Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:32, 11 February 2006

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:FARCfailed

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 1

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 2

Selected on Template:March 18 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

/summary -This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data but remember that too many details will exhaust and confuse the translation process.--Jondel 01:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma_vs._Mohandas

A bit too much text

I'm doing a project on Gandhi and it seems I have to finish it all in one day. Could it be possible to compress the article. Gandhi in a nutshell would help. Thx

Hi, this is an encyclopedia for everybody! We can't just shorten for you. You don't have to use the English Misplaced Pages as your only source. You can go here or try other websites (search with Google). Also what is your project specifically on? Don't plagiarise. But what you really should do is to read the this page about three times, highlight in your head and then write the project. Template:DaGizza/Sg 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is insanely long. I came to this page looking to make some suggestions as to which sections could have their own pages, but I'm not even sure I want to enter this debate. In any case, this article flaunts a number of wikipedia style guidelines aimed at making article more readable, including those concerning length, so maybe you should lay off the anonymous reader. Oh yeah, and it's a joke that this article is featured, informative as it may be. Nothing with this much ongoing NPOV debate should be featured. --djrobgordon 05:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just doing a very urgent 3 page essay (me slow at typing). I was a bit desperate. But still, heres so much text that it is hard to get an outline of the stuff and you end up getting too much text to read.

Do you have suggestions on how to better summarize or section, organize, etc. the article? Are there any particular areas where you would recommend material be moved to a sub-article? El_C 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The history section is quite large and the sub article is basically a copy and paste. We should first outline the main points then elaborate as that is how I do a lot of things but it is actually quite hard to do so in some areas due to the bulk of text. Transfering it into a microsoft Word document and using the summarise tool might not help either.

Proposed Solution to Fix Length Problem

Dear All,

I have a solution to propose to fix the problem of the huge length of this article.

• We could MOVE ITEMS 6-10, to a new article: The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

• We could UNITE the section concerning Gandhi's principles with Gandhism

This would be a big move, but would protect the RICHNESS and INTEGRITY of the size, content and diverse features of Misplaced Pages's coverage of Mahatma Gandhi.

Such a move was made about prophet Muhammad of Islam, creating separate articles to discuss specific subjects concerning his life and leadership.

I think this is a very good idea, so I'm putting it up for a debate.

Jai Sri Rama! - Rama's Arrow.

Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi

I've created the article that will be the best solution, so you can judge whether it is appropriate or not. I personally think its a great idea and got a bit restless, but we can always delete it if it is felt that its not a good idea.

- Rama's Arrow.

Sub-Article

From the debate before I proposed my solution, it seems there is no objection to a possible sub-article. Previously Gurubrahma and some others hinted to a sub-article as well.

I hope nobody considers this particularly arbitrary, but I will proceed to move sections 6-11 to the article: The Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. Obviously if a consensus disagree, they may revert the changes. - Rama's Arrow

I agree Rama/Nirav the article was overly long and needed to be split up. I am pleased you have kept the "Principles" section on the main page, as this gives readers a quick insight into his practices and beliefs. Just a word of warning, by pruning the article down this should not mean there is room to add more large sections of text, otherwise we will be back where we started. --nirvana2013 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nirav, what happened to some of the sections? Modern criticism, for example. We don't want to go down the NPOV edit war route again. Also, if there is an article called Non-Cooperation Movement, then there should be little text on the main page, certainly no more than a couple of paragraphs. The text is only there to give readers an introduction to the sub-article. --nirvana2013 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern criticism is in the Leadership article. One can fine-tune the NCM section, but I think we need it proper on this article. - User:Rama's Arrow.

New additions

Hello All,

I'm sorry if my new additions are contrary to the desire to reduce the length of this article. I'm sure that we can re-organize further; a net drop of 10kbs has already been achieved.

I've made the additions because I feel that a clearer picture of Gandhi's personal life and post-Independence activities was necessary. There was an awkward gap between the partition of India and his assassination.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Obscene Text

Hello everyone,

This is my first edit, first contribution, and first discussion, so I hope I did it right. Despite this being a featured article, I noticed some obscene text towards the beginning, so I felt it appropriate to remove it. User:JeremyS779

Oh Come on

'realized not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

I've changed this to

'finally decided not only were Indians unprepared for mass scale resistance but the British rule in India was evil and inherently oppressive'

btw. this article is POV it is untrue, but I'll content myself with just this minor change 81.110.202.57 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed my mind

"After lengthy deliberations with colleagues in the Congress, he declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied in India herself"

The war was not fought for 'democratic freedom', onstensibly or otherwise, it was fought to resist the murderous forces of Japan and Germany.

Look, I can see why you're embaressed about Gandhi's reaction to WW2, he'd obviously lost it a bit by then, but I can't understand the dishonesty of the left in trying to censor their heroes when they simply got in wrong on a couple of issues. 81.110.202.57 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Its not the left, its just a cult-of-personality phenemenon, a minor deification. You find the same thing with Reagan. Anyways, I agree, Ghandi wasn't perfect, and your first change was a good one. But its not about left vs. right. --Brentt 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Throughout his life?

I'm not sure the following statement in the opening paragraph is accurate:

Throughout his life he opposed any form of terrorism or violence.

I seem to recall that he worked as a recruiter for the British Army in WWI. Albeit for the ambulance corps, but nonetheless he was helping the war effort. --Brentt 02:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have re-worded that line. --nirvana2013 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana2013's wording simply introduces the wording adult as if Gandhi wasn't an adult till the end of WWI.

Secondly, the statement describes his personal opposition to war, not his views on the British effort in WWI. In his autobiography, he repeatedly talks of the terrible devastation of the war.

He only describes it as his duty to help in defence of the Empire, if he wanted equal citizenship in it.

I don't feel there need be any change. However I will wait before eliminating the word adult.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Name Change

As the article itself states, Gandhiji's name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While it is true that he is commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi what would the community feel about changing the name of the article to Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or the like?

--Mayur 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea and the concept behind it, but I honestly, most sincerely don't think it is necessary. The article and most users editing it have already taken great pains to liberate it from fancruft, but I think this sin is a necessary evil.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think creating a redirect to here from the proposed names may not be a bad idea. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Such re-directs already exist and some of the reasons as to why this is named Mahatma Gandhi are mentioned on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar. --Gurubrahma 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Gurubrahma, I stand corrected. The possibilities (Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, M. K. Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, Gandhiji) are directed to the same page (here). Thanks. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the right place - he is most commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be of consideration though that Gandhiji himself has written as follows regarding the title of Mahatma: ... For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less ... Ref: (Autobiography) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Miljoshi, you are right. :-) But Gandhiji wasn't able to stop people calling him "Mahatma" during his life, and he certainly won't be able to stop them now. "Mahatma Gandhi" is by far the most common term. (I'm sure many people know him by no other name.) -- Writtenonsand 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mahatma title

I've read many a place that Rabindranath Tagore conferred the title of Mahatma on Gandhiji while Gandhiji returned the compliment with the title Gurudev. The article mentions someone else giving the title of Mahatma. Can someone please check and make the necessary corrections, if any? --Gurubrahma 16:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Bourke-White

While Bourke-White was the last person to photograph Gandhi, it was not the one which shows him at the spinning wheel. There are plenty of references which indicate that this photo was taken in 1946. See , , , , etc. I seem to remember that the last one was one that had Manu and Abha as well, but I am not at all sure about that. Tintin Talk 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, according to an NYT article, there is some doubt whether it was Bourke-White who took his last picture. I'll raise that in her article. Tintin Talk 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi and the Jews

I think it should be mentioned that Gandhi hated Jews and it was well-known that he was a raving anti-semite. If this is not mentioned, then this article is obviously written in favor of Gandhi and should be tagged with NPOV. 68.14.84.43 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Hey dude, READ BEFORE YOU TYPE. This has already been discussed here. Gandhi was extreme pacifist not a "raving anti-semite" as you put it!

p.s Even Churchill was known for racist classification of Indians as "Brown savages"! I dont see that its being turned into much of a issue there. Probably thoughts on Jews are a litmus test to a persons "goodness" isnt it? अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that he hated Jews and Israel. EarlCampbell20 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Since it is so well known, you will presumably be able to provide relevant references.treesmill 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah like Israel even existed when he died! So basically according to you, greatness of a man is on the basis of his views on Zionism, isnt it? Gandhi was against the idea of Zionism but why would he hate Jews??? You draw this conclusion only from a vague statement he made in 1945 which can be translated either way! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

EarlCampbell20, I have removed your personal attacks. Please discuss the topic at hand rather than any alleged traits of editors. AMbroodEY, please assume good faith. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi did not "hate" anyone, Jews or Nazis. Truth and love transcend anger and hate. As was pointed out by treesmill please provide references for this "hatred" that Gandhi is alleged to have had. --nirvana2013 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

People, it has been proven multiple times Gandhi was a racist and Jew hater. You are too blinded by popular portrayal of him to see the facts yourselves. This article is biased and I would give it an NPOV tag, but a Gandhi-loving moderator would quickly dispose of it.EarlCampbell20 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)EarlCampbell20

Please provide your references and source. How do you know you are not "blinded"? --nirvana2013 11:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of the web finds no obvious such 'proofs' but it easily finds http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm which is an article by Gandhi himself. Quote "My sympathies are all with the Jews.". He goes on to object to the imposition of the Jewish state on the previous inhabitants of Palestine, a perfectly respectable position and one not confined to 'haters of Jews'. Only someone blind to the reality of the history of the Jewish state could see this article of evidence of hate. What it clearly espouses is non-violence on both sides. treesmill 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A further search finds http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/writings_online/articles/gandhi_jews_palestine.html#Interview%20to%20The%20Daily%20Herald which gives a considerable amount of material both from the pen of Gandhi and of those who objected to a greater or lesser degree to his advocacy of non-violence in the case of the Jews under Hitler and more broadly to his misunderstanding of the situation in general. Whether one is persuaded or not by either side it is quite clear that none of Gandhi's opponents in the material presented here viewed him as fundamentally opposed to the Jews, let alone as a 'Jew hater'. Rather they believed that his attachment to the most fundamental form of non-violence had blinded him to what they believed to be the powerlessness of his programme in the face of the Nazi machine. treesmill 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks treesmill, I have not seen or read many of those articles by Gandhi. Awaiting your response EarlCampbell20. If no response is received, I assume this matter is closed. --nirvana2013 11:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Faith??

I'm not sure what this has to do with Gandhi's principle of faith. It needs to be changed, added to, or explained: Faith In spite of their deep reverence to each other, Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore got involved in protracted debates more than once. These debates exemplify the philosophical differences between the two most famous Indians at the time. On January 15, 1934, an earthquake hit Bihar and caused extensive damage and loss of life. Gandhi maintained this was because of the sin committed by upper caste Hindus by not letting untouchables in their temples (Gandhi was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna). Tagore vehemently opposed Gandhi's stance, maintaining that an earthquake can only be caused by natural forces, not moral reasons, however repugnant the practice of untouchability may be. TheTruth12 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhiji

At present, the term Gandhiji is once used as a label under a picture. I don't think that name should be used in a caption if it's not explained in the text. As I understand it, the -ji in Gandhiji is some sort of respectful suffix. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/Ghandi.html points out that, since Mahatma is a honorific title too, Mahatma Gandhiji would be honorific overkill. Can someone confirm this? - Adhemar, January 23, 2006

Yes, it is either Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji but never Mahatma Gandhiji. -ji is a commonly used suffix in Hindi language to show respect to elderly. The closest equivalent in English is probably "Sir." --Gurubrahma 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "Gandhiji" is NPOV. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

incident?

Which incident does this line refer to?: "This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria." It's not at all clear, as the previous line mentions recurring incidences.

South Africa changed him dramatically as he faced the humiliation and oppression that was commonly directed at Indians in that country. One day in court in the city of Durban, the magistrate asked him to remove his turban, which he refused to do, and Gandhi stormed out of the courtroom. He was also literally thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg after refusing to move from first class to a third class compartment, normally used by coloured peoples, while travelling on a valid first class ticket. Later, travelling further on by stagecoach, he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the footboard to make room for a European passenger. He suffered other hardships on the journey as well, including being barred from many hotels on account of his race. This incident was a turning point in his life, often acknowledged in biographies, that would serve as the catalyst for his activism that occurred several days later when he began a journey to Pretoria. This experience led him to more closely examine the hardships his people suffered in South Africa during his time in Pretoria.

i believe it's a confusion due to several editors inserting sentences in between previously existing text: the incident is the one of getting thrown off train: deleting the line "suffered other hardships" or shifting it after the mentioned line wouldn't be ok: also unclear which biography/biographies identifies the incident as turning point. --Pournami 07:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghandi was racist

I have read in many places that ghandi was a rabid anti-semite. He hated jews. on one occasion he said "The jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's blade" in reference to the holocaust. He was a big fan of hitler, and a huge proponet of the holocaust. Will someone please incorporate this into the article? Im so tired of people thinking ghandi was so benevolent. He most certainly was NOT.

see the section of this page : "Gandhi and the Jews", a previous discussion. Please take the time to read the reply given by treesmill to accusations of racism about gandhi regarding holocaust etc. also see the two external sources he cites, which contain material mostly written/said by gandhi himself. and . Gandhi has been long dead, and the only way we can know what he thought is from documented records. thankfully, gandhi was a a prolific speaker and writer, and all or most of his political opinions at different points of time were carefully documented by himself and others. few world leaders left such a huge body of literature explaining to minute philosophical details their political vision.only a man sure of what he says and believes in, can do that; he was ready at any time to recieve criticism and reply in detail to any accusation that arose against his views.

the article size is too long, and the talk page too, so editors who just chance upon the article and talk page and read random sections only might be unaware of previous discussions now closed/settled. --Pournami 10:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi was simply saying that non-violence is the way to reform even a violent rabid animal like Hitler, because even such a violent rabid animal will have some humanity in it. He completely opposed the holocaust. Dude, go on a quest for the truth like Gandhi did, don't listen to some lame Dick & Harry.

dying words

A previous discussion on dying words controversy : 27/3/2004 to 31/3/2004

about controversy

I think the section on his dying words should be held in abeyance till this issue is resolved.

Pizzadeliveryboy 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; we simply need to report on the controversy in a fair and neutral way. — goethean ॐ 18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the controversy? The man who was there said the words were not spoken. I think that should seal the debate once and for all, and relegate all talk of his dying words to the trash can of urban legend. - Pizzadeliveryboy 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

article text

quoting the section dealing with controversy-at the time of comments:

It is widely believed that Gandhi's last words (Hé! Rama) were as much an homage to God as they were an inspiring signal of his spirituality and idealism regarding the possibility of a unifying peace. However, the veracity of this claim has never been truly verified, with new claims from one of his personal attendants (Venkita Kalyanam, who was standing behind Gandhi when he was assassinated) actually alluding to the fact that Gandhi died without mentioning the words which have been widely ascribed to him, and made immortal by the inscription on his Samādhi at Rāj Ghāt, New Delhi.

kalyanam and the news article

the link cited above by Pizzadeliveryboy leads to a small article in a newspaper which says about what kalyanam said in kerala on 2006 jan 30: following that and probably based on that article alone yesrterday onwards several edits and reverts on the assasination section.

the above news article's major flaw seems to be that the reporter seems to think that it is for the first time kalyanam has said so. even if the reporter didn't think so, the wiki article at time of comment(quoted above) says, "new claims"

whereas the external links section of present wiki article contains a link to a detailed writeup published as early as 2001,

anyone interested in the controversy please read that article before editing further, in case you don't have access or time for other resources for research.

and if you don't have time for reading that long write-up, here's quoting from relevant section of it:

Yet Gandhi’s former "aide", V. Kalyanam, who claims to have been by his side when the assassination took place, recalled recently that "Mahatma Gandhi never said ‘He Ram’ when he died. It was a fiction of the imagination, of those who came later." Kalyanam admits that Gandhi often said, "I wish I could die with the name of Ram on my lips", but he denies that these words were uttered by Gandhi as the bullets struck him. (7) Kalyanam could not have been very close to Gandhi, however, since Manu and Abha were on either side of him; in the days following his last fast, moreover, Gandhi’s voice was very faint, and he was certainly further away from Gandhi than the two young women who became known as his walking sticks. Kalyanam’s testimony also stands contradicted by Manu and Abha, as one might expect. It is not unimportant that, though describing himself as an "aide" to Gandhi, Kalyanam is not mentioned in any of the noted, or even minor, biographies of Gandhi; indeed every modern-day politician has an aide, but Gandhi cannot be assimilated to the creatures who inhabit the world of modern politics. Neither is there any independent verification of Kalyanam’s whereabouts on that fateful evening.

where source (7)is cited as : (7) "Gandhi did not say ‘He Ram’ when he died", Indian Express (Chennai), 19 Feb. 1998, a similar report citing kalyanam's words. i don't know anything about kalyanam, i assume good faith as regards what people several generations old tell.

and the content of that quoted write-up regarding the politics of the statement is quite well researched, good reading for anyone interested. -Pournami 07:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

more comments

the book "MG, the last 200 days", is a compilation of daily articles for the hindu newspaper that ran for 200 days ending 30 jan 1998, the 50th anniversary of death. these articles were written by v ramamurhty, (who was 12 in 1948), an author of scholarly credentials. the source of all information included were the hindu's archives and the letters and articles written by mg himself. on the article of day 195, dealing with jan 24, 1948, ramamurthy quotes from a letter written by gandhi to someone named Jaisukhlal Gandhi. In which Gandhiji writes that he wants to die with the name of God Rama-Rama Nama--on his lips:

I have expressed my wish at prayer that, should someone kill me, I should have no anger in my heart against the killer, and that I should die with Rama Nama on my lips

so, if he said hey ram as his last words, his wish came true, if not, no: Either way, no use arguing back and forth about it. i don't think manu and abha find mention in the article, so why should kalyanam be mentioned, if his only claim to fame is this belated revelation of the disputability of attributed last words?--Pournami 10:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

changed the paragraph to as follows:

Gandhi's tomb (or Samādhi) at Rāj Ghāt, New Delhi, bears the epigraph, (Devanagiri: हे ! राम or, Hé! Rama), which may be translated as O! God. These are believed to be the last words he spoke before dying. For a detailed discussion of the veracity, interpretation and political significance of these words, refer Hey Ram: The Politics of Gandhi's Last Words

I have tried to maintain both sides of the debate in the new version - the fact that many believe the legend as claimed by people close to him, and the fact that new loght on this matter throws some doubt.

Pizzadeliveryboy 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

your new version reads(sorry abt echoing article text constantly):

Gandhi's memorial (or Samādhi) at Rāj Ghāt, New Delhi, bears the epigraph, (Devanagiri: हे ! राम or, Hé! Rāma), which may be translated as "O! God". These are widely believed to be Gandhi's last words after he was shot at, though the varacity of this statement has been disputed by many .

about "widely" and "by many".. it only implies that a large number of believers on either side of debate, right? imo, "it is believed" is sufficient;

about the number of people on either side of debate: 1, i don't think anyone at all is interested in the debate of whether or not the words were said: not even kalyanam: he said a lot of things on that press conference and the toi article only mentions this about the last words: very sloppy reporting i think. 2, hey ram is always associated, identified with gandhi, it sure is the writing on the memorial stone, 3, there's only three witness accounts: manu and abha(two young girls at the time, constant companions of bapu) says yes; he said so; kalyanam, (at the time 25) says, definitely not; others present at the time, no comment. 2-1-0. two syllables of barely audible sound, some 60 years ago, no way to know, no need to care in my opinion. (and those two syllables happen to be instantly recognized anywhere in india as being last words of gandhiji)

as an aside: incidentally, that link article does not debate the veracity of the attibuted last words; its says just these few lines i quoted above; rather, deals with the politics of the controversy.

again, i honestly think my version of the paragraph is better for the article than yours; but that is a personal opinion of mine; i'll let your version stay for now. i won't edit your version of the paragraph. Rather, as and when you think it fit to respond to this comment, please consider replacing your version of the paragraph with mine: only if you think that is ok. -Pournami-- and veracity is the right spelling, is it not?

and btw, it's not new light thrown on the matter. kalyanam now 83, he's been saying it ever since 1948. -Pournami 10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assassination not death

Assassination is the appropriate term here, considering the nature of death and the stature of the person involved.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pournami said, agree

To assassinate means to attack to kill by surprise, for instance, due to political reasons - Gandhi's case appeals to both criteria - ofcourse, it can apply to any person, though it is generally used for prominent political/social leaders.

Pizzadeliveryboy 14:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

you people have a lot of time on your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.20.240 (talk • contribs)

removed excess text, -Pournami 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

{{sprotect}} tags dont work

Apparently, the {{sprotect}} tags dont work!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the article first needs to be semi-protected or protected as the case may be, by an admin. Only then, the tags would be inserted and give an impression of the tags working. The insertion of tags does not help in protecting an article. --Gurubrahma 05:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive