This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Film:British /Indian /American This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see lists ofopen tasks andregional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to theguidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by theBritish cinema task force. This article is supported by theIndian cinema task force. This article is supported by theAmerican cinema task force. India:CinemaMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported bythe Indian cinema task force (assessed asMid-importance).

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Weaver, John; Kreitzer, Larry (2005). "Gandhi: The Strength of Weakness". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.).Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing.ISBN 1573124583.

Please put Co-Producer: Rani Dube credit in in box - for some reason, she has been edited out, and I can't seem to gether re-included.81.98.138.129 (talk)20:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten this in NPOV. However I do think an extra paragraph that starts off with something like "This film one critical acclamation because..." would not go amiss.

About the "Mahatma" thing - I see it was originally excluded, then added, modified, then removed again. Most folks think it was his real first name. They don't realize it is an honorific of sorts. Even the article on his life here in Wiki is titled Mahatma_Gandi. The real first name, Mohandas, is buried in the article. Until there is agreement on what to do about that, we'll never get it right here. - Bill - 13 Jan 05

Not sure that it's necessary to use his real name when most people know him as Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi. I'm having a hard time agreeing that using his common name is bad.Cburnett 21:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was going to change this to say Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi which I think would be the best approach - note the Gandhi article now is listed under his actual name. I'll watch and if there are no objections make the change.Gr8white (talk)21:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the top it says approx 300,000 extras, and at the bottom, approx 250,000 extras in the funeral scene. Somebody want to find out which is the more accurate number? Maybe check theGuinness Book. —FREAK OF NUR_xTURE(TALK) 05:10, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Jeandré, 2006-02-18t19:24z

Some things should be said about the controversy of this film, especially its bias towards Jinnah, who is depicted as an all in out villain when he too in reality desired a united country, however one with strong protections for minorities (particularly the Muslims). -[[Afghan Historian17:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

There should be section about historical (un)reliability of the movie (some material can be found in review[1]) but without growing into yet another war zone, please.Pavel Vozenilek01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came to this page seeking expanded information on the controversy mentioned about the film on the main Gandhi page- only to find there was no mention of it!68.211.142.19820:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [didnt bother to log in.. whatever][reply]

another thing left out in the movie is the (albeit) background behind gandhi's assassination. Nathuram Godse (the assassin) should've got at least a couple of scenes to explain his motive behind such a huge self-destructive step. but then again history is always presented to us like 'they' want us to see it.—Precedingunsigned comment added byCaprico4 (talk •contribs)06:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the link Mackensen. Do you have a source reference, or is this based on the dates he was Viceroy? --Jeandré, 2006-02-17t11:20z

Based on dates, but I feel pretty good doing that. He was Lord Chelmsford from 1905 to 1933, which covers much of the period in question. He was directly concerned with the Armritsar massacre. While both thesecond baron andsecond viscount were alive during Gandhi's life, neither seem to have had anything to do with him. It's a safe bet.Mackensen(talk)12:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a trivia note about the Gandhi II shetch in the movie UHF. It may need expanding, especially if any groups took offense to it. Strangely, UHF got more negative press for the poodle throwing scene than anything else... though I doubt the real Gandhi would have cared for the sketch if he had been alive to see it.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by206.162.192.39 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-17t19:27:30z.

Section seems too long as it is. Maybe a one-liner with a link to UHF would be more appropriate? (that or kill it)68.211.142.19820:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Ghandi II, he's back, and he's mad!"Pustelnik (talk)03:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My DVD is color, andIMDb's technical specs says "Technicolor", butIMDb's main details says "Color: Black and White / Color (Technicolor)". Anyone have sources explaining this? --Jeandré, 2006-07-24t18:54z

There are sequences in the film recreating MovieTone newsreel type footage tht are in black and white. I know this is a year since you asked the question but if you ever come back to this page I hope that this helps.MarnetteD |Talk22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jeandré, 2007-09-02t21:20z

Why is this film in this category if it's in English? Is Indian English a foreign language for Americans? In this case you speak least 1 "foreign language" :PP

The answer is here -Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film; the category is badly-named, as before 1986 the Golden Globe award was only called 'Best Foreign Film', i.e. it was simply for non-American films, regardless of language.Cop 63320:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the summary says that Gandhi, at the end of his life, was planning to convince both India and Pakistan to remergeas one nation. Thats not actually the case. He says in the film that his goal was to make peace between the two countries. He said that he, with a heavy heart, had accepted the country's partition but felt that they couldnt part as enemies. It was for his fight for peace between both neighbors and greater Muslim rights that got him killed. He didnt have any plans to remerge the two countries, as he accepted the August 14-5 1947 division as final.Afghan Historian22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to expand the synopsis to follow the movie more closely. Right now it's just a loose summary of Gandhi's life, with little reference to what actually appears on screen, and which events are covered most thoroughly, etc. etc.67.52.196.13003:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a Gandhi Special Edition DVD with a Richard Attenborough commentary which would provide a better editor than me with lots of details about the film to help expand this limited page—Precedingunsigned comment added by172.203.252.188 (talk)20:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that screenwriterJohn Briley, who won an Oscar for this film, doesn't have an article! --Orange Mike23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gandhimovie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.

Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk)19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of (dusts hands).Robert K S (talk)21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They spent $ 22 Mn. for its prodution.How much did they recover?any idea?—Precedingunsigned comment added by203.90.114.6 (talk)07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$52 767 889 (USA)

$07 700 000 (UK)

$06 896 000 (Australia)

$12 245 441 (Germany)

=

$79 609 330 for those 4 countries

SEK 12,044,631 (Sweden)

$24,970,000 (USA rentals)

[2] --Jeandré, 2008-08-02t19:04z

I think people will come to this article, after seeing the movie, wondering how accurate it is. I tried to add some information that would help in that direction. It would be idea to have a detailed synopsis with a discussion of how each part was the same or different from reality, and an additional section covering broader issues of interpretation.Mark Foskey (talk)04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This movie has won 8 academy awards but still there is no mention of it except in the introduction paragraph. I think for a movie which has won 8 awards deserve a much better article. Can you guys eloborate on the exacts of the academy awards that this movie has won?—Precedingunsigned comment added bySonix768 (talk •contribs)17:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not even mention the word salt. lol.98.117.125.221 (talk)21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor the massacre98.117.125.221 (talk)23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a history article so you won't see every item that occurred in the film (or indeed in Gandhi's life) mentioned. PerWP:PLOT that section is to be kept brief and the one on this page currently meets those guidelines. I am not saying that the items you bring up are not important because they are. There just might not be room for them in the synopsis section of the article. Please seeWP:MOSFILM for further guidelines.MarnetteD |Talk23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this movie. The event is a big part of the movie.98.117.125.221 (talk)06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film largely sidesteps portraying Gandhi accurately. It glosses over the peculiarities of his character in order to present a more appealing image. I propose a new section which would detail the most major of the discrepancies.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDefiningEternity (talk •contribs)05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement ("No man's life...") as represented in the current synopsis differssignificantly from the opening statement given in the published screenplay, which reads merely:

No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record, and to try to find one's way to the heart of the man... (Briley, 1983, p. 15)

I double-checked on 2007 version of theGandhi DVD ("25th anniversary edition"), which agreedexactly with the published screenplay (see time about 1:09 of "chapter 1" on the DVD), except it omitted the comma after "record".

Is there any basiswhatsoever for the current page's version of the opening statement? Its text appears to have remained unaltered since it was first inserted byUser:Emcardi on September 8, 2006 (DIFF). Possibly Emcardi's text could be a translation of a non-English subtitle for a non-English version of the DVD. But I don't think it matters, except for a possible footnote: We should quote whatever is used in the main English-language release of the film. --Health Researcher (talk)19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just updated the synopsis quote to be accurate (DIFF). It seems amazing that the inaccurate text persisted for more than 4 years. Since this page was getting about 1000 hits per day (in 2007), which has risen to about 2000 per day (2011), that means about 2 million people viewed the faulty text before it was corrected. Rather sobering.Health Researcher (talk)20:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, seeWP:Manual of Style (film)#Plot for guidelines for writing the synopsis. --Health Researcher (talk)04:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added material that isn't supported by the sources, but represents an interpretation and OR by an editor.Viriditas (talk)00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it containsWP:OR andWP:SYNTH concerning its release to theaters. Also this ref[3] has no info in it about this film showing at the Odeon nor does it mention Princess Diana and it should be removed ASAP. Indeed why is Diana being singled out for her attendance at this film. Undoubtedly, she was only one of several well known people to be at the screening and perWP:UNDUE her mention could be removed. Also the edit mentions that "The film had a limited release in the US on 8 December 1982, followed by a wider release in January 1983" twice in successive paragraphs and we don't need this redundancy. Lastly since we cannot read Derek Malcolm's article there is no way to know if the IP has used more OR in interpreting what he wrote making its use dubious.MarnetteD |Talk01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have reservations about the detailed info regarding US box office figures. This is a British film and it would seem to, again, violate UNDUE to have such detailed mention of the US dollar amounts. I would suggest that we just mention the final dollars total as that would remove some of the OR.MarnetteD |Talk01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As highlighted on the Admin Noticeboard in great detail by two other users, these edits are valid and do indeed contain the content in question. They are notWP:OR,WP:SYNTH or mere interpretation, they are valid, appropriate sources for the details that are being added. The in70mm.com source is a wesbite about films that have been shown in 70mm format (as opposed to the usual 35mm format). The page in particular is for the Odeon Leicester Square (as seen at the top of the page) and just before halfway down on the page is a reference to Gandhi being shown there in 70mm at a royal premiere in Dec 1982. It does not mention Princess Diana, but there is another source (Princess Diana Remembered) that does that and actually shows a press clipping and photos of her at the premiere (she's meeting Ben Kingsley in one of them). It is irrelevant whether or not you can read Derek Malcolm's review online, and you should refer toWP:SOURCEACCESS andWP:OFFLINE for further clarification. The Guardian newspaper archives are available via proquest.com, which I have access to and have checked. The two Guardian articles cited specify the date and cinema of the royal premiere in London and also the budget of the film in Derek Malcolm's review. In the UK, royal film premieres are big, prestigious events (and are often televised) as only one or two films per year have a royal premiere. It is a relevant detail toany film article if it has been selected for a royal premiere. I have no problem with the duplicated details about the US release being trimmed a little, as long as the dates and sources are still intact. I don't have a problem with the film's budget in US dollars being removed either since, as you say, it is not an American film. The final US gross should remain though, but it should clearly state that this isonly the US gross and not worldwide (neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers.com have the worldwide gross).Roguana (talk)01:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. There was only one user on the noticeboard who maintained the edits were valid, and he refused to even look at the sources. Your comment above tells me you aren't even following the discussion here, as you didn't address the problem at all.Viriditas (talk)01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original IP user and Masssassi-UK both made it clear on the admin noticeboard. Read it again.Roguana (talk)01:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing the mention of this film on he Odeon link. I would suggest moving it to the end of this phrase " Odeon Leicester Square in London" to avoid confusion. None of the edits by the IP or M address the problem of OR and they were not posted there to attempt to gain any consensus. That is what we are doing here. Also remember that building consensus is not a vote.MarnetteD |Talk02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem moving the 70mm source to the place you suggested. However, the problem ofWP:OR only seems to be a problem to you. Having looked at all of the sources used, I cannot see anyWP:OR issue. The content added just state what the sources say. Can you elaborate further on what you think is OR in the article (though bear in mind that if you have not been able to access The Guardian archives then that source in particular cannot be questioned until you do). Incidentally, The Guardian archives also state that the Royal Premiere for Gandhi was televised on the night in question at 10.30pm but both Prince Charles and Princess Diana were present. I've just found someITN raw footage used from the telecast on You Tube. Not sure if its usable (though simply including another source from The Guardian alone would be sufficient as it mentions them both) but it might be beneficial to watch if you still have doubts about the factuality of it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYLNt5inFwRoguana (talk)02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a habit of ignoring what other editors say. The problem of OR is recognized by myself and MarnetteD. I explained the OR in the noticeboard report you claimed to have read, which it sounds like you did not. The Numbers source does not make the claims that the editor says it does, and the claims it does make are at odds with more reliable sources on the subject.Viriditas (talk)02:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

• The Numbers source says nothing about ""success at the Academy Awards".
• "Wide release" is not "widest release" as the editor claims. In fact, the former is sourced while the latter is OR.
• Its wide release was on February 25, 1983, not January 21, 1983. The IP is interpreting a table rather than acknowledging the actual wide release.
• Limited release was December 10, not December 8. The source the IP is using is wrong.
  • It looks like limited release started even earlier in New Delhi and London, then a week later on December 8 in New York, and then presumably in LA or somewhere else.

________________________________________
The Numbers source gives a full weekly breakdown of the film's releases in the US including theater count, grosses and dates. It is far more comprehensive than the Box Office Mojo source which has several weeks of data missing. Box Office Mojo is not a more reliable source, and both it and The Numbers have equal value as sources, but in this instance, The Numbers includes more comprehensive information which makes it a preferential source. From The Numbers, we therefore know when the film came out, when it opened wide, the date it was at its widest release (which is the week of the Oscars) and its final US gross.

• From The Numbers we can see that the film had been on release for 5 days in four theaters at the end of its first weekend (there is a day count column in the table). Its firstweekend started on 10 December 82 (which was a Friday), but it it opened on the 8th (Wednesday). The release date is also stated before the table.
• The Numbers shows that the week of the Oscars, the film went into 825 theaters, which was its highest theater count. Links and sources about the55th Academy Awards are already in the article which shows it took place on 11 April 83 and that the film won 8 Oscars. This is simply a fact, not an opinion. The table also shows that the film went into wide release from 21 January 83, went it went from 16 theaters to 350. This is awide release. It went even wider in February, but even wider still in April. The table gives all of these details in the theater count column. This information is purely for the US and is nothing to do with its international release dates, so mentioning those is irrelevant. Again, Box Office Mojo is by no means a superior source to The Numbers so you cannot claim that these details are wrong simply because you don't want to accept them.Roguana (talk)03:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This post is a textbook case ofWP:SYNTH where it statesIf one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The numbers doesn't mention the Oscars. What you need is a reference from some other source that mentions the fact that the film was released to more theaters due to its receiving the Best Picture award.MarnetteD |Talk03:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to reword the sentence along the lines of"the film went into its widest release in 825 theaters on 15 April 1983 <insert The Numbers theater count source>. This was four days after the 55th Academy Awards Ceremony in which the film won 8 Oscars <insert Oscars source with date>." Both sentences are factually accurate and individually sourced, and it is a relevant fact that the film's Oscar success boosted its popularity to some extent. But trying to wiki-lawyer away this detail altogether is just purposely obstructive and I was hoping you had moved beyond that now.Roguana (talk)03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not wikilawyering and to accuse us of such is inexplicable. We are simply pointing you in the direction of wikipolicies that we are following and there is no reason for us to "move beyond them". I am not sure why you are trying to avoid them. There must be sources out there connecting A and B if you do not want to search for them (and you certainly aren't required to do so) then there is no need to mention the Academy Awards at all in the section in question they get mentioned more than once in other parts of the article.MarnetteD |Talk04:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the two facts are no longer joined in the same sentence, there is nothing preventing them from being in that section of the article. Films often get box office boosts if they win at the Oscars, and it becomes a relevant fact if they do. Splitting the two facts into separate, sourced sentences avoids any potential infringment ofWP:SYNTH as they are simply two noteworthy facts and readers can see the relevance themselves without us spelling it out for them. I never said I was avoiding the policy and I actually took the time to offer a solution.Roguana (talk)04:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no further discussion, I have entered the changes as discussed above.Roguana (talk)01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. There is vandalism throughout this article now. Can someone please fix it? I would but I don't know how.— Precedingunsigned comment added by76.95.84.208 (talk)21:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, the release dates specify New Delhi, United Kingdom and United States. This seems like a blatant inconsistency to me, with the first one being a city and the other two being countries. I made a relevant edit (changed New Delhi to India), only for it to be reversed without explanation. Can someone explain as to why this is in fact not an inconsistency?--Pragunkhera (talk)11:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not inconsistent at all. New Delhi was the world premiere then the next two listings are for the general release in those countries. This is standard practice for this info and is covered by the documentation for the field and atWP:MOSFILM. 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! --Pragunkhera (talk)15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcomePragunkhera.MarnetteD|Talk16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onGandhi (film). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20160303223323/http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/Attenborough%27s%20Truth.pdf tohttp://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/Attenborough%27s%20Truth.pdf

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

YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason Ben Kingsley is listed on the bottom of the list of actors in the info box? Ben Kingsley is the one who portrays Gandhi, so I just thought it would make more sense to list his name first. I am used to seeing lead actors listed before supporting actors, which is how this article was when the article was first written. I am not as active on Wikipedia anymore, so I don't want to make any changes if there is some new MOS guide. Let me know what you guys think...GuyHimGuy (talk)07:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:CONSENSUS names in the infobox are based on the way they are listed on the poster for the film. His name comes last. This happens at times when it is an actors first film. It does not lessen his importance to the film or the role or its article on wikipedia.MarnetteD|Talk15:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible rule anyway.— Precedingunsigned comment added by141.72.239.107 (talk)11:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kingsley is listed first in the film's credits, and furthermore he was listed first in other versions of the film's poster[4] - if not in the one currently used in the infobox. Paraphernalia such as posters are secondary in relation to the film itself. The article is about the film, not the film's poster or promotional materials.90.241.149.44 (talk)10:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to get a newWP:CONSENSUS at the filmprojet talk page. Until that happens the infobox will follow the current guiudelines.MarnetteD|Talk15:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to replace the current poster with the one you linked to. I don't know the ins and outs of adding pics to WikiP but I'm sure you could ask somewhere and get that done.MarnetteD|Talk16:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class film articles
• C-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• C-Class Indian cinema articles
• Indian cinema task force articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Mid-importance Indian cinema articles
• C-Class Indian cinema articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles