Jump to content

Talk:Indira Gandhi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Support for Terrorism vis a vis Tamil Tigers

It would be more pertinent, especially in modern times and the fallout of the Tamil Militant/Terrorist group in Sri Lanka, to elucidate on her ties with terrorism and India's role with state sponsored terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This allegation seems to be completly biased and unsupported. some nations seem to be making tit for tat allegations against India regarding terrorism but there is nothing substantial to even create a doubt. This content should be removed unless some unbiased supporting document is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeshlad (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The unreferenced comment from the IP user above is indeed of not good faith. should be removed.Anuandraj (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Corruption Charges

The section entitled Corruption Charges is simply a repetition of what is stated in the two or three sections above it in worse English and an opposite political point of view (against Ghandi rather than more-or-less favorable to her). Neither is really NPOV, IMHO, but since I know nothing on the subject, I wouldn't dare changing it myself.... --84.226.18.117 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Surname discussion in introduction

The origins of her surname is too long to be in the introduction. I am moving it to a section of its own. Also, whoever wrote it did so in too personal a manner. There is actually a sentence "Another story, according to Mr. Arvind Lavakare in a personal communication to me" (!) in there. Not sure how to deal with that; "me" should reference themselves. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I now see that the story of the surname coming from Mahatma Gandhi by adopting Feroze is false, so I am just removing it. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical Tone

In the section about Operation Bluestar, what does it mean to be "bedeviled" by the "problems" in Punjab???? This is obviously terminology that does nothing to shed light on the historical accuracy of the events that transpired. In a similar context, for example, the Encylcopedia Brittanica mentions specifically that Indira Gandhi was "angered" by the call for independence by Bhindrawale's group. Isn't this a more accurate way of describing the event as it unfolded?

Also, there is no mention of how the policies of Indira Gandhi had lasting and pernicious consequences for "democracy" in India to the present day. There have been countless, ongoing human rights abuses, torture of citizens, and a methodical attempt to cover this up. Even former President Clinton wrote in the introduction to Madeline Albright's book, The Mighty and the Almighty, that "Militant Hindus Murdered 38 Sikhs In Cold Blood" during his visit to the "world's largest democracy." For further details on this, please visit the website:

http://www.khalistan.com/PressReleases/PR053006_ClintonSaysHinduMilitantsMurderedSikhs.htm

Overall, there needs to be more balance to the article, instead of trying to use words like "bedeviled" and "problems" when referring to people trying to establish real democracy. If Puerto Rico or Quebec can vote for statehood or nationhood, respectively, in their own democracies, certainly this is not referred to as being "bedeviled" by "problems." How does this represent a Neutral Point of View????

The website mentioned above is not unbiased source but rather a website supporting a terrorist movemnt which caused mayhem in Indian state of Punjab and killed thousands of people in cold blood before being routed uot by people of punjab.

The website mentioned above is indeed not neutral and cannot be cited. The word "problem" is a neutral word when peace is disturbed in society in any name. And "bedviled" may be the suitable word in the specific case where it became suicidal and none of the modern world leaders today won't think of such an action, and the region has peace and harmony no less(may be more) than any part of the country now.Anuandraj (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Indira Gandhi passed her Matric from Pune University and was then went to Shantiniketan, West Bengal. She received her college education at Somerville College, Oxford

Refrences and Citations

Im curious how a NPOV article can be written with such few sources, im not questioning the content as i simply don't know enough but there are some obvious examples of confusion, 20,000 sikhs are claimed to have been killed on this article, the one specifically for sikh pogroms says 3000, the bbc says up to a thousand http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/31/newsid_2464000/2464423.stm Zaq12wsx 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening comments

The article tends to concentrate almost entirely on her actions against Sikhs. It would be nice to have information about other aspects of her life and time in office. - Kricxjo

Well she is responsibile for it and is the thing that led to her death. She doomed herself. Leading an Attacking on a holy site is like comitting sucide. Imagine what would happen to saudi royal family if they attacked mecca.

The way that Gandhi is referred to in this article is extremely disrespectful and sexist. Imagine a caption on a picture about a male head of state referring to "Mr. Bush" (as the one in this article refers to "Mrs. Gandhi") or to "George" as the main subject of sentences (as this article uses "Indira"). A head of state is referred to by his or her official title, by title + last name, or by last name---NEVER by first name, and NEVER by Mr./Mrs.! Karasuman 01:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that referring to her as Mrs. Gandhi is disrespectful. Tony Blair, prime minister of England, is regularly referred to as Mr. Blair in the newspapers. Additionally, with Indira Gandhi, South Asianists have the usual problem that referring to her simply by her last name, ie, Gandhi, causes enormous confusion with those who are not familiar with Indian politics, because of the much more famous Gandhi. So with Indira Gandhi, I've often seen writers take great pains to find some way of referring to her other than simply 'Gandhi'. I'd suggest sticking with Indira Gandhi or Mrs. Gandhi or something along those lines.

I must agree. Hornplease 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do we care about Gandhi's sex life? How relevant is to to an encyclopedia article? The way it stands, this article is extremely biased against her. This is against the spirit of a factual article. User:hciautopoietic —Preceding comment was added at 09:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Karasuman. It's generally not considered appropriate to refer to an elected head of state by first name. You don't see a lot of "George this" and "George that" thrown around in the article on George W. Bush. Yet in this article the Prime Minister of India is referred to with undue familiarity as "Indira". I've fixed this stylistic error and also added a great many citation needed tag for some of the more subjective claims in the article. The appropriate way to refer to her would be Prime Minister Gandhi (or earlier in life, Minister Gandhi), or Indira Gandhi, or simply Gandhi. I've also replaced a lot of instances with "she" and "her" to avoid redundancy. I've been careful to only do this in places where it's easy to tell who "she" is referring to. Kasreyn 21:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Manveer and I am a Sikh. What Indira Gandhi did to Sikhs was very disrespectable. She ordered indian troops to attack one of our most holiest places in the world, right on our major holiday. On top of that, her troops were walking with there shoes on in our temple, which is very wrong. She saw Sikhs as cowards, and believed our society will be destroyed by this massacre. Fortunetly, she was wrong. I am not surprised her name is referred to "Indria Ghandi" instead of "Mrs. Ghandi". In my opinion, she derserves all the disrespect she has received. For more pictures of this massacre, go to google.com, then images, and search Operation Blue Star. You can also e-mail me at redacted contact details.

"What is tragic is that a tense situation which could have been resolved without a shot being fired was allowed to deteriorate to the point where the sacred sanctity of the Golden Temple complex was violated and desecrated in the most brutal and unholy way. Thousands of innocent visiting pilgrims and temple workers lost their lives in a sacred place of worship.The Akal Takht, the seat of supreme Sikh temporal power was reduced to rubble. Harmandir Sahib was riddled with over 300 bullets. The Sikh library with precious manuscripts of the Gurus was burned to the ground. The Temple treasury Toshakhana with priceless historical artifacts of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was destroyed. The continuos reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Harmandir Sahib was interrupted for the first time in hundreds of years. These events have forever left a permanent scar on the Sikh psyche." -Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bindarawale

She was just jealous. she was one racist- she couldnt handle sikhs being smarter- she tought that hinduisim is supierior, which is not. i agree with Mr. manveer, she deseved the disrespest, she should be even more disrespected. she didnt have to bomb the Gurdwara, she couldnt handel the beautifulness of the Gurdwara, she could have just sent people to capture him, without any weapons. she just hated Sikhs for wrong reasons, i am happy she was assinated. tomadre

As obviously angry as you may be, biased points of view have no place in an encyclopedia. Even Adolf Hitler, as evil as he is, is still referred to by his last name and/or his title because this is an encyclopedia. Also, by stating that you are happy that she was assassinated you are showing that you are no better than Prime Minister Gandhi, because you look upon murder in a positive light. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/10spec1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeshlad (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Errors?

Nixon never explicitly threatened India with a nuclear strike.Instead he just sent his USS Enterprise as a message and not for a possible strike.Things never went that bad.

Anonymous

Nixon was indirectly supporting our ally (Pakistan) with this fleet movement in order to stave off a complete collapse of West Pakistan by a determined and implacable PM Ghandi. This show of force is further connected to an effort by the U.S. to prevent a Sino-Soviet conflict had the Chinese (who the U.S. was in secret negotiations with) deemed it necessary to send military aid to Pakistan. This would have possibly resulted in creating a direct clash between Washington (secretly seeking diplomatic relations with China)and Moscow, who were indirectly stoking the flames of war on the subcontinent. I disagree that "things never went that bad". Indeed the world was inching towards a global conflict.

T. Hunter

Indira Gandhi was born on 19 November but the article states Nov 22 1917 - Oct 31. I am not sure who put that in but I think it needs to be corrected and I am not confident enough to do it. I also do not think the airport was renamed because she died after entering the airport. She was shot near her nome/office by her own bodyguards. The airport was an ambitious project and was renamed in her owner after it was completed. Thank you Ravi

Correct re the date of birth. I've just changed it in the text (the summary table already had Nov 19). No idea about the airport; leaving that one for someone else. –User:Hajor 21:21, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The airport was not named because of the above reason. It's the standard ritual in the Congress rule to name most of the things after Indira, Rajiv, Nehru and the Mahatma. Even if the above line of reasoning had not happened, I have no doubt that the naming the airport after her was going to happen. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


also re: date of birth- the article states that indira ghandi was 17 when her mother died. this would appear incorrect if she was born in 1917 and her mother died in 1936?

I plan to make "Indira" a disambig page. Indira is also a 1996 Tamil film directed by Suhasini. Jay 12:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it related/about Indira Gandhi? If yes, make it a "see also" and dont diambiguate. --Jiang
No its not related to Indira Gandhi. Also, Indira currently has only 2 pages that link to it, and one of them is related to the film. Jay 14:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm the statement about Mother Teresa endorsing Emergency? A quick google search revealed naught. Just wanna make sure. Gaurav 08:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I think the whole Feroz Khan name change to Feroz Gandi is quite fascinating. It would be nice if someone knowledgable could fill in this aspect of Indira's story.

I have doubts about this Khan thing. Hindu newspaper a more credible source does not say anything. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/10/20/stories/2002102000110500.htm . But there are a couple of websites with this story http://www.sikhlionz.com/nehrufamily.htm and http://www.vepachedu.org/Nehrudynasty.html , how credible are they that's another issue. I think this issued should be resolved as I saw a couple of sites/forums making arguments based on what's there in wikipedia. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is inconsistent in the name used to idenitfy Indira Gandhi. Would "Indira" or "Gandhi" be correct? It seems to me that her surname should be used consistently throughout the article. --L. Pistachio 05:47, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think, either Indira or Mrs. Gandhi should be used. "Gandhi" by itself would not be appropriate. Alren 22:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a section at the beginning of the PM section where it states that she did everything to 'reduce' her power. Is that a typo?

Several sentences use the word alleviate. Should it be elevate instead? Alleviate means "to bring relief or to relieve." In the context of the sentences which use alleviate it seems the writes wants to indicate a rise to power or elevate.

Also, one of paragraphs refers to Rajiv as the younger son but it states earlier in the article he is the elder of the two.

Name

Does anyone know why she took the last name Gandhi instead of Nehru? Was it because of marriage or what? I don't know much about Indian history but I am interested to learn and I was surprised that at least a brief comment on this fact wasn't in the article. -Lommer | talk 20:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi was born Indira Priyadarshini. She changed her last name to Gandhi due to her marriage to Feroz Gandhi.Shahab 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer

Members of the Hindu and Muslim ruling families sometimes fall in love with Parsis. The name of the most famous political dynasty in India, Gandhi, is derived not from Mahatma Gandhi, but from a Parsi named Feroze Gandhi, who married the daughter of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Feroze Gandhi's wife, Indira, became Prime Minister.

I think that the fact that she was married to Feroze Gandhi should be mentioned in the article.


heres a weird thing i was just surfing thr the net whn i gave Indira Gandhi do u know wht came up. She actually got converted to Islam coz her husband is Feroze khan who changed his name 2 Gandhi. seems like a shock? Further its was Gandhiji who gave him his surname n caste. But is it actually spelt Ghandhi. U wont trust ne so just search-'Indira Gandhi and Feroze Khan' bye

Check your facts. Feroze was adopted by Mahatma Gandhi, hence the name Feroze Gandhi. Indira Gandhi herself never converted to Islam.--68.163.65.184 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feroze Khan was son of Nawab Khan whose wife was a Parsi with last name of 'Ghandy' - a Parsi last name. Nawab Khan's wife converted to Islam when she married him. Indira herself converted to Islam when she got married to Feroze Khan in a London mosque (Google - Indira marriage in a London mosque). It was Feroze Khan who provided her security and closeness while she was all alone with her sick mother in Switzerland and her busy father in politics. Mohandas Gandhi had asked Feroze Khan to change his last name to his mother's last name - Ghandy, due to Nehru's political situation. Amazingly Rajiv's paternal grand father (Nawab Khan) is never mentioned in press only her maternal grand father (Nehru) is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.79.76 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Early life - non-sequitur

"In 1936, her mother, Kamala Nehru, finally succumbed to tuberculosis after a long struggle. Indira was 18 at the time and thus never experienced a stable family life during her childhood."

The second part of the sentence doesn't follow on from the first - just because your mother dies at 18 doesnn't mean you never experienced a stable family life.

--WeAreSilver (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

suggestions

one might wish to clarify this line: Kissinger and Nixon opposed an independent Bangladesh. although it is pretty obvious (to me) who kissinger is, the passage needs to mention his position in Nixon's cabinet, right?

also...i cant make sense of this sentence Her environmental protection policies were held up an exemplary given India's status as a poor developing country. maybe an should become as...?

Soviet Union influence

The influence the Soviet Union exerted on Indira should be incorporated from: Yahoo! News. This provides a more accurate view of corruption in 1970s-India. freestylefrappe 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Indirag.jpg

File:Indirag.jpg

Image:Indirag.jpg (right) looks nice and may be useful to Wikipedia, but the pic's has no source info. Does anyone know what its copyright status is ? I hope it's in the public domain. Thanks. -- PFHLai 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not of good standard

The article does not seem to be of encyclopedia standards. example consider this paragraph

' Sanjay's reckless youth induced a need in his mother to take care of her son under all circumstances. The outcome was a political partnership that eventually resulted in abrogation of democracy, corruption and abuse of power on a previously unwitnessed scale. Rajiv Gandhi is believed to have said that he would never forgive his brother'

On what basis are the above statements made. Presently I have inserted a cleanup tag


--Nuttysocrates 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias and POV

I will agree that this article seems to have been written either very quickly, or by someone who doesn't have the proper know-how of encylcopedic writing. Also the article seems to be very biased and reads as a kind of semi-soft propoganda that wishes to soften, if not all out redeem Indira Gandhi's image and controversial steps. The following text is both badly written and seems like a POV article.

"Pakistan saw it as a chance to create problems for India. Bhindranwale in the mean time used the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of Sikhism, as a camp hideout. He used the temple as a base for weapons and hid there, because it is considered a holy place which would mean the chance of India attacking him were very little."

Bhindranwale was in the Akal Takt and technically was considered by Sikhs as the leader of the Akhal Takt, which administers rules and guidelines of most sikh temples and especially the Temple in Amritsar. I do not think it would be possible for a man who is in charge of the Golden Temple to use it as his "hideout". Exatly what was he hiding from?

It gives the notion that this selected person was somehow a mobster or Mafia ganglord. Which seems the be the indication the person who wrote the article wishes to give. Also:

"However, months of negotiations failed to resolve the standoff, and Indira was backed into a corner to decide weather or not to invade the temple and flush out the separtists. If she decided not to, civil unrest would probably occur."

How exactly do you know that civil rest "would probably occur?" It seems as this is a slight attempt to justify the actions taken and not a proper objective way of telling the incident. Many simply think that Indira Gandhi did not want to seem "soft" in her approach to the militant movement, but that does not mean anyone has a right to state this in an objective encyclopedia such as this.

"There is also a view that she had foreseen her death just days before her assassination, as she had said: 'If I die a violent death as some fear and a few are plotting, I know the violence will be in the thought and the action of the assassin, not in my dying......and each drop of my blood will give birth to new India!'"

Exactly when did she say this? There should be some evidence provided and it seems to be another attempt to soften the image of the former prime minister into something of an idealistic patriot.

The last little bit about her "legacy" reads more as propoganda to excuse the former prime minister of many of her most prominent criticisms and reads like a "sure she did bad" but she was "forceful, full of conviction and did what was right for the 'integrity of the state'"

Also there is much misconception and propoganda-like falsehood in some sections such as:

"This organized mass-murder was carefully orchestrated by senior Congress party members and its scale never seen before or since, in modern India"

This is rather flimsy because the fact remains the riots and murders that went on in the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 far outweigh anything that has subsequently happened. Also the 2002 Gujarat riots as well as those in Bombay from 1992 to 1993 may also have been just as large in terms of loss of life and dispertion of people, if not larger.

I removed this sentence until justification for it can be found. DJ Clayworth 19:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Birandwale was hiding from the government due to the fact that his organisation was responsible for numerous crimes. Such as bank robberies and most infamously murders of those who opposed him. To describe him as a ganglord although not a particularly useful description is apt. Birindwale was not considered the leader of the Akal Tahkt, Harchand Singh Longowal was and it was the weakness of the Akal Takht that allowed Birindwale to fortify the Golden Temple.


Indira gandhi predicted her own death in a speech in Bhubaneswar on 30th October 1984 in an elctioneering speech, that is a direct quote.

Listen, Saint Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale gave up his life for Sikhs so we shud appreciate it, instead of havin people lik u criticising him. And plus he was not a criminal he was only labelled one by the goverment in order for them to hav an excuse to try to catch him, so all dat stuff about him bein a criminal is rubbish. Furthermore he was a saint, so these opnions being expressed of him being a criminal and a saint are very idiotic. Before u mak comments lik this u shud first do some research and think carefully about the views u express because some can be offensive.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who is willing to commit murder for any reason other than the victim poses an immediate and deadly threat to oneself is a criminal and deserves criticism. For that both Saint Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi are guilty. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutraility

I reverted a whole change because it showed signs of seriously non-encyclopedic writing. We do not write things like "many people think...but the truth is..." because this clearly indicates that you are writing as fact things which most writers do not believe about the subject in question. We also do not pass judgement on our subjects. Finally, this is supposed to be about Indira Gandhi. Plese don't discuss other people at length. There are other articles for doing this. DJ Clayworth 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The one thing that really bothered me is the amount of heresay involved in this article...its rather ludicrous. How can anyone say, "Pakistan saw it as a chance to create problems for India. Bhindranwale in the mean time used the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest shrine of Sikhism, as a camp hideout." I've NEVER heard of any evidence that pakistan had any involvement with the sikh militant movment. This was just meaningless heresay and rumour and does not belong in such an encyclopedia. Not to mention that pakistan is a muslim republic and I doubt they would ever want to help militant sikhs form a country that borders their land--especially when one considers the carnage both sikhs and muslims inflicted on each other during 1947. I think it might be nice to not have anymore "pakistan bashing". Since this seems rather epidemic of indian history--anything goes wrong, it was a "foriegn country to blame" (which means either pakistan or china). Its not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Persianlor

Calling a man an ISI agent without providing credible references is also hearsay. If dialectic does not conform to your perceived "encyclopedic writing" why not re-write that particular line, instead of reverting the entire entry? What I have provided here is backed by references.Zafarnamah 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the neutrality of this article. First off, I can see certain bias towards the character of Indira Gandhi herself. I also see some gross exagerrations on a.) the number of Sikhs that were killed and b.) their total innocence. Neither Hindus nor Sikhs are greater than each other in this regard, they both have quite a few skeletons in the closet, I despise the Hindu hatred that is being displayed here.

No mention?

No mention of her forced sterilization campaign? savidan(talk) (e@) 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not enough about the 1971 war

Hardly anything has been said about her role in the 1971 war. Doesn't it deserve much more than just a few lines?

It deserves much more. But could you please sign off your comments? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Policies

Her environmental policies were instrumental in bringing up the creation of national parks and tiger and lion reserves. Could someone look into it?

Archive 1Archive 2

Edit request on 10 May 2013

In the "early life and career"section it says that her father was "incarnated" in prison, I assume they meant incarcerated.

Early life and career

Indira Nehru was born on 19 November 1917 in Allahabad.[2] Her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, led India's political struggle for independence from British rule, and became the first Prime Minister of the Union (and later Republic) of India.[3] She was an only child (a younger brother was born, but died young),[4] and grew up with her mother, Kamala Nehru, at the Anand Bhavan; a large family estate in Allahabad.[5] Indira had a lonely and unhappy childhood.[6] Her father was often away, directing political activities or being incarnated in prison, while her mother was frequently bed-ridden with illness, and later suffered an early death from tuberculosis.[7] She had limited contact with her father, mostly through letters.[8]

Mgregg85 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 23:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

She went on to study at the Viswa Bharati University in shantiniketan 103.24.85.135 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing legacy item

The Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital in Male', Maldives to her legacy. In October 1986 the Maldivian government requested India's assistance in building a large scale hospital during Rajiv Gandhi's official visit. It was agreed to by Rajiv Gandhi; two years later, India and Maldives signed a memorandum of understanding in October 1988. The hospital was officially handed over to the Maldivan Government by the Indian Union Minister for Urban Development, Shrimathi Sheila Kaul, on February 2, 1994. It was officially inaugurated on April 15, 1995, by P. V. Narasimha Rao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.208.130 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Image of Gandhi

The picture that is used for this article is, by all standards, a pretty bad one. Her face is barely discernible and she is not looking at the camera, or at least, her eyes are not visible. This is confounding, as there are tons more much better quality pictures of her than this one, so changing it would be a slight improvement for the article, I think.

Although I would willingly do so myself, certain circumstances prevent me from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.16.43 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Her wrongdoings

There needs to be inclusion of the items I have indicated in the main section, including

Her poor relations with foreign dignitaries including the Kennedys and Richard Nixon among others Her sacrilege on Sikhism's Golden Temple (by her own admission, it was a large enough even to warrant that she may not be alive in the coming days) Her committing electoral fraud to stay in power Her illegal modifications to the Constitution of India

If these changes are not added, the neutrality tags stick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.191.186 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A "controversy" or "Criticism" section can be started, but that should be very well sourced. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It needs to be in the header, and right in the body of the article next to each event. You cannot have all these events lumped together as a slight blip on the radar. It needs to be incorporated into the article to maintain the true nature of each event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.191.186 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sign your posts and revert your recent edits! You are replacing sourced content with unsourced content! "and right in the body of the article next to each event"- that's not how an essay is written! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, essays are written as glowing reviews to be used for propaganda. Right? And there also needs to be mention of her meddling with Punjab politics to try and split Dal Khalsa by raising Bhindranwale to prominance, then facing the same problem as the US did with raising the Taliban to prominance to fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan. If I wanted to be unbiased I'd write a line calling her a terrorist, but that's too much. Just write what I told you to write, or it will be written for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.191.186 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Write what I told you to write? you wont get anywhere on wikipedia with that attitude. also I've requested you before to keep the discussion civil. anyways if you have read through the whole article, you will see that its not some "glowing" propaganda. I have been adding to the article since last month and I have tried to keep it balanced with critical views included. as for your feedback:

1) Her poor relationship with President Nixon is mentioned in the relevant section. Why do you think it is important to merit inclusion in the lead?

2) This is pov pushing. There are equally controversial opposing views.

3) This is not as controversial as you would like to think. All serious charges against her were dismissed. The supreme court verdict was basically described as "firing the prime minister for a traffic ticket."

4) Illegal? The amendments during the emergency were passed in parliament just like every single other amendments. Cliniic (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


I feel bad for you. No one deserves to be this stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.191.186 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I have read a lot of articles and autobiographies that included legally questionable acts of her political career. She had people imprisoned, threatened and harassed if they opposed her. There is nothing about any of that in your article. Also, to state that something is legal because a government she was threatening parties with imprisonment if they did not agree with her, made them actually legal, than I think we might be at a very large disagreement. She changed their constitution with her agenda. Multiple credible sites have referenced these things and this article does not. "In March 1972, buoyed by the country’s success against Pakistan, Gandhi again led her new Congress Party to a landslide victory in national parliamentary elections. Shortly afterward her defeated Socialist Party opponent charged that she had violated the election laws. In June 1975 the High Court of Allahabad ruled against her, which meant that she would be deprived of her seat in parliament and would have to stay out of politics for six years. In response, she declared a state of emergency throughout India, imprisoned her political opponents, and assumed emergency powers, passing many laws limiting personal freedoms. During this period she implemented several unpopular policies, including large-scale sterilization as a form of birth control. When long-postponed national parliamentary elections were held in 1977, Gandhi and her party were soundly defeated, whereupon she left office." Useful biographies include Mary C. Carras, Indira Gandhi (1979); Dom Moraes, Indira Gandhi (also published as Mrs. Gandhi (1980); Nayantara Sahgal, Indira Gandhi, Her Road to Power (1982); Inder Malhotra, Indira Gandhi: A Personal and Political Biography (1989, reissued 1991); and Pupul Jayakar, Indira Gandhi: An Intimate Biography (1992). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.115.65 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Third or fourth Prime Minister?

There are some editors here that keep changing her from the third to the fourth Prime Minister. I can see the logic of this but does someone who was caretaker for two short terms before elections count? This is what seems to make the difference. And if you do make the change please use an Edit summary to tell us why and stop it from appearing as one of the "random number changes" that people seem to find so funny. Britmax (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you include Gulzarilal Nanda who was acting prime minister on two occasions while the next prime minister was being chosen, then she is fourth. If you don't include him, then she is third. List of Prime Ministers of India should also be useful. Myopia123 (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note, I was not involved in the edit war. Myopia123 (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Article explains the what but not the why.

The article states when, where, and who assasinated Indira Gandhi, but does not say why her body guards killed her. Is there an answer to that question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.67.68.252 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is elaborated on in Assassination of Indira Gandhi. Also, the answer to your question is something that is still a bit of a sensitive topic within India and, in my opinion, that is why some editors would have preferred to leave it out. I suggest you read The Emergency (India), Operation Blue Star, Satwant Singh, Beant Singh and Operation Blue Star for a more holistic idea of what happened. Myopia123 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship to Mahatma Gandhi

Why doesn't the article describe the relationship between Indira Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi? There's a section from 5 years ago in this talk thread asking the same question. As an unfamiliar reader looking for basic information, this is a huge omission. Was there an edit war in the past over this? Surely the editors can hash out something here and add a sentence or two to the "Early life and career" section. If it's so controversial that this is difficult, that only makes it more important that something be added. Oconnor663 (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference to the other Gandhi perpetuates the error that Indira was related to him. The caption to the photo "Gandhi fasting in 1924, with the young Indira" is particularly misleading. This article is about Indira Gandhi, not the mystic who happened to share the same surname.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording. Please see what you think. --NeilN talk to me 12:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a note, the subject is addressed in Nehru–Gandhi family, perhaps regular editors might want to think of referencing it in here too. —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I added in the photo's description that she was not related to him, to clarify this for readers. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:2257 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I grabbed the bull by its horn, and added an explicit note clarifying the relationship in this edit. The current placement may not be ideal, since this "common mistake" is unlikely to be the first thing of note about Indira Gandhi, but couldn't think of a better one. Pinging @NeilN: any input? Feel free to tweak. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: No issues here. Attentive readers will see there's no familial relationship from the article text but a note can't hurt. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle-East (bias) - Iran Not In the Middle-East

The section 'Middle East' contains whole lot of pure 'bias' towards Pakistan (that can be visibly noticed). The section does not provide 'balanced-outlook'; and tries to give everywhere a brief justification behind the Middle-Eastern support for Pakistan, as if trying to justify why India lacked the support (because of the US influence, but not due to Pakistan's cultural and religious fraternity with the Muslim-majority region). It does look the write-up is furnished to deflate Pakistan's support in the Middle East and prioritize India as an overall 'good-guy' (like, from the movie).

Also, the section includes 'Iran' to be part of the Middle-East. Iran has never been geographically and historically part of Middle-East (it rather belongs to the Central-Asia) - SarfarazLarkanian 02:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Vajpayee calling Indira Gandhi Durga

Regarding A.B. Vajpayee`s comment on Indira Gandhi. It is more reliable to take it from the source (himself) rather than newspaper reports. The references you cited were 29(Dynasties and Female Political Leaders in Asia: Gender, Power and Pedigree. By Claudia Derichs, Mark R. Thompson) which it self cites p.175 of Indira Gandhi A Biography(1997) by Pupul Jayakar. A Pupul Jayakar does not say in her book that that A.B. Vajpayee called her durga, but simply states that she likened to durga. (I tried to copy excerpt from page 175 for your benefit but it triggered a filter) while citations 30 and 31 are irrelevant as they do not contain this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.195.188 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User 117.196.195.188

Ref 30 by Balraj Puri says "Meanwhile, Indian nationalism, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, hailed as an avtar of goddess Durga by the then Jan Sangh leader Atal Behari Vajpayee,"

Back in 1971 , Vajpayee, one of Gandhi's foremost political enemy, calling her Durga after the 1971 Bangladesh victory was indeed a big deal. Unfortunately, I do not have access to news archives from that era. However, none of the references I have cited are from newspapers. they are from reliable academic sources. Perhaps, Vajpayee said that during the euphoria over the war victory. Here is a recent reference when a current BJP leader recalls the Durga statement.[1]

If you feel strongly about it, I recommend you can add a sentence to the section saying that Vajpayee has denied it (calling her Durga). You will I am sure add a source to back it up. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indira Gandhi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Indira Gandhi. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Indira Gandhi. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indira Gandhi. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Foreign policy

The article has very little or nothing to say on Indira's views and policies the following:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indira Gandhi. 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:

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) 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Views on Women

This section is sourced but do other biographies have similar sections such as "views on men" and "views on women"?Jonathansammy (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NO. To my knowledge no BOP article is having such section. I think someone must have added just to make article lengthy and confusing. Such section can be summarise in 2-3 lines.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. we can cull this section. Sourced content from the section can be added to other sections if it is relevant.Jonathansammy (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation. There should be two spaces after a full stop.

I was reading the section on her first period as PM and noticed that many sentences have no spaces, or just one space, after the full stop at the end. This makes it hard to read. We should always have two spaces after a full stop.

Does whoever wrote that section have the time to correct this? Or anyone else? If not, I'll do it when I'm back in a couple of weeks.

It is a pity that Wiki doesn't have an automatic grammar correction tool. There's an app called Grammarly which does spelling and punctuation on websites. But some have to be told to work with it, such as Facebook. But it only shows errors and suggests corrections - it often gets it wrong, saying there's an error when there isn't.

But in the same way as my phone keyboard automatically capitalises the first letter of a sentence, it's a pity they can't automatically put two spaces between a full stop and a capital letter. Ganpati23 (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The 2 space thing was the convention for typing on typewriters, it is not applicable for for computer-based writing. Jjismynameforreal (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Horse puckey: one and a half spaces after a full stop makes text look and read much better. That said, too many designers have pushed too hard for banishing it from the web. At this point, it's up to users to code their own browsers to create such spacing; the default is for browsers to ignore double spaces even when they're present, so there's no point in anyone undertaking 23's request. — LlywelynII 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias

Obviously, this page is going to draw plenty of nationalists and chauvinists from several sides, but the unsourced lead text

...increasing India's influence to the point where it became the regional hegemon of South Asia...

and the mistaken later commentary

...accepting India's hegemony in the subcontinent...

should obviously be removed from the article. India's recent growth gives it an economy roughly ten times larger than Pakistan, which obviously gives it plenty of monetary and cultural clout. That said, it's hardly a hegemon able to exert actual control over the ISI, let alone the Pakistani religious community or nuclear arsenal. The quote from the Pakistani despot is not that India actually has hegemony over his country; it's that he felt Indira was unjustly attempting to establish such a state of affairs.

It's fair to find some sources that claim that Ms Gandhi did have hegemony in mind but we shouldn't phrase anything in the article as a claim that she actually succeeded. India has exerted some hegemony—now mostly lost to China—over the Himalayan microstates, but it has at no point been in hegemonic control over Pakistan or the entire subcontinent. — LlywelynII 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How many bullets were fired?

The article seems to contradict itself with respect to the number of bullets fired. In one section, it says: "Beant Singh shot her three times using his side-arm and Satwant Singh fired 30 rounds.[85]" That's a total of 33 rounds. But shortly after that the article says: "The assailants had fired 31 bullets at her, of which 30 had hit;" My assumption is that the number is now well established but that there may have been some confusion in the early reporting, and one of the references (#85) is no longer considered accurate. Alternatively, the precise number may be disputed. The article should clarify what the situation is, rather than make contradictory statements with no explanation. Thanks. Curtbeckmann (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It was 31 as much have been read and listen Dr Zafar Hasan 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Zafar Hasan (talk • contribs)

grammar

This article desperately needs a thorough check by a native English speaker. Mine is not english so I'd not like to correct all the grammar mistakes in the article. 89.8.107.131 (talk)

article's written in Indian english and looks fine without any grammar mistakes as far as I can see.107.13.175.32 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

the second woman in 700 years, after Razia Sultana, to become a ruler of India.

Found here.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.86.230 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes

Dear 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣, with your edits you have replaced good academic secondary sources with newspaper sources. Also you have not given plausible reasons for the changes you made. This being one of the most important India related articles, I believe,you should obtain consensus on talk page before making wholesale changes.That being the case, I am restoring the previous stable version before you started editing a few days ago.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have clearly tagged the article that editing in progress. And I am in process of improving it whenever I get time. Nominated it for copy edit as well. I have worked hard to cover important points since there are plenty of unnecessary information are being mentioned and created separate main articles to give broad idea but seems like you do not like the idea of making the article to GA level. Anyway, good luck with the information mentioned in the article, giving up.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand but I don't want to see GA status for the article at the expense of omitting important information.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I thoroughly understand that person is dead years ago and it's difficult to find reliable sources. Meantime, I created separate articles for example foreign relations and economic policies in order save those important sources. If you refer those two articles, all references are there. My only agenda was to mentioned key points and rest of points can be cover in main article. Kindly, correct if missing on something.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 19:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Change required

In office of prime minister of India indira Gandhi was preceded by Lal Bahadur Shastri instead of Charan Singh as mentioned in this page. Mohit Singh Saharan (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

I am requesting to add this in personal life section:

Marriage with Feroze Jahangir

Indira Gandhi loved Firoz Jahangir. He was a Zoroastrian. When Indira informed her father about Feroze, her father Jawaharlal Nehru asked Feroze to convert to Hinduism, but Feroze turned down the offer. Then Indira explained to her father that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism had the same source, the two were in fact the same religion. As evidence, he argues, the main deity described in Zend Avesta of Zoroastrianism is Ahura Mazda and the main deity described in the Rig Veda, "Asura Medha," is essentially the same deity. Considering the situation, Mahatma Gandhi adopted Feroze as his adopted child, so Feroze's name became Feroze Gandhi, then he got married to Indira, and Indira's name became Indira Gandhi. In this way, Indira became a member of the Gandhi family, not through blood, but through political relations.[2] 103.67.156.118 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: 43.245.123.125 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 Not done. That's a confusingly-written bit of prose. I don't see how the similarities between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism is relevant here. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YG8eAAAAMAAJ&q=Razia+sultana+and+indira+gandhi&dq=Razia+sultana+and+indira+gandhi&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9wurtyrXnAhUXRBUIHQjRDmkQ6AEIMjAB
  2. ^ Pande, B. N. (1972). Indira Gandhi. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. p. 80. Retrieved 28 February 2021.

"Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 17#Summary of indira gandhi as prime minister until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nixon's comments on Gandhi

Is that "witch" or "bitch" or both? (edit) (cited source) The cited source has references to both. On a quick search, I see other sources, books saying it as "witch". Which is the correct one? — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It is bitch Appu (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Priyadarshini is just a nickname

Priyadarshini is just an alias rather than part of her legal name. Every credible source has her name as Indira Gandhi. The anomolies I found have nothing to do with Priyadarshini; the election commission has her name in 1967, 1971, 1977, 1980 as I. N. Gandhi, Indira Nehru Gandhi, Indira Nahru Gandhi, Indira Gandhi.

Source: https://eci.gov.in/files/file/4114-general-election-1967-vol-i-ii/

I make bold to correct it as per this evidence. Change it only if you have a better one. Appu (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Indira Priyadarshini" is what she was named [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 definitely not reliable. Priyadarshini here too is just a nickname, in fact, this article in its first section mentions that the nickname was given by Tagore much later in her life. Moreover it does not matter what she was born as—but what was her name at all. The last election in 1980 which she fought has her name Indira Gandhi and thus shall be the name. Appu (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Madame Prime Minister" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Madame Prime Minister. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 22#Madame Prime Minister until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 08:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong thing in lead.

The lead mentioning Shrimati. Indira Gandhi's assassin nationalist, delete it. How Prime minister's assassin nationalist ?Holland Tok (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

Indira Gandhi 1966 Indira Gandhi in 1967

There seems to be a disagreement over what image should be in the infobox. Please could editors give their views.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The 1966 image is a valued image on Commons, and has twice the resolution than the 1967 one. The 1967 one has been colourised by a user, possibly using an app, and there is no proof that they were the original colours. It is a violation of Commons:Colorization, which states "Do not overwrite black and white originals with your colorized image". The changes made recently to the 1967 image should be reverted. Hence, I prefer the 1966 image. Also, revert the recent revision of File:Rajiv Gandhi (1987).jpg. Peter Ormond 💬 14:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 1966 It's valued. 1967 is not far from 1966 in terms of recenticism, and they both are far away from the present. Also, the colorized commons revision should be reverted and re-uploaded as an extract. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • One gripe I have with the present infobox photo (i.e. the 1966 image) is that it's not well-centered on Indira Gandhi, the subject of the article. I think a cropped version of the image like the one provided below addresses this problem while also giving visitors a better view of Gandhi in general. Thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
@Toddy1: @DaxServer: @Peter Ormond:

I think that the 1967 image is best. By most sensibilities, the (variants of) 1966 image is unflattering. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC. This is where the RFC was

For the reasons provided above, this rfc comes to open a discussion whether the current infobox picture should be replaced by either Image A or B below.

Image A
Image B

Emiya1980 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Original 1966 / no change in existing infobox image - (not A nor B) (please see the start of the section for the image) It's identified as a valued image on Commons. If there exists an image identified under the Commons:Valued image criteria as the most valuable illustration of the subject, it is to be preferred over a cropped one. The image as a whole was valued, not the cropped version. Note: Image A appears to be original, but it is not, it is a cropped version. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems like the discussion on this issue has come to a halt. For good measure, let’s get the opinions of more editors for a conclusive consensus.@Chewings72: @25 Cents FC: @Soap Boy 1: @Nick.mon: @Anonymous Username: @VNC200:Emiya1980 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Emiya1980 This is a blatant canvassing. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC) (struck off — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC))
  • 1966 Although valued image but Gandhi's look seems intense, dubious. And What I wanted to know, is there any compulsion that article should have a valued image in infobox? If ans is NO, we can put 1967.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 06:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    @25 Cents FC There is no compulsion, but just my opinion. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Confusing and probably faulty RFC (invited by he bot) It seems that the main debate is whether or not to use/substitute the 1967 image. The argument against the 1967 one seems to have dissolved by removal of the colorization. Then the RFC excludes it and limits choices to essentially three versions of the same image. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment—(invited by bot)—I agree with North8000 in each particular. I checked the other Indira Gandhi images on commons and was struck by the UNESCO formal portrait at Indira Ghandi UNESCO image 1978. The lede images of other important world leaders seem to formal portraits, or at least planned images. The image choice apparently offered by this RFC is among either various crops of a candid image or an outtake from a portrait session. Unless there is some historical reason for the RFC mentioned image, in my opinion, the UNESCO portrait is more suitable. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
the UNESCO portrait
  • Edit: UNESCO preferred, alternatively Image B or 1967. Hmm, @Peter Ormond: Why did you edit the article just now, giving per talk as the reason? I don't see a consensus here at the moment (colouring is of course a no-go). And while I can see your point about a valued picture being prefered, the nomination for 1966 has just a single vote, which I hardly would call a thorough examination. Personally, I feel that the 1966 picture includes a weird gesture, she is straightening her clothes or something. Not terrible, but it results in a bit of "agitation" where calmness would be preferable (not sure how to describe that in English properly). The cropped option, "Image B", does not inherit that disturbance, which is why I would prefer that or the 1967. Note that this is argued purely from an amatuer photographers perspective, and I am not too eager to get involved in Indian political discussion which from experience can be ridiculousely heated here. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Editing since I managed to find the file that Neonorange meant (displayed here as well for ease of comparison). It's a solid alternate choice, and I agree that it has none of the randomness of the other two. A proper portrait photograph, could be cropped a bit for the infobox size maybe, but superior to the other ones. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, LordPeter, for finding the UNESCO image of Indira Gandhi I meant to link in my earlier comment (October 25, 2021). The image you posted here is indeed the file I should have linked.— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC) —
Thank you, LordPeterII, for finding the UNESCO image of Indira Gandhi I meant to link in my earlier comment (October 25, 2021). The image you posted here is indeed the file I should have linked. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) —

I think official portrait of Indira Gandhi must be added in the image parameter rathar than other images. The image is available in the official website of prime minister of India. Ku423winz1 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ku423winz1: We will need to use a picture that is free, and available on Wikipedia. Do you have a preference for any of the above options?
And everyone else, is this discussion going anywhere? This was not formally formatted as a RfC, and maybe it should be, with all the options presented that were added in the meantime. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII:, the picture I have given is definitely free to use as it is taken from the official website of prime minister's office. Ku423winz1 (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

In the very first paragraph of the article, in the sentence "She was India's first, and to date only, female prime minister and a central figure of the Indian National Congress." the second comma should precede "only". The proposed version: "She was India's first, and to date, only female prime minister and a central figure of the Indian National Congress." D.baran (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

changing fopr to for Thirdpointofview (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The India map provided is wrong and needs to be corrected

from wherever the map is picked it seems not geniune and written in whatever language 131.89.195.121 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Online poll

Why is there an online poll from 1999 of BBC website users in this article? Thenightaway (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That BBC poll is historical and concerns a broad subject highly relevant for this article. Don't see anything wrong with it. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that there's anything historic, notable or meaningful about a self-selected website poll. Thenightaway (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Forced Sterilization Program

Why is there no mention of her forced sterilization program in 1975? Her government forced around 11 million men to to become sterile, and thousands died due to surgical complications. See here for info (bottom of the article has other sources): https://edtimes.in/various-wrong-things-sanjay-gandhi-did-in-1975-to-control-population/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.5.169 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indira_Gandhi/Archive_1&oldid=1264570368"