Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

Archiving

Is this still going on??? Please please archive and move on. *very good* arguments for the current name have been made. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been archived again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quotations under the heading "Non-violence"

Will someone who can edit this page please make note of the following?

Of the four quotations, only one have I been able to verify. One is definitely not Gandhi, and two are questionable.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" (This quotation is from Non-violence in Peace and War, Vol. 1)

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always." (This one seems to be fake, per The Quote Verifier, p. 74)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (It’s not documented that Gandhi said this. It is only attributed to him. This one is possibly genuine, whereas the previous one is not).

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for." (The source most often given is The Story of My Experiments with Truth, but the quotation does not appear there, as one may see by searching the full text, which is available at http://www.forget-me.net/en/Gandhi/autobiography.pdf. This one may not be genuine, either.)

Vogelweide (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by putting {{fact}} tags at the end of those quotations, and, hopefully, the people who added the quotes will respond. For the quote that (you are sure) is not Gandhi's, you could add a {{dubious}} tag. If there are no responses in a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks) then one could consider removing them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that the title of this article should be "Mahatma Gandhi"

In this section, over the next week, I will provide evidence and sources to support that Mahatma Gandhi should be the title of this article. There have been a lot of good arguments against, but the point is that if Mahatma Gandhi is the most common name for this man than that is what the article should be called. And if it is the most common, as I will try to plainly show, than that trumps the fact that "Mahatma" is a qualifier or title, or that Gandhi himself did not like being called Mahatma Gandhi per the policy of Wikipedia.

My first of many proofs that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common and used name to refer to Gandhi is a simple search through Google Books.

These are my results:

a search for "Mahatma Gandhi" in books on Google resulted in 1780 books.

a search for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" resulted in 1425 books.

a search for "Mahatma Gandhi" in the title of books resulted in 1293 books.

a search for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in the title of books resulted in 20 books. That's twenty books.

More proof to come shortly. Supporters please post your proof here if you have it. Research books, biographies, school books, etc. Through my own life experience I know English speakers refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi. I've never heard his full name spoken when referring to him, unless someone was asked "what's Mahatma Gandhi's full name" on Jeapordy or whatever. I look forward to the next few days as I compile the evidence, thank you for reading so far. Oh and this is only one piece of evidence, there will be more. Beam 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The mans name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can you prove that this is not his real name. Adam (talk) (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also one movie with "Mahatma" in its name (The Making of the Mahatma) but zero (you read it right, ZERO) movies with "Mohandas Karamchand" in the title! Gasp! This is conclusive proof; change teh article!! indopug (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be changed. Article titles are supposed to represent the commonly held name of the person, not the birth name. The specific name can be mentioned in the first sentence, but should not be the title of the article. For relevant examples see Vladimir Lenin real name = Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Leon Trotsky real name = Lev Davidovich Trotsky, Bob Dylan real name = Robert Allen Zimmerman, Che Guevara real name = Ernesto Guevara, Mother Teresa real name = Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Marilyn Monroe real name = Norma Jeane Mortenson ... there are thousands etc etc etc.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 11:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your examples is that none of those people were known by their given names during the significant parts of their lives. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. (c.f. "The Story of My Experiments with Truth" by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. As opposed to, for example, Blonde on Blonde by ..., or Gentlemen prefer Blondes starring ...., etc. etc.) The only reasons for moving away from the name of a person should be (1) if the person was not known by the given name (all of your examples) or (2) it is necessary for NPOV reasons (Alexander the Great) or (3) it is necessary for disambiguation (Akbar the Great). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just dont see what is wrong with changing it to Mahatma, when we all agree it is the most common name! The two most important guidelines are:

1. The name that is most generally recognisable
2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles

There is no doubt Mahatma Gandhi is the most recognizable name and is not ambiguous at all. There was only one mahatma gandhi! Some users are just wasting everyones time by trying to make excuses. Nikkul (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Mahatma is not an honorific in English! You do not say the Mahatma Teddy Roosevelt or the Mahatma George I! Mahatma is different from King or Queen Nikkul (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mahatma" was never part of his name, although people generally refer to him as "Mahatma Gandhi". It's not even a title in a formal sense; but it's more like a title such as "Lord Byron" (whose birth name was George Gordon Byron), or "President Bush" (whose name is George Walker Bush). Best to stick with his actual name, which is what he used in his writings. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If as you say he was most commonly referred as Mahatma Gandhi, that's the title of our article. Beam 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If he'd been knighted, he would have been "Sir Mohandas Gandhi", not "Sir Mahatma Gandhi". (But I suppose some would have referred to him as "Mahatma Sir Mohandas Gandhi".)-- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok... but that wouldn't matter unless he was most commonly referenced as Sir Mahatma Gandhi. If that was the case, than yes that would be the article's title. Beam 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We're getting into the realm of speculation here, but anyone who called him "Sir Mahatma" would have been wrong, because Mahatma was not his name but an informal appellation of respect, meaning something like "great soul". It would be a little like referring to General Sir Richard Dannatt as "Sir General". No matter how many people call Bob Geldof "Sir Bob Geldof" (and millions mistakenly do), he's not "Sir" anything and hence out article is just "Bob Geldof". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What? I dont' know if you understand it but on Wikipedia the article's name should be the most common name of the person/place in English. It doesn't matter what that reference is. If everyone called him Poopy Pants McGee that's what this article is called. Beam 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as I've said before, "Mahatma" was not part of his name. It has much the relationship to Gandhi as "President" has to "President Bush", although the two cases are only roughly comparable. It's probably only an accident of history that he didn't come to be known as "Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi", cf. "President George Bush". This seems to be an unusual case that our naming guidelines don't explicitly cover. I've made my views known now, so I won't go on. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what his name is, it's what he's commonly called. Thank you. Beam 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to come back from the dead and say that your approach is a little simplistic. George W Bush is commonly called "President Bush", but we don't call his article "President Bush". It has nothing to do with disambiguating him from his father; we don't have an article on "President Clinton" either. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No matter how much Beam jumps up and down about this, I don't see any evidence that there is, nor that there can reasonably be expected, any move toward a consensus behind the proposed move. "Mahatma Gandhi" may be the most commonly known name in the US, but that does not reflect a world-wide view, nor is it a case where the notability of "Mahatma Gandhi" dwarfs the notability of "Mohandas (Karamchand) Gandhi", such as the case of Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). I move that we merge this thread into the archive and drop this conversation for at least 30 days. Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The following reasons strongly support the changing of the article name back to Mahatma Gandhi:

1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes states "In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. For example, the honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian." I could see nothing in there stating 'do what other encyclopedias do', per a recent argument here. This is Wikipedia, not Britannica!
2. "Mahatma Gandhi" is the 242nd most visited "article" on Wikipedia, even though it's a redirect![1]
3. In February, "Mahatma Gandhi" was 'viewed' 295,962 times, "Mohandas Gandhi" was 'viewed' 17,241 times, and the actual article "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" was viewed 36,435 times.[2][3][4] By a roughly 6-1 ratio, Wikipedia users are going to "Mahatma Gandhi". That's because it is by far the most common form of his name, and it's obvious that 'Mahatma' is "an honorific (that) is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included" (see #1 above).

I'm rarely able to get to Wikipedia these days to edit, so I probably won't have a chance to say more - but it would be nice to get it right for a change. We (some of us) can at least console ourselves with knowing that Wikipedia users are getting it right, six out of seven times anyways.~ priyanath talk 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Father Damien was not known by any other name (his given name is not recognizable by anyone). One can scarcely expect to have an article named Damien. Father Coughlin (are we reduced to comparing Gandhi with that gentleman?) was known as Father Coughlin during his lifetime. Gandhi was known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or, as he usually identified himself in his writings, as M. K. Gandhi. (I'm sure Queen Victoria is more visited than Victoria of the United Kingdom as well.) --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it is stated explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes, this article should be moved back immediately to Mahatma Gandhi, just like Father Damien.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I second user:Wilhelm meis's suggestion that we merge this thread into the archive and drop this conversation for at least 30 days. The RM was closed on June 10, 2008 by an admin as a result of no consensus for the proposed move. The next step, in any case, would be a request for mediation. So, why don't we all take a break, fine hone our skills in argumentation, bone up on the literature etc, and request mediation after 30 days? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I third this suggestion. As Gandhi himself might have suggested, "meditation before mediation!" --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree whole heartedly. I never had a chance to participate in any prior action. I, and others, are actually providing evidence and sources for what I see as obvious. I adamantly urge no one to touch this section in any attempt at subverting the name change. I also don't appreciate what seems like a backhanded way at avoiding this renaming of the article. Please let us provide more evidence, even though it really shouldn't be needed. The way certain editors are defending the current name is strange to say the least. Beam 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Beam, you are way out of line. All you do is say the same one-note thing over and over and have a lot of people disagree with you and a number of people agree with you while nothing actually changes. Request mediation to get a final "official" ruling on the matter or drop it. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I consider myself to know more than the average person on Gandhi ... and at first glance of the name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi"; I assumed it was one of his family members. I would bet that 90 % of the novice researchers with a beginners interest in Gandhi (those most likely to rely on Wikipedia) will also be searching for "Mahatma Gandhi" ... as this is his commonly identified name for most of the Western/English speaking world (note this is an English article).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And that is why Mahatma Gandhi redirects to the article, so there is really no problem there. Also, if you do not know Gandhi's real name, you should not boast about your level of familiarity with the subject. Indrian (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Google image searches: "Mahatma" = 630,000 ------ "Mahatma Ghandi" = 560,000 ------ "Mahatma Gandhi" = 502,000 ------ "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" = 21,600   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I see it clearly now. This article should be named Mahatma Ghandi. His last name is not spelled that way, but since that is what users are looking for most often, we should give it to them. That's some mighty fine research there. Indrian (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the point was to show that even his mispelled name is 30 times more likely to be searched than what you want to name the article. Hell Gandhi spelled "Gonedee" is probably more likely to be used in a search than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue at hand is only wikipedia policy, and that policy states that titles are not generally used in naming articles (just look at the intro to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) if you do not believe me). Wikipedia is contradictory on this point, but no one has yet to provide a reason why this article should be an exception to the rule. The fact that Mahatma is most recognizable in English is not enough on its own because numerous examples have already been brought up here in which the title is removed even if more common (Saint Francis of Assisi, Queen Victoria, and President Clinton for example). No one is disputing which is more common, so you are wasting your time proving a point over and over again that no one disagrees with. Show us some wikipedia policy reasons to create an excetion not google searches that do nothing to help illuminate the actual issue at hand. Indrian (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The first (non-wiki) website that comes up in a search for Gandhi is mkgandhi.org run by Gandhian Organizations in India ... and guess what it says at the very top of the page ... ???   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am done talking with you until you figure out what this debate is actually about. If all that was needed was evidence on which name were more common in English, than I would have taken your side a long time ago. Indrian (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yes the issue is policy, and the fact is the most recognized, refferred, common and used "name" is Mahatma Gandhi. That is enough! You're mistaken to say it's not. And with all this evidence showing that it is the most common the only reason to not have that be the article name is either someone argued for the current name, or someone doesn't want it because Gandhi didn't want it. It's so petty! Honestly, I can't see the reason to refute the correct name for the article. But if it takes more proof, I will get it. Beam 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is the sentence at issue, straight from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation" This is presented as a specific quideline that serves to modify the general rule that you like to focus on, to wit "The name that is most generally recognisable" If you can give me a policy reason why the text I quoted above does not apply, then I will be in 100% agreement with you, but you have yet to do this. Indrian (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful! That's your answer. "Mahatma" is the simplest way to deal with disambiguation because there is more than one Gandhi. If he was the only Gandhi, than the name of the article would be "Gandhi." Because I'd say "Gandhi" is even more common than Mahatma Gandhi. But we need the "Mahatma" because of disambiguation. I appreciate your 100% agreement, it's good to find people who are willing to go along with policy even if they don't like it. Beam 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC) To make it clear, I think the ultimate and best title would be simply "Gandhi" as when most English speakers talk about the man they just say "Gandhi." But there are many notable Gandhis who have articles and deservedly so. That's why Mahatma Gandhi is the simplest way to deal with disambiguation. Beam 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if his name were, in fact, just Gandhi, but that is not true. He has a first name, Mohandas. Now I do not really care whether this article is called Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi because I think that is really splitting hairs, but whether the middle name is used or not, there is no need to disambiguate because wikipedia has only one Mohandas Gandhi. Why do you think disambiguation should be based on only part of his name? Indrian (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're not in 100% agreement even though the policy does apply....right. 90% of the English speaking world, the common man, the user of Wikipedia does not know that Mohandas is his first name. They think Mahatma is his first name! And following policy, which you supposedly would 100% agree with, our article should be called the most common name which would be simply Gandhi, except for disambiguation. From there, following policy, the most common name for Gandhi would be Mahatma Gandhi. And there's the title of our article. Beam 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The average American also thinks that Iraq shares a border with Afghanistan. Should we amend these articles to reflect the common wisdom? This conversation is now entirely unproductive. Please, let's archive and come back in 30 days. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Americans. I was discussing WP Policy, and the abundant evidence combined with policy is obvious. I'm perplexed as to why there is such a back lash. But enjoy insulting Americans. I'm awaiting Indrian's reply as he said he'd agree 100%... Beam 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I am being baited here, but what the heck. I thought my point was clear enough last time, but you chose not to respond to said point, so I will raise it again. If the subject's name were Gandhi and other people shared that one word name, disambiguation would certainly be necessary and Mahatma in the title would make perfect sense. Your argument ignores the fact that he already has a first name, Mohandas, that is unique. Why do you feel it is necessary to disambiguate when he already has a name that is unique on wikipedia? If you can give me a good reason for that rooted in policy, than we truly would be in agreement. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I already have but I'll do it again. As you wrote policy dictates that an honorific shouldn't be used unless it is to avoid disambiguation. Which it does in this case. Gandhi is the most common reference, with Mahatma Gandhi an obvious second. Because Gandhi alone would cause disambiguation issues than Mahatma Gandhi is the logical choice. That is rooted in policy. Are we in agreement yet? Beam 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This just brings us back to an earlier point I made. Victoria of the United Kingdom is most commonly referred to in English as Queen Victoria. Whether she is called Victoria or Queen Victoria, disambiguation is needed, so "of the United Kingdom" is added. "Queen" is not part of the article name, however, because titles should be avoided. According to your logic, however, the article should be "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom." Why should we call this article "Mahatma Gandhi" and not call the other article "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom." Do you see the contradiction here? Indrian (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) My comment about Iraq bordering on Afghanistan was not meant as an insult of Americans (and I don't believe it to be any more insulting to Americans than your comments about thinking Gandhi's first name was Mahatma). I was trying to illustrate that your stance on this, on the grounds that the common English-WP user thinks his first name was Mahatma, suspends common sense and world-wide view in favor of a weak common name. I would wager that the average educated user (users holding at least a Bachelor's degree) at least knows that Gandhi's first name was Mohandas. I personally think the inclusion of his middle name in the title is a bit overboard, but this discussion is not about moving the page to Mohandas Gandhi, it's about moving it to Mahatma Gandhi. I would certainly support Mohandas Gandhi as a middle way approach, if and when that conversation comes about. Again, I renew my plea to make that at least 30 days from now, however. I think we all need a break from this, as it has gone far beyond tedium at this point. Wilhelm meis (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My last comment on this issue: Truth be told I will sleep just fine tonight, regardless of what this article is entitled. This situation is only a few steps from becoming A Lame Edit War and to me offers a clear example of the suspension of "common sense" in deference to abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit. I am confident that when 90 % of English wikipedia users (yes even those ‘goober’ Americans who Wilhelm quips stink at Geography) think of Gandhi they think of the name "Mahatma Gandhi" ... not just the highly educated or the Gandhian devotees. Nonetheless this issue is not important enough for me to continue arguing about it and if a decision is made to name it Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (a name I would bet 95 % of English users have never heard in their life) then fine. I will "take my ball" and head home, content that apparently there is differing opinion on the issue and that apparently some editors wish to name articles by a persons birth name (when in reality they are more commonly known by another name). So feel free to insert a witty retort or vague insult ... or feel victorious at my "surrender", I no longer care. I would rather spend my time on other matters and best of luck to those editors who stay and continue to "battle it out" over the articles name. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know his name was Mohandas but I was well aware of M.K. Gandhi (and had always incorrectly assumed the M. stood for Mahatma). I think the article should move to Mohandas Gandhi, with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi... as the first words of the first paragraph. This is consistent with other biographies. As redirects point from Mahatma Gandhi and others I don't think this will be a problem. At the end of the day the key principle should be correctness - and that was his name. Orderinchaos 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok, so now that everyone has had time to digest the information, and the abundant and obvious evidence that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common name, are there still any opposers? If there are, I'd like you give evidence or oppose the evidence here that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common name for Gandhi. Anything beyond that, really shouldn't affect the name of this article. If those who still oppose the name due to reasons like "Gandhi wouldn't like it", "It's an honorific!!111!!!11", and "Other encyclopedias don't have it like that" which have been proven not to matter according to Wikipedia naming conventions...well.... I guess we'll have to bring it to a mediation or like place to try to get the right thing done. Anyway, I have waited the couple of weeks as suggested, have you guys had time to see the evidence yet? Beam 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see #Renaming rehashed. Wilhelm meis (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is gandhi's bigotry unmentioned?

gandhi hated blacks with a passion. He believed in aryan supremacy over Africa.YVNP (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

All you need is a reliable source and you can add it in. Do you have one?--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 00:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mahatma in the Lead

Fowler is right to say the lead is cluttered, but it's ignorant not to have his most common name in the lead. Until the article is correctly renamed, the article has to, at least, have his common name in the lead. The way I edited just mentions it, and then later explains it. I edited the explanation to make sense with the lead. 3 years != right. And as I've stated before, a little review of ownership issues may be in order, although not necessarily. Beam 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The "lead," by the way, refers to the summary or outline of an article or story, not to the first sentence. In Wikipedia it refers to the lead section. "Mahatma Gandhi" has always been in the leading paragraph of the lead, but not in the lead sentence. Furthermore, it has always been in boldface, and, consequently, hard to miss. This is in keeping with mention of honorifics in other South Asian leaders' pages: Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Qaid), Muhammad Iqbal (Allama), Jawaharlal Nehru (Pandit), Sheikh Mujibur Rehman (Bangbandhu), Vallabhbhai Patel (Sardar), Abul Kalam Azad (Maulana). They all occur in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence.

Secondly, your "fix" is incorrect. Not only is your sentence,

"His common name, Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit: महात्मा mahātmā or "Great Soul", is an honorific first applied to him by Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu (Gujarati: બાપુ bāpu or "Father"),"

syntactically topsy-turvy, but the expression "common name," in modern English, refers to the vernacular or colloquial name, not to an honorific; it is usually applied to biological organisms (e.g. tiger for Panthera tigris), not to the popular name of an individual.

Lastly, before you make accusations of ownership and ignorance, please be aware that this is a featured article. Notwithstanding the Wikipedia injunction to be bold, a controversial edit in a featured article requires, as a common courtesy, a discussion on the talk page before, not after, the edit is made. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The stable state that I have referred to (with "Mahatma Gandhi" not mentioned in the lead sentence, but later in the first paragraph) existed not only at the time of

• your own first edit to the Gandhi page on June 7, 2008, but also a year earlier on
• June 7, 2007, and a year still earlier on
• June 7, 2006. It doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it requires discussion first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What does my first edit have anything to do with? You seem to repeatedly bring up my, and others', length of editing or time editing as if it renders my or there contributions null and retarded. It's quite unsettling, and seemingly a habit of yours. Also, I don't see how my reworking of the sentence is off at all. Common Name is referring to "Mahatma Gandhi" not just "Mahatma." His common name is "Mahatma Gandhi." Beam 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? It's not off? Can you parse: ""His common name, Mahatma Gandhi (Sanskrit ... Rabindranath Tagore) and in India also as Bapu"? Where is the verb?

Again: a "common name" is not the same thing as the "most popular name." "Common name" usually means, "the non-scientific name by which a species of plant is known etc." (Webster's unabridged) or "a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus" (OED).

Lastly, pointing out that the lead paragraph had a certain form when you made your first edit etc., is another ways of saying that the form is not new, that it was not only there when you made your first appearance on the page, but also well before that, in fact long, long before that. I can't help it that you are sensitive about your purported lack of edits. I made no such imputation about you myself. I would urge you to focus on building this encyclopedia and not ascribing motives to others in endless talk page discussions. I certainly have no time for them and this will be my last response to your inane repetitions here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously lack the ability to civilly discuss policy and edits, I guess it is best if you remove yourself from the process. Don't complain if the result isn't as you want, because you weren't part of it. Beam 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aren't you a whining rehashment of that ungentlemanly Sarvagnya who would want to offset his aberrations by pretending to be a victim? 59.91.253.180 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

cn tags

"An overwhelming majority of Muslims living in India, side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, were in favour of Partition. Additionally Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, North-West Frontier Province and East Bengal" - I have add cn tags to these 2 sentences . Please dont remove the tags unless sources are cited for the same.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the tags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Common name rules over official

I cba to read all the above discussion at the moment, but Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens says that if someone has a nickname (which Mahatma clearly is, I am well aware that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the guy's official name), and this nickname is more common (which in this case, I'm fairly sure it is), then we use the nickname, and not the official name. Therefore, the article should be called Mahatma Gandhi, and I was surprised this article is at the wrong place. Deamon138 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm very appreciative that others can look past cultural issues, and the Mahatma's personal preference, and look at the actual naming conventions on Wikipedia for answers. Again, thank you, it gets quite disappointing to have the same people refuse to recognize facts over and over again. I've asked my admin friend User:Husond for guidance, and while he agrees that the correct article name is Mahatma Gandhi he has said that I have to at least try to work with people like Fowler again before taking further actions, it's good to know that Wikipedia has another ally in favor of correclty naming this article. :) Beam 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To user:Deamon138. "Mahatma," as its own page suggests, is an honorific or courtesy title like "Saint," not a nickname. Please see the argument here and here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, whatever this rule is on common name versus titles, it is inconsistently used in our articles. For example, we have Saint Peter, but Luke the Evangelist. We have Alfred the Great, but Catherine II of Russia and Ivan IV of Russia. Looking through the other articles, though, it seems like "Saint" is used more often than not except for cases of disambiguation (e.g. Paul of Tarsus). I don't really like this convention; I think it makes Wikipedia look laid-back and slackjawed. I also notice that we have Mao Zedong instead of Chairman Mao, though I could find more people who would recognize the latter. It looks like Wikipedia conventions are in support of the common name even if it has a title (you can argue whether "Mahatma Gandhi" is the common name from this point), while the counterexamples I listed are from articles dominated by people who like me believe such standards are foolhardy. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming rehashed

I recommended a 30-day hiatus on this topic, but since another user is completely incapable of letting it rest for a full 30 days, here is (in addition to the reasons already stated above) why, based on WP policy, this article should never be renamed Mahatma Gandhi.

WP:NCP recommends the <first name> <last name> format and, as Gandhi himself usually called himself "Mohandas K. Gandhi", Mohandas Gandhi seems the obvious choice for the name of this article.

According to WP:NCNT:

Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix) such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory.

Emphasis is the same in the original text, but let me reiterate - universally recognised with it and unrecognisable without it. The footnote states, "In many cases the holder of a courtesy title is known exclusively by its inclusion (which they may have had from birth) and unrecognisable without it, with the title treated as though it was in effect part of their name," but this is clearly not the case with (Mahatma) Mohandas Gandhi.

One final point, and admittedly a small one with exceptions, is the admonishment not to use a title ("Mahatma") as the first word of an article title of a person. According to WP:NCP:

"King", "Queen", "Blessed", "Mother", "Father", "Doctor", "Mister", or any other type of qualifier is generally avoided as first word for a page name of a page on a single person, unless for disambiguation or redirect purposes. For example John Forrest (friar) is preferred as the name of the page where the content is, above Blessed John Forrest, which is a redirect page.

This means that it would be better to name an article something like Mohandas Gandhi (mahatma) and have Mahatma Gandhi as a redirect page, although I doubt anyone will disagree that "mahatma" is unnecessary and gratuitous as a disambiguator in this instance. This is why this article should be at Mohandas Gandhi with redirect pages at Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and Mahatma Gandhi.

If we must continue this discussion and propose a move, let me propose to move the article to Mohandas Gandhi, since Mahatma Gandhi has already recently been thoroughly struck down. Wilhelm meis (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely against Mohandas Gandhi, but there is a reason why, it was changed from Mohandas Gandhi to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in November 2007: he was never referred to as Mohandas Gandhi (Google searches notwithstanding). It would be the equivalent of calling Ralph Waldo Emerson, Ralph Emerson. Please see the link at the top of this page to Gandhi's name in other encyclopedias. All major encyclopedias, both general and specialty, have the page name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, not Mohandas Gandhi, especially not Mahatma Gandhi. Please not also that in other examples—no matter how controversial or arbitrary—that have often been trotted out on this page: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Mother Teresa, Alexander the Great, etc., there is complete agreement between the Wikipedia name and the major encyclopedia names. There is no reason why it should be different for Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

I should add that it is usually American sources who refer to him as Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas K. Gandhi, no Indian source, or even British source, would ever call him that. For them his name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or M. K. Gandhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that other Indian leaders of Gandhi's vintage were all referred to by their full names: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Subhas Chandra Bose, Abul Kalam Azad, Jawaharlal Nehru (who often signed J. L. Nehru, even though ultimately Jawahar Lal became one name), Govind Ballabh Pant, Romesh Chunder Dutt, etc. That was the convention in India at that time, just as in contemporary India, the younger cosmopolitan urban people hardly ever have middle names (or if they do, hardly ever use them): Rajiv Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, etc, Even Gandhi's own offspring: Harilal Gandhi, Manilal Gandhi, Ramdas Gandhi, and Devdas Gandhi were never referred to by their middle names. Times had changed by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that in domain name .in (india), a Google search for the exact expression "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" produces an order of magnitude more links than that for the exact expression "Mohandas Gandhi". For example the semi-official biography produced by the publication division of the Government of India is called: Mahatma: the life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, to provide a cultural perspective, in India, the name Mohandas Gandhi would be considered disrespectful or rather too familiar; Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, in contrast, as the biography above itself suggests, would not. "Mohandas" is what his family and friends would have called him when he was young, or what his same-age or older friends and relatives would have called him when he was older. To everyone else, he would have been M. K. Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I have, for example, use "Mohandas," in my partial rewrite of his early years on this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

PS And another cultural perspective: as far as honorifics are concerned, even "Mahatma," would be concerned formal in India. So, for example, an Indian politician, say on a rabble-rousing campaign stop, would refer to him as "Mahatma Gandhi" the first or second time, but then he would simply become "Gandhiji" ("ji" a form of respect). See for example the website of Jamia Milia Islamia, a university in Delhi. Of course, I risk here, reviving the "Mahatma Gandhi" vs. "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" debate, but that is not my point here. That debate is a dead horse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint, Fowler&Fowler, and thank you for your contributions to this article and this discussion. I am afraid, however, that providing the full middle name may be going a bit far on English WP. I would have every expectation to find the full name on in.WP, but since this is English WP, and I would wager very few English speakers outside India know his full name (and surely even fewer are willing to type it all out), Mohandas Gandhi seems to be the most common name ("Mahatma Gandhi" notwithstanding) in English. In any case, I am not completely disagreeable to leaving this article exactly where it is. I just think Mohandas Gandhi would be ideal on English WP. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)