoveredge, your point is that sikhspectrum.com isn't a quotable source. This is correct. Then why damage your cause by going over the top with adding vitriolic rants? Just remove the dubious source, and detachedly state that it doesn't meet our requirements for inclusion, case closed. --dab (𒁳) 07:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Kansas Star a notable source and what about William Xavier? If they are and what about World Net Daily? Cheers!Princhest (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

World Net Daily Edition

World Net Daily, in its May 11, 2008 exclusive mention of the book Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity commented that despite Gandhi's practice of racism Gandhi remains such a revered figure amogst many progressive leaders of America. Link: [[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63906]]Princhest (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A non-notable source to say the least! This is hardly the New York Times. The Alexa rank of "world Net Daily" is 3 orders of magnitude lower than that of most mainstream news media. What's next, are you going to start citing Stormfront (website). I think Khalistanis have been in the company of the BNP a bit too much.Goingoveredge (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahahahaha. This is a reliable source to Khalistani trolls? A rag that claims that Anglo Saxons should be proud of their race and thet "liberals' were behind 9/11? Whose the Nazi now, eh?Goingoveredge (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Another peer-reviewed assessment

Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography on Mahatma Gandhi By Surendra Bhana, Ananda M. Pandiri, Uma Dhupelia-Mesthrie,ISBN 0313302170 P495

“ Highly critical account. Every move by Gandhi is interpreted by the author to be racist, which argument is very questionable ”

Goingoveredge (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that they have mentioned the book and finally the reviewers are accepting the book as a "Highly critical account". A good indication to discuss the subject matter of the book. Princhest (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I think you misunderstand. Their review assessment is that the book is "questionable" (which is putting it mildly) and their calling it "highly critical" is not an endorsement. Since we are all Godwinning anyway then this would be like the world famous historian Raul Hilberg writing that mein Kampf was "highly critical of Jews". But, then again, Khalistani trolls consider all those who refute them part of a secret conspiracy of Hindoooooooooozzzzz, so I suppose arguing with tigers will only get me eaten, so to speak.Goingoveredge (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

you are again going over the top. Calling a book "questionable" isn't the same as equating it with "Mein Kampf". Gandhi had his shortcomings to be sure. The first time you read about them, you are disturbed how this goes together with the "saint" image. This doesn't change the dubious nature of this book. This article is about the book, not Gandhi's character. The upshot is that this is a crappy book about a valid topic, and that readers interested in Gandhi should indeed turn to Ambedkar for a "more substantial and balanced account of some of Gandhi's shortcomings". This is just a "strident polemic" about a topic deserving more serious attention. In other words, this book is worthless, and its notability for our purposes entirely rests on its having "caused controversy" in quotable media outlets. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, Well this really kills the argument after one accepts that Gandhi was not a Saint. I think the basic theme of the book is that it challenges the saintly image of Gandhi. Your assertion seem to be that you are not contented with the way it challenges. Well can we be fair enough to present the way it challenges the "mahatma" in the article irrespective of people agree with it or not. Princhest (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

well yes -- we just need to avoid the fallacy of suggesting that if this book's argument of how Gandhi was less than saintly is flawed, it follows that Gandhi was, in fact, a saint. There are better treatments of Gandhi's biography that address his ambiguous character. This book is just part of an ideological flamewar, and not helpful in elucidating its actual object. --dab (𒁳) 07:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

DBachmann, You have right to your opinion here. But your criticism is also not centered on the content of the book but more on emotion burgeoning against the book. Some reviews of the book have tried debunk this book by attacking the author ad-hominem. William Xavier, an incompetent reviewer didn't even mention a single content of book that he would like to dispute but restores to ad-hominem bashing of the author. Has he read the book? Doesn't this say there is a severe problem amongst Gandhi propagandists whose agenda is to attack people as they can't even debate with civility? This mudslinging of author doesn't take away the facts presented in the book. Most people, including reviewers here haven't even read the book and are more interested are engaging in anti-Sikh rhetoric. Well, that really tells me the kind of "Mahatma" they emulate. Any way, I think me and you are on same page here to improve the article according to the contents of the book without shoving the pro-Gandhi bias and anti-Sikh rhetoric against the book. Regards, Princhest (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Khalistani/Anti-Hindu Choking

This bogey of of anti-Hindu, whining about the demand for state of Khalistan and deleting the postings of others is not fruitful towards the improvement of article. All this has no relevance whatsoever with the purpose of improving the article.Christopher Hitchens called Gandhi a naked Hindu fundamentalist and Penn and Teller have ridiculed Gandhi as a racist on the accounts of the Gandhi:Behind the Mask of Divinity. So will the Propaganda Machine here also label these folks as anti-Hindu and protagonists for the demand of Khalistan? Why not just because they are not Sikhs? I request the Wikipedians to put an end to this bogus propaganda that has nothing to with improvement of the article and more has to do with the smear campaign against Sikhs . This is not the aim of the forum here.Princhest (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite surprising that the tangents taken and personal attacks by Goingoveredge (talk · contribs · logs) are being seen relevant to improvement of the article while other users input is seen as chat and non-relevant. I find that Goingoveredge (talk · contribs · logs) is not taking part in a civil and honest discussion. While he puts his own ad-hominem attacks on talkpages and starts discussions on topics, he deletes other editor views from talkpages when they express views on the topics he himself starts. Why is his behavior being encouraged on wikipedia? I don't think this is beneficial for the health of wikipedia. An Admin taking action on this matter is expected to spend a little time on reading the articles, discussion and the actions of all the editors involved in this dispute. With a little investigation it will not be difficult to figure out that Goingoveredge (talk · contribs · logs) is following tactics of scuffling others views while pursuing his own POV. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Theme of the book: Why was Gandhi racist?

The article may need improvement on the explanation on the reason of Gandhi's racism according to the book. Princhest (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Princhest, I'm not sure if detailed contents of the book can be discussed on book article page. However, the claims and thesis's of the Book can certainly be added to the article page. For discussing "Why was Gandhi Racist?" or in NPOV form "Allegations of Racism on Gandhi" the original Gandhi article on wikipedia seems a better place. I went through casually through the article Gandhi only to get shocked that the article has been given "featured article" status even when it is just full of "Gandhi Propaganda" which is selectively leaving out or diluting his negative actions and not making enough mention of his racist activities. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, We should definitely take the issue of the POV on the Gandhi article also. I agree, the main article on Gandhi is full of one-sided references by Gandhi Propaganda: its aim is to cover-up the primary resources of Gandhi by producing secondary literature. If the Gandhi Propaganda gets questioned the Gandhi Apologists will hide behind Hinduism. The Gandhi Apologists successfully denigrate others to cover-up the practice racism by Gandhi present in the Doctrine of Varna(which in Sanskrit it means color). Gandhi not only upheld this practice but also implied this practice against the Blacks of Africa and Blacks of India, according to the book. The doctrine segregates the human society on basis on one's Varna(color) also known as the caste system is based on Whiteness and Blackness with the blacks ending up at the bottom of the Hindu scale as Untouchables. Should we ignore the theme of the book that explains the reason of racism by Gandhi? We can have a consensus here to present the theme of the book properly without ignoring its significant parts. -Princhest (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction was very POV

Goingoveredge, what exactly is your quarrel with my copy editing of the introduction? I've only made some preliminary changes so far, nothing which provokes the reader. The wording is not going to stay the same, and will probably be toned down further, so perhaps you disagree with removal of the footnote and scare quotations? Ottre 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Caste and Race

The author doesn't contends that caste is based upon the race. The author writes that the Hindu Society is segregated on basis of skin-color contrary to what is claimed by Goingoveredge. According to the author, Doctrine of Varna segregates the Hindu Soceity on basis of Varna-that means "color" in Sanskrit. He talks about primary sources of Sanskrit particularly Laws of Manu on division of the Hindu society based on the color of skin and other physical characterizations. The author finds Gandhi emulating this Doctrine in his racial and ethnic politics and harbored contempt against the blacks of African and India. The references posted by Goingoveredge are irrelevant to the claim of the book and is a POV bias. Princhest (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Williams fringe statements

(The user Goingoveredge is consistently deleting sections from this talkpage to choke any discussion from talking place. I am re-introducing my words, that he has deleted several times.)

One editor user:Goingoveredge is adamant on maintaining the fringe non-notable comments by Williams Xaviers in the book review section. The problem is Williams Xaviers does not have any established credibility either of book review or that of historical research. Williams himself mentions that his is "no Gandhi scholar" in the same review that is currently being pushed on wikipedia just because is suits the POV of editor. Additionally, Williams review is just fringe comments containing no critical or scholarly value. He even goes onto making ad-hominem attacks against the author of book and hinting that book is just outrage of another Sikh. Additionally, user:Goingoveredge is putting undue weight on religion in the following statement that he pushing onto article page: "Another reviewer, an Indian Christian named Xavier William accused the author of mud slinging and compared it to another defamatory anti-Gandhi piece written by Khushwant Singh.William provides perspectives from his own life that belie the claims made by the book. While William agreed that Gandhi "had his faults", he wrote, "the mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma" Undue focus on religion in this statement is an attempt to emotion or an attempt to religion. This kind of propaganda tactics has no value on wikipedia. Please read Williams comments and provide your feedback whether you agree or disagree on the nature, notability and NPOV nature of his comments on the book and the author. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

William's review fails to highlight any single content of the book that he would like to contest or debate and restores to typical knee-jerk response. His motive is more to create paranoia against the author than debate about what is written inside the book. --Princhest (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge is unfortunately back to edit-warring today after multiple blocks on him on edit warring and misleading the readers by pushing Williams claims under "Scholarly Reviews" section. I've started a section on problems in putting Williams comments on article review section, but Goingoveredge has been continually deleting that discussion from article discussion page in the past. --Roadahead (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge pursuing blatant edit-war to mislead wikipedia to believe Williams Xaviers is a Gandhi scholar by continually reverting my edits and moving Williams Xaviers fringe comments to "Scholarly Reviews" section. Goingoveredge neither came to this discussion section to present his views why he thinks Xaviers comments are scholarly, nor did he refrain from edit-warring after multiple blocks on him. --Roadahead (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from ANI

dab can you help us by substantiating your claim that the book is "crappy" as you have called it in your comment above? How did you decide that? Did you read the book and write the critique? Did you enlist all the scholarly critical reviews and decided that there are enough of them (statistically) calling the book "crappy"? Or is this just another fringe comment by somebody whose POV has been violated by the findings in the book? Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai I'm curious what exactly you meant by saying "...the book has issues". If you can highlight those, we can perhaps work together to make the article more wholesome. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The book has an extraordinary premise and has been savaged by whatlittle critical reaction its gotten.--Tznkai (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the book has received more attacks on the author than the content of the book. It seems that the agenda of the attackers is to propagate virulent hate against the author as it seems to become fairly hard for the apologists to criticize the research. The book has been in a discussion on US blogs and news sites like WND, South Asian news groups especially the Dalits. Therefore, the apologists have to come up with a better answer to the book rather than attacking the author. Princhest (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe that personally, but that doesn't work for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not judge how logical the critics of a book are, it only notes that the scholarly community has mostly ignored or savaged the book. We don't really care about their agenda, nor what the blogs have to say. I'm fairly certain WND is not considered a reliable source either. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground.--Tznkai (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's standard of notability how does William's review qualifies as notable where he mentions that he is no historian for this purpose. He is no scholar either. What is William's notability? And, what is the point of putting POV specific lines of his review without mentioning the fact that he is no historian. Princhest (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about, and you didn't address what I brought up.--Tznkai (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai, can you help put the data together to see if its conclusive enough to say "the scholarly community has mostly ignored or savaged the book" like you claim above? Thanks, --Roadahead (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Its terribly difficult to prove a negative, but a brief web survey has suggested to me that most people are ignoring the book. I'm unaware of any scholarly book reviews other than those mentioned in the article. I'd suggest that as a matter of common sense, we can agree that most Indologist and Ghandi scholars haven't addressed the book.--Tznkai (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznkai, Xaviers Williams comments are no way near scholarly conduct. Goingoveredge is unfortunately back to edit-warring today after multiple blocks on him on edit warring and misleading the readers by pushing Williams claims under "Scholarly Reviews" section. I've started a section on problems in putting Williams comments on article review section, but Goingoveredge has been continually deleting that discussion from article discussion page in the past. Have you read Xavier Williams comments? Do you agree to include those comments in "Schoarly Reviews" section? ...should such non-serious fringe comments be added to Wikipedia at all? Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the position to judge Xavier's William's scholarly conduct or lack therof, however I've been doing a little digging, and it suggests that Xavier is not in fact a scholar, but an amateur, so his comments can be struck. As far as fringe views go, I'm fairly certain that this book represents a fringe view. I'll go digging later for some sources and reactions, but as I said, the book has been largely ignored it seems. Anyway, don't edit war while I'm busy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I appreciate your spending time on the issue. However, I feel that Xavier's comments are not hard to notice as those coming from somebody having no knowledge about the issue and involving in ad-hominem attacks. His comments are as valuable as any comment on plethora of chat forums on the internet. If we include Xavier's comments, all those people on the forums making personal attacks (just like Xavier) automatically get rights to get on wikipedia. I'm sure we both agree that this will degrade the quality of Wikipedia. As far as the claims made by book are concerned, I suggest you spend some time reading the book as well. When somebody comes out with finding that are of this nature; outbursts from the previous believers are natural. While those who have opened their eyes may silently change their views and appreciate the findings, they are generally not as vocal as those who get filled with prejudice and hatred against the author or the fact-finder. Hence the case with this book. Gandhi no doubt has become a personal tool for many - including celebrities, politicians, businessman etc. for further their personal benefits. Hence, they will either neglect the findings in the book or some will resort to personal attacks on the author. Nevertheless, I still believe that the book has got some serious attention - senator recommending it to the house to be read, professor mentioning that the charges of racism are very well backed-up with evidence, bookreviews.com recommending the book, another frequent writer on India and issue mentioning that the book has broken the Gandhi myth, the author getting interviewed by Penn & Teller, opposition triggering in South Africa against installing Gandhi statue after the release of book etc. are a few to note. Regards, ⇒RoadAhead ^Discuss 17:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be blunt with you, I immediately ignored anything you said about Ghandi, bad faith, myths, and so on, it isn't my concern right now, I'm not here to be convinced about anything about Ghandi. As I said Xavier's comments fall outside the pale of reliable sources, so they can be struck. That having been said, the incidents you mentioned at the end there don't quite muster the notability threshold. I was under the impression that Xavier was writing for a scholarly publication, having seen otherwise, this article should probably be up for deletion until it gains more press, notice, and reaction.--Tznkai (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluntness is appreciated, however I disagree on your article deletion proposal. By the way, "Ghandi" is a Zoroastrian last name and not a "Vaishya Hindu" last name "Gandhi". Perhaps that was just hindsight when you typed above, however, just one misplaced "h" makes a whole lot of difference. :) Cheers! ⇒RoadAhead^Discuss 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the spelling. Review the reliable source policy if you think this article should be kept, I can't find enough to suggest notability.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your time in working on this article. However, I would like to disagree with your proposal dealing with deletion of the article since the book is covered significantly by reliable scholars and media sources as seen in the review section. User:Princhest(talk) 22:07 30 September 2008

Consensus Invitation

I don’t think we are all on the same page here so far.Let’s try to come with a consensus here about the Introduction and Book Organization. This is where I think we need to have the message of the book without personal grudges against the author, Sikhs or for that matter Khalistanis of course. So what I mean to say is that The Introduction of the article and the Book Organization should be strictly about the book and nothing else. Do we Agree? I will try to correct the article on these lines. Share your input.

1. Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity is a book by US Army Colonel G. B. Singh. Written nearly 60 years after his assassination, Singh challenges the image of Gandhi in the Anglosphere as a great, benevolent and non-violent leader of Indian independence with a biography of the so-called real Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

The author doesn't mention that he aims to challenge the image of Gandhi in the Angloshpere. The objective of this book is to challenge the contemporary Gandhian literature, its reliability and ITS "questionable" origin. It does that by finding the contemporary Gandhian literature not to be first-hand information on Gandhi and is discrepantly irrational with an attempt to project a false image of Gandhi. E.g: The author finds that the first biography of Gandhi was dictated by Gandhi himself to Rev. Doke in 1909 with Doke having no information about Gandhi’s past. Successive biographers picked up on Doke's biography with aberrant updating of Doke's biography. The contemporary literature at many places has un factual updating to give propaganda blitz and according to the author has been used to cover-up the primary sources of Gandhi. The historians have been enormously ignorant about the primary sources of Gandhi and have FAILED to critically examine the contemporary literature and have wrongly considered the contemporary literature as first-hand information which is unhistorical according to the author.This failure to examine the contemporary literature that projected Gandhi as holy, non-violent, saint, re-incarnation of Christ built the mythical and unhistorical Gandhi both in the West and the East.The book details about the era of racial politics of Gandhi in S. Africa that has largely been ignored or "covered-up" by the contemporary lietrature.

Secondly, the author discusses the use to Gandhi as strategy to sell the cultural image of India as a peaceful nation whilst taking part in massacres of its minorities and justifying the massacres by using Gandhi. The author further talks about the gullibility of the both West and the East towards it. Besides the details about the racial politics of Gandhi in S Africa, the book talks about his racial politics in India. E.g his defense of Adolf Hitler and his ethnic politics against Sikhs, Dalits and Jews, his ideology of caste varna doctrine,his double-games on caste, cover-ups by him about his racial past in South Africa, murders done during Satyagrah campaigns that have not been critically examined by scholars, according to the author.

2. The book claims that Gandhi emulated racism from the Hindu structural-functionalism of caste towards the Blacks of South Africa and the Untouchables, instigated ethnic hatred against non-Indic communities, and, to this end, was involved in covering up the killing of American engineer William Francis Doherty.

There is POV here to describe caste as structural-functionalism. However, as per author caste is a Doctrine of Varna that means color in Sanskrit with the Blacks having the lowest place in the Hindu scale.

3. Singh purports that the portrayal of Gandhi as a great leader is "the work of the Hindu propaganda machine" and Christian clergy with ulterior motives; and, furthermore, it was based on irrationality and deception which historians have dismissed as irrelevant.

The author doesn’t write anywhere that the historians have dismissed the role played by Hindu Propaganda Machine and Christian Clergy. If so, there should be literature on it but the author finds no literature on this by historians. As explained above about the objectivity of the book: the author claims that historians have failed to look at the discrepancy present in the contemporary literature of Gandhi from the primary sources, not that historians have found it and then considered it irrelevant. Regards,Princhest (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

What level of debate do you seek here? I am not an involved editor, but personal attacks are not going to aid the process. I did write a lengthy reply, but will put it simply: Your second point relates to the first (unsubstantiated) objection and the third makes no sense. It could be fixed with a single qualifier, in fact. Ottre 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My post was to clear the misinterpretation editors have here about the book so that we are on the same page. I took those lines from the introduction and found them to be misquoted and misrepresented as far as the content of the book is concerned. They may be personal opinions or opinions formed as a result of dissent against the author. Nevertheless, they don't sound representing the significant idea/thesis/content of the book. The goal here should be to represent the Book without personal POVs about Khalistan and attacks on the author. Views and opinions regarding the book can be discussed in the review section. It should be as simple as that. Getting back to your point, I may not quite get it when you say "Your second point relates to the first (unsubstantiated) objection and the third makes no sense" The second point regarding the caste and objection of the author against the contemporary literature are quite different.They are discussed separately as far as I have read the book. Those were what I thought were misrepresentation in the Introduction. The first part of the book starts with the history of contemporary Gandhian literature, its inaccuracy and its propagation,according to the author. Princhest (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}}

Hi Ottre, the 3 points from Princhest are clearly distinct. Lets not rush to comment and spend some time on the points he raises. Have you read the book or all the notable reviews at the least? I feel that is starting point for us to understand the points above. I've completed reading the whole book and Princhest's points make sense. We cannot put words in the author's mouth. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 00:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, was just angered that the last sentence was fact tagged. That is the one part of the introduction I want to keep. Reverting per the initial objections. Ottre 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061112074125/http://www.bookviews.com/archive/bookviews-dec2004.htm to http://www.bookviews.com/archive/bookviews-dec2004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106100750/http://www.secularhumanism.org:80/library/aah/singh_12_3.htm to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/singh_12_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725192848/http://www.sikhspectrum.com:80/082004/gbsingh_int.htm to http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/gbsingh_int.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228114504/http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/gandhi_mask.htm to http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/gandhi_mask.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/singh_12_3.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/gbsingh_int.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)