Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma vs. Mohandas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussions dealt with how the Gandhi article should be named.

Article: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Wiki guideline: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, WP:NAMEPEOPLE
Current talk page: Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Name of article in different language wp

Why do we have fr:Mahatma Gandhi, pl:Mahatma Gandhi but en:Mohandas Gandhi?
-- Paddu(9/2/2003)

not quite sure. Its not troubling to me right now: the typical user will simply pump in "gandhi" and get a disambiuation page. Most everyboy knows the term Mahatma means great soul . In conversation I have only had one person question Mohandas Gandhi --- maybe everybodyelse just thought it was his first name :-) During his lifetime, to masses of Indians he was called by the affectionate and familiar Gandhiji.
--User:Two16(9/2/20003)

What is more common, Mahatma or Mohandas?

Should this be moved to Mahatma Ghandi? Which version was more common - Mahatma or Mohandas?
--Jiang 06:12 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Gandhi on mahatma title

"the title of 'Mahatma' that they have won for me has, therefore, even less. Often the title has deeply pained me, and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me." - M.K. Gandhi, The Ashram, Sabarmati. Autobiography - the story of my experiments with truth, introduction. 1983, Dover publications, inc., New York. Translated by Mahadev Desai.
--Jeandré,2003-08-31t11:31z

what do people look up?

I personally feel the edits that were done to convert Mahatma to Mohandas in multiple pages was not necessary. As I had mentioned in [[User_talk:Jeandr%E9|Jeandré,'s talk page]], the search results in Google show "Mahatma Gandhi" is being searched for a lot more number of times than "Mohandas Gandhi".

Now lets see what Wikipedia is meant for. It's for looking up information. Replacing Mahatma with Mohandas in every page where the text appears, means lesser people are going to find a wikipedia link while they search. Redirection to Mahatma from Mohandas (his official name but not the name by which he is known) is the best approach, which is the way it was till a few days back, not the other way round.
--Jay 22:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Jay on the statement that the editing replacing Mahatmas with Mahandas was unnecessary. The titles of Mahatmas and Mahandas are virtually the same thing, and apparently Gandhi went by both titles. The names aren't in dispute with one another, and it's common fact that Gandhi (Mahatmas or Mahandas, whatever you prefer) was a great man.--Juicyboy 325

"Lesser people"? RickK 23:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

ahh.. lesser number of people i meant. this refers to the google thing where 205,000 results are returned for "Mahatma Gandhi" as opposed to 30,700 for "Mohandas Gandhi". Now with the Mahatma-to-Mohandas rechristening a lesser number of people than before will really find what they're looking for.
--Jay 23:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The grammatically correct term is "fewer" since people can be counted. --Jiang

Thanks Jiang for that piece of info. Whats the antonym of fewer ?
--Jay 22:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Google ranks its results based on links, not on what people are searching for. Interestingly wikipedia links for, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mohandas+Gandhi%22&start=7 7th, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mahatma+Gandhi%22&start=59 59th.
--- Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z

You're right about Google. Google ranks a page based on the number of hyperlinks that exist on the internet that link to it. Regarding the search results you mentioned, what did u want to say?
--Jay 08:42, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Mahatma as POV nickname

Be that as it may, "Mahatma" is a nickname and is POV. Not everyone need agree that Gandhi was a mahatma.
--Graft 13:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense ... Jay 19:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or that spirits/souls exist.
-- Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z

The Reserve Bank of India calls him Mahatma Gandhi on all the currency notes it produces. Mahatma Gandhi has become more his name than a title, in India. This is reflected ALL over India. Indian text books, magazines, news papers, TV Channels, people, leaders refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi, or even as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and almost never as Mohandas Gandhi. (Further, an average Indian is inclined to think that Mohandas Gandhi is perhaps the name of Mahatma's grand son !! So popular is the name Mahatma, and strange, the name Mohandas Gandhi) So, i guess it is NOT POV. Or atleast this is a special case where the POV rules have to be obviated.
--Kesava 05:08, 10 Sep 2003. (UTC)

What naming conventions of wp says

I did a bit of reading on Wikipedia conventions, here are some points, they handle Graft's "Mahatma is just a nickname" opinion, and to an extent the POV one :

"Use the most common name of a person or thing ..." (from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
(from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names))

"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? "

"We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia"

"...search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often.."

The examples the page suggests are William_Clinton redirecting to Bill_Clinton, Samuel_Clemens redirecting to Mark_Twain, etc. The name by which a person is more "commonly" known gets to be the main page, thereby being on the page-title and becoming the target of all other redirects. Currently we are going against convention in the Mahatma vs Mohandas case.

Also you can have a look at the naming conventions discussion page where the users reached a consensus on usage of the common name as opposed to the "technically correct" or legal name - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(pseudonyms)

This will avoid us going over the discussion again.
Jay 22:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Peter the Great" is titled "Peter I of Russia"; similarly "Ivan the Terrible"; 'place-it-at-the-most-commonly-known' is a convention, not a hard-and-fast rule. Personally I won't be terribly offended if Gandhi lives at Mahatma, but:

Placing the article at "Mohandas" emphasizes that "Mahatma" is not his real name, something that isn't well-known.
Placing it at "Mahatma" creates a bad precedent for other POV titles.

The redirect suffices to take care of those who come looking for Mahatma Gandhi.
--Graft 23:18, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The names you have mentioned come under a different context. They follow the convention for Royal and Monarchical Titles Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) and in case of Pseudonyms check Wikipedia:Redirect, Section: What do we use redirects for?

For the issue of POV titles, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect
--Jay 18:07, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

By Graft's logic 'Mother Teresa' page' title should be changed to 'Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu'.
--Astavakra Nov 18, 2003

Well, no need to get snippy, as I said I wouldn't (and am not going to) make a big deal if it got moved... but anyway, the difference is that "Mahatma" is a clear word of praise, e.g. the Indian government likes to pass it around as propaganda, to build up the "Father of the Country" mythos, whereas Mother Teresa is not so obviously laudatory. But whatever.
--Graft 16:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Peter the Great is an exceptional case because royal names are such a pain that WP chose to standardize them.

Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are exceptional cases where the honorific version of the name is universally recognized as unambiguous as to the person intended; when you want to remove an honorific from other names, the best argument is "they're no Gandhi or Mother Teresa" (in terms of recognizability of alternatives). Whether they deserve the honorific is a PoV question; it is not PoV to admit the facts about its role in recognizability. If you use "Mohandas Gandhi", you confuse the reader more than if you just said "Gandhi": most people know there are relatively minor Gandhis, even if they don't know their given names, and are less likely to follow the link and find the truth. Use [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]] to link, and make sure that both names continue to be mentioned in the lead 'graph, as now (preferably, IMO, as now, mentioning Mohandas first so that the clueless won't skip reading the lead 'graph & getting educated).

BTW, an honorific is not a nickname (as i think someone says in the lost section that i moved above), nor much like one in most cases, but where the nickname or pseudonym is the best known, we use it in titles, e.g. Bill Clinton off the top of my head.
--Jerzy (t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

origin of 'mahatma' title

Well, how ever you call him, the question remains: Where did he get the name -- or title -- "Mahátmá" from? The main article says it was from Shri Aurobindo Ghose, but then there is a link to the article "Mahatma", and there it says that Gándhí got it from R. Thákur ("Tagore"). Wonder what's right?!

This is valuable info; enough so that both accounts can be mentioned. But in any case, there is much more urgent info than "why Mahatma?" that belongs in the lead 'graph. I'm moving the current language abt that to a short section further down in the article.

The same section would also be a good place to discuss controversy (outside WP!) about the title, e.g., i'll bet the Pakistani gov't (ungratefully) and maybe Hindu fundamentalist/separatists (like his assassin) never use it.
--Jerzy (t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Nov. 30, 2004 reverted cut and paste move: discussion

-- First, my apologies for moving this article without first consulting the talk page. But now that I've had a chance to do that, and to look over the naming conventions articles, I still believe that this page should be moved to "Mohandas Gandhi." It is not common knowledge that "Mahatma" is a title, and to title the article "Mahatma Gandhi" is not only inaccurate, it also confuses the issue of Gandhi's name vs. his title. Indeed, I've found that many people do recognize that both "Mahatma" and "Mohandas" are somehow connected to Gandhi, though they probably couldn't say what the distinction is. Also, it is not a pseudonym. It is a title, and one that was given to him by someone else, so I don't think the pseudonym naming conventions apply here. At the end of the day, I believe that Wikiedia, like any encyclopedia, should inform, and not be too eager to default to popular usage; after all, popular usage is often just a starting point, and not always fully accurate. I mean, why bother having redirect pages if we're just going to settle for what uninformed people search for? Aren't they trying to become more informed? If so, then why not redirect them to accurate information? I'm sidestepping the whole debate about whether Gandhi was a mahatma, or great man. I don't even think that's relevant in this dispute. The real issue seems to be that there's some ambiguity regarding Gandhi's real name and his title, which has mistakenly become his de facto name for most English speakers. But I don't think it's right for an encyclopedia to capitulate to ambiguity when it has the chance to clarify and inform. Just because something is popularly known as one thing does not necessarily make the popular usage the most accurate one. Am I alone on this?
--Dablaze 00:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

No. I still agree with you. Graft 06:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to word your concern here. I personally agree that it should be moved. To be 100% clear, the two reasons I reverted your move were:

Page moves of this kind are often controversial, and therefore consensus should always first be sought on the talk page. In this case there was moreover an existing discussion.
Pages should be renamed using the "move" function instead of cutting and pasting text, to preserve edit histories.
--Fredrik | talk 16:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Newer discussion Dec'05-Jan'06

As the article itself states, Gandhiji's name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. While it is true that he is commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi what would the community feel about changing the name of the article to Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or the like?
--Mayur 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the idea and the concept behind it, but I honestly, most sincerely don't think it is necessary. The article and most users editing it have already taken great pains to liberate it from fancruft, but I think this sin is a necessary evil. Jai Sri Rama!
--Rama's Arrow 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well, it may be of consideration though that Gandhiji himself has written as follows regarding the title of Mahatma: ... For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less ... Ref: [1] (Autobiography)
--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The name that is most generally recognisable
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there any discussion on how his methods might have been valid at the time, but would be considered terrorism today? That would make an interesting section. At the time his methods might have been valid, but these days standing up to the west earns one the label of terrorist. Perhaps we need to rethink Ghandi's legacy. Mwahcysl (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!
"Mahatma Gandhi" is the 242nd most visited "article" on Wikipedia, even though it's a redirect![2]
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.[3][4][5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problemo Beam, I actually found this discussion off your userpage, which I came to from all the Burmyanmar hubbubbaloo! Deamon138 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, myself. 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 don't always agree with such conventions. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that, and in fact given the same examples elsewhere (at least the Russian examples). Some of those anomalies are the result of pre-existing anomalies found in older print encyclopedias. The bottom line, for me, is, the overwhelming consensus in other encyclopedias: See list here. Wikipedia might not be beholden to other encyclopedias, but there is no Wikipedia page name (in the searches that I have conducted) that goes completely counter to the convention in the other encyclopedias—both general and specialty—than "Mahatma Gandhi" would, if it were the page name. In other words, I'd like readers to find me another name, where there is near universal agreement in other encyclopedias, but for which Wikipedia's page name is different. Note the link I have provided doesn't just have one or two encyclopedias, but 21. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A general rule of thumb is 'avoid honorifics unless it is necessary.' Necessary usually means that either the name cannot be disambiguated (Saint Peter for Saint Peter but Francis of Assisi for Saint Francis of Assisi) or if the name is unrecognizable without the honorific (Duke Ellington rather than Edward Kennedy Ellington). Wrt your examples, Luke, Alfred don't work without the honorific, and most saints have only one name. If Gandhi had only one name, the situation would be different. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Luke the Evangelist is being used without the honorific. Similarly, the article for "Saint Peter" could very easily be called "Peter the Apostle". If the rule is to avoid honorifics unless it is necessary... and the other rule is to use nicknames even if they have honorifics... ::shrug::. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How dull life would be without the occasional delightful exception! Still, and this is strictly IMHO, it is better not to use honorifics because one man's Alexander the Great is quite easily the Alexander the Blight of another. Best not to go down that road. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What RegentsPark was saying is this: Luke is his name; but, as the link shows, it requires disambiguation in some form: this can take the form Saint Luke or Luke the Evangelist; however, Wikipedia naming convention would discourage St. Luke the Evangelist, since the double qualification would be considered redundant (even though some encyclopedias have just that name). But, the main point is that, disambiguation is needed because his name Luke is ambiguous. In Gandhi's case, his name, be it: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or M. K. Gandhi, Mohandas Gandhi, or Mohandas K. Gandhi is not ambiguous, so no disambiguation is needed, be it: Gandhi of Porbander, Gandhi, Apostle of Nonviolence, or Mahatma Gandhi. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I guess my response would be: why do you think all the major English encyclopedias have the full name: see here. Only one encyclopedia in the list is published in India. A few require subscriptions, but numbers 1, 2, 3, and 7–21 don't, and you can see the full name for yourself by clicking on the links. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to evaluate all the rest of the arguments since I first posted above, but the reason why other encyclopaedias go for full name with his middle name is because other encyclopaedias go purely on factual information, while Wikipedia by policy has to go by common usage as well. I shall now weigh up your arguments against Mahatma thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the major encyclopedias have commonly used names as well. Here are the Britannica page names: Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, etc. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Fowler, I'm amenable to that. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the problem here seems to be involving clash of civilizations...Mahatma is a word of veneration in Sanskrit, as someone pointed...It's not his name, not a title and it's just an indication of the respect accorded to him. To be more frank, I don't think it is legal even. The usage of that word, I don't call it a title even after six decades after his demise indicates the respect he commands over Indian masses. Maybe or maybe not as in a few decades, 'Mohandas Karamchand' will obviously turn obselete. We know her as Mother Theresa, and now as Saint Theresa, but not as Agnes Gonxha Bojaxihu as is her name. Even here, Mother is nothing related to her being a Christian nun. But use her name in her adopted hometown, Kolkata and see how many identify that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.138.113 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular name in India used by Indians throughout the country was "Gandhiji" or "Bapu". The word Mahatama was utilized largely by his close followers and became popular with the westerners who used to come to meet him, and to show their respects to a person who had gained popularity more as a politician than as a spiritual leader. The use of Mahatama was popularized by the Nehru- Gandhi dynasties after his death. The Indians never considered him a Mahatama or saintly person. Gandhi,was a shrewd politician, adopted the garb of a Hindu sanyasi (the 4th stage of life) merely to gain popularity amongst the Hindu masses. Gandhi never took 'diksha' for entering the renounced order of life as a monk. Westerners who are not very conversant with the ways of the Hindu masses with 70-80% illiteracy in those days called him Mahatama in lieu of bowing down with folded hands and/or touching his feet.

To bestow the title of mahatama on a great political leader like Gandhi is a travesity of truth, and this was the reason Gandhi himself felt digusted and objected to be considered as a mahatama. Gandhi remained married to his wife Kasturaba until the age of 73, when she died around 1943, but never divorced her and yet kept sleeping with a dozen younger women to conduct his so-called experiments with truth. Even Dr. Sigmund Freud, the authority on human sexuality could never dream of conducting such experiments of sleeping with naked women to test celebacy amongst priesthood. Although Gandhi was a prolific writer,he failed to describe the results of his experiments with truth with the same excrutiating details that he applied to other topics. The topics of lust, sanyas, and mahatama are beautifully described in the Bhagavad Gita than the perverted Hindu intelligentsia, who cannot distinguish between sainthood and debauchery.

Gandhi's true life-long passion (or was it more of an obsession) was to be remembered in history as a prophet of Hindu-Muslim unity,for which purpose he kept several "fasts unto death" before his death at the time of partition. As a high school student, I had attended several of his prayer meetings at the Ram Lila grounds in New Delhi. As students in the freedom movement, we used to make fun of Gandhi's 'totali' speech. He had assured the nation that "India would be divided over my dead body", but did not undertake a fast unto death when partition was announced by the British Viceroy, whose wife and daughter used to come to attend his prayer meetings. Infact, Gandhi was totally unconcerned about India's fate, after the British had successfully crushed his "Quit India" movement and Salt Satyagraha. Gandhi's alchemy of mixing religion with politics had failed miserably and did not produce remarkable results.

The goal of becoming a prophet of Hindu Muslim unity, Gandhi acted like a double edged sword. On the one hand he changed his appearance as a Hindu sanyasin to attract Hindu masses, and by sleeping with his grand daughters naked, he attempted to imitate the life of Prophet Mohammad, who had asked his son to divorce his wife, and then married her. As a politician, Gandhi was a genius par excellence, and no patriotic Indian politician could ever beat him. However, to his dismay Gandhi soon found out that the Muslim leaders condemned his antics and Mohammad Ali Jinnah left the Congress Party and joined the Muslim League, because Jinnah detested Gandhi's double standards and political shenanigans. who conducted research This was a mockery of sanyas, but the Hindu masses were ignorant of his inner life style. User:75.43.218.95 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Fowler&fowler

Fowler, firstly I would like to thank you for the hard work you have obviously put in across these pages. You make some very detailed and compelling points.

My first real point is on whether it should be (never mind the Mahatma stuff to start with) "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" or just "Mohandas Gandhi" i.e. without the middle name. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names has this to say, "Generally, use the most common format of a name: if that is with a middle name or an abbreviation, make the Wikipedia article name conform to that format." So I did a Google test, comparing those two versions. With the middle name generates 185,000 hits, and without the middle name generates 424,000 hits (note: I added "-wikipedia" to the searches to remove chances of info gathered from wikipedia which would bias the results, but it didn't make that much difference, the result was still the same). As you can see, in a straight out fight between with and without the middle name, without wins hands down, so at the very least the page needs to be at Mohandas Gandhi.

Now onto the issue of Mahatma. Your main argument for why it should be "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" (or "Mohandas Gandhi") and not "Mahatma Gandhi" seems to be that on WP:NAMEPEOPLE, it says this: "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," and that on Mahatma, it says, "Mahatma...is similar in usage to the modern Christian term saint." Well I found further clarification of this policy. At Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names it has this to say:

"Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick."

So there are more exceptions than just because of disambiguation. So I wondered, how recognisable is Mohandas over Mahatma? Well I did another two Google searches. Searching for Mahatma Gandhi gives 3,690,000 results, while searching for Mahatma Gandhi without instances of Mohandas gave 3,120,000 hits. It seems removing Mohandas from the search made not that much difference. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Mohandas is unrecognisable compared with Mahatma.

However, that argument relies on the fact that Mahatma should be used as Saint on Wikipedia because it is "similar in usage". I would argue that Mahatma technically shouldn't be used in the same way as Saint, and for a number reasons. Firstly, Mahatma isn't a Western (i.e. US, UK, etc) term. This might seem irrelevant, but we have policies for non-western things, for instance WP:NC-CHINA. We should be very careful in using Western policies for non-western concepts. Note how we also use Guru Nanak Dev, and not Nanak Dev, even though "Guru" isn't part of his name, and there are no disambiguation problems.

Also, I would like to point out that Mahatma says, that "Mahatma is similar in usage to the modern Christian term saint" (note the lower case s for later). Not the same as, but similar. So there are some differences in their usage. Let's have a look.

This is a technicality, but everywhere the word "Saint" is used in Wikipedian policy, it is capitalized. But Saint has this to say: "Also, by this definition there are many people believed to be in heaven who have not been formally declared as Saints (most typically due to their obscurity and the involved process of formal canonization) but who may nevertheless generically be referred to as saints (lowercase 's')." So there are two types of "Saint", lower case and upper case. This is paralleled with Hindu Saints. It says at Saint#Other_religions, that, "There are individuals who have been described as being Hindu saints, most of whom have also been more specifically identified by the terms Mahatma, Paramahamsa, or Swami, or with the titles Sri or Srila." Also, at Hindu saints, it says, "Saints are recognized in Hinduism although it does not require canonization or similar formal process to acknowledge a person as one. Generally a holy or saintly person is referred to as a mahatma, paramahamsa, or swami, or given the prefix Sri or Srila before their name." In both those comments, Sri and Srila are singled out as being titles or prefixes (a prefix doesn't replace a first name like Mahatma is doing with Gandhi). So from those two quotes, I can say that: Mahatma is not a title, prefix, or even an official/formal name So it is not like Saint (capital S) or King, Queen or similar title from Western culture.
Not also that Sri is said to be, "a Hindu honorific." Looking at honorific, tells me that honorifics in English "are usually placed immediately before the name of the subject. Honorifics which can be used of any adult of the approriate sex include "Mr.", "Mrs." and "Ms.". Other honorifics denote the honored person’s occupation, for instance "Doctor", "Coach", Officer, "Father" (for a priest), or "Professor." Yet Mahatma contains no mention of it being a honorific. This further emphasises that policies for Mr, Doctor and so on don't apply with Mahatma. Also we never say "Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi", so it is certainly not like Mr.
Gandhi is emitted from lists collating Hindu Saints (List of Hindu gurus and saints, List of Hindu saints and Hindu saints). This again shows that Mahatma is not a title.
On Mahatma, it says this: "This epithet is commonly applied to prominent people like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jyotirao Phule." So "Mahatma" is an epithet. At epithet it says this, "Some epithets are known by the Latin term epitheton necessarium because they are required to distinguish the bearers, e.g. as an alternative to ordinals after a prince's name — such as Richard the Lionheart, or Charles the Fat alongside Charles the Bald." I would argue that "Mahatma" is an epithet required to disguise him, therefore it is an "epitheton necessarium" and thus the argument "Mahatma Gandhi" should follow the same policy as Alfred the Great applies here. This is shown further by another quote from epithet, "Epithets are sometimes attached to a person's name or appear in place of their name, as what might be described as a glorified nickname." So "Mahatma" can be described as a nickname. Now what policy was it that says we should use the nickname if it is more common? Ah yes: Wikipedia:NAMEPEOPLE#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens, as I said above! Since "Mahatma" is more common than "Mohandas" and I have established that "Mahatma" is a nickname, not a title, then the policy I originally suggested applies, and the article should be moved to Mahatma Gandhi.

I hope this argument I have made is clear both in format and logic, and thank you to Fowler, because I wouldn't have examined the evidence in the detail I did without his original points! Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deamon138 wrote: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick." So there are more exceptions than just because of disambiguation. So I wondered, how recognisable is Mohandas over Mahatma? Well I did another two Google searches. Searching for Mahatma Gandhi gives 3,690,000 results, while searching for Mahatma Gandhi without instances of Mohandas gave 3,120,000 hits. It seems removing Mohandas from the search made not that much difference. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Mohandas is unrecognisable compared with Mahatma.

Thanks for your reply. I have picked one section to respond to.

The Google search for the exact expression "Mahatma Gandhi" returns 5.5 million links; however that for "Mahatma Gandhi" without Mohandas or Karamchand returns 3.1 million links. 2.4 million is no small potatoes. Similarly a search for his different names (exact expressions), "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" OR "Mohandas Gandhi" OR "Mohandas K. Gandhi" yields 1.2 million Google links; of these a little more than one thirds, i.e. 427,000 have "Mahatma" nowhere in them.

The Wikipedia rule "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint," unless they are only recognizable by the inclusion (of Saint)" does not mean "unless they are better known by the inclusion (of Saint)" or even "unless they are vastly better known by the inclusion (of Saint)" which is what you seem to doing. For example, a Google search for exact expressions "St. Francis of Assisi" OR "Saint Francis of Assisi" returns 1.5 million links. However, the Google search for "Francis of Assisi" without "Saint" or "St." returns just 148,000 links, yet the Wikipedia page name remains Francis of Assisi. In other words, just because "St./Saint Francis of Assisi" is vastly more popular than "Francis of Assisi" without St./Saint (1.5 million vs. 148,000), doesn't mean that "Francis of Assisi" is not recognizable or ambiguous. (See below as well.)

As for disambiguation, I will repeat what I said upstairs in the context of Luke the Evangelist: Luke is his name; but, as its own link shows, it is ambiguous and requires disambiguation in some form: this can take the form Saint Luke or Luke the Evangelist; however, Wikipedia naming convention would discourage St. Luke the Evangelist, since the double qualification would be considered redundant (even though some encyclopedias have just that name). But, the main point is that, disambiguation is needed because his name Luke is ambiguous. In Gandhi's case, his name, be it: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or M. K. Gandhi, Mohandas Gandhi, or Mohandas K. Gandhi is not ambiguous, so no disambiguation is needed, be it: Gandhi of Porbander, Gandhi, Apostle of Nonviolence, or Mahatma Gandhi. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Deamon138 wrote: "... Mahatma is not a title, prefix, or even an official/formal name."

"Mahatma" is very much a title. Here is Gandhi himself talking about it in his autobiography:

"My experiments in the political field are now known, not only in India, but to a certain extent to the 'civilized' world. For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less. Often the title has deeply pained me; and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me. (See Wikisource:The Story of my Experiments with Truth/Introduction)

Besides Google searches for exact expression "the title of Mahatma" OR "the title, Mahatma" produces 3,080 links; however, a search for the exact expression "the name, Mahatma," produces around 1,500 links. Among scholars it is even more lopsided: in Google scholar the search for the exact expression "the title of Mahatma" OR "the title, Mahatma" yields 78 links; however, that for the exact expression "the name, Mahatma" yields on 12 links. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Google search for the exact expression "Mahatma Gandhi" returns 5.5 million links; however that for "Mahatma Gandhi" without Mohandas or Karamchand returns 3.1 million links. 2.4 million is no small potatoes. Similarly a search for his different names (exact expressions), "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" OR "Mohandas Gandhi" OR "Mohandas K. Gandhi" yields 1.2 million Google links; of these a little more than one thirds, i.e. 427,000 have "Mahatma" nowhere in them."

Well you seem to be confused here. Common usage means that a name is used more when compared with another. It doesn't mean you google "Name A", and google "Name B" and see which has more hits, you have to see how often "Name A is used without mentioning "Name B" at all. Hence your google search would be "Name A" -"Name B" -wikipedia (this tells google to ignore Wikipedia or articles that have quoted from Wikipedia, else the search will be biased in favour of the current name), and again with the names swapped positions and then compared. So the fact that 2.4 million use both Mahatma and Mohandas tells us nothing. It tells us that 3.1 million use Mahatma without Mohandas, but not how often Mohandas is used without Mahatma. Also, we don't need to test the occurrences of his whole name, only how common his first name, Mohandas, is, so those three names you searched for aren't needed. This is especially so, since we don't want to know how often his full name including his middle name is used, as I said above in my first point, we don't need to title the article with his middle name. Why is there a need to have his middle name "Karamchand" as part of the title?
Anyway, here are the Google searches I have now performed. With Mahatma but without Mohandas gives 3,670,000 hits, while with Mohandas but without Mahatma gives 400,000 hits. This means that on the occasions that Gandhi is known by only one name, ~90% of the time, it is Mahatma. It is a similar pattern with Google Scholar. With Mahatma but without Mohandas gives 24,400 hits, while with Mohandas but without Mahatma gives 3,880 hits. This means that in scholarly articles when Gandhi is only known by one name, ~86% use Mahatma as that sole name. So it seems that Mohandas is in very poor usage compared with Mahatma.

"The Wikipedia rule "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint," unless they are only recognizable by the inclusion (of Saint)" does not mean "unless they are better known by the inclusion (of Saint)" or even "unless they are vastly better known by the inclusion (of Saint)" which is what you seem to doing. For example, a Google search for exact expressions "St. Francis of Assisi" OR "Saint Francis of Assisi" returns 1.5 million links. However, the Google search for "Francis of Assisi" without "Saint" or "St." returns just 148,000 links, yet the Wikipedia page name remains Francis of Assisi. In other words, just because "St./Saint Francis of Assisi" is vastly more popular than "Francis of Assisi" without St./Saint (1.5 million vs. 148,000), doesn't mean that "Francis of Assisi" is not recognizable or ambiguous."

The point about being "only recognizable by the inclusion of Saint" is that for "Saint Patrick", the name "Patrick" isn't recognizable without the "Saint", since we don't know his surname. With "Francis of Assisi" this is different. Since most people know him as "Saint Francis of Assisi", removing the word "Saint" does nothing to affect whether people recognize the name. It is still the same. But Gandhi is different to Francis. With Mohandas Gandhi, you aren't just removing the word "Saint" from the start of his name and leaving it recognizable, you are replacing the word "Mahatma" which he is more commonly known as, with another name! And it then becomes unrecognizable to 90% of people who have always known of him as "Mahatma Gandhi".

Nevertheless, the two arguments that you used that I have just tried to refute are meaningless really. As I stated, the argument that it is "not unreasonable to suggest that Mohandas is unrecognisable compared with Mahatma" is meaningless "because that argument relies on the fact that Mahatma should be used as Saint on Wikipedia because it is "similar in usage"". I then went on to give several reasons why the policy for "Saint" (capital S) in article names is different than for "Mahatma". However, it is still an argument to fall back on should someone show why Mahatma should follow exactly the same policy as Saint.

""Mahatma" is very much a title. Here is Gandhi himself talking about it in his autobiography"

Well firstly, I would argue that when Gandhi was saying the word title in relation to Mahatma, that he was just paraphrasing, and wasn't particularly bothered that he said precisely "it is a title", more that he was bothered about the meaning taken from those sentences, that it "has pained him" or whatever. If Gandhi is just wanting to get that meaning across, he isn't going to be too bothered whether he has said "title", "name", "nickname", "epithet" or whatever. But of course that is just my belief that he is just paraphrasing, so if you choose to call that original research on my part, it's a fair cop! But my main argument is that the argument, "Gandhi said it was a title" is like saying, "Gandhi called himself X." It isn't relevant to this discussion as Wiki-policy says that self-identification only applies when there is no common usage. But here we have common usage for Mahatma, so we don't need to know what Gandhi called himself, or what he thought of his names.

"Besides Google searches for exact expression "the title of Mahatma" OR "the title, Mahatma" produces 3,080 links; however, a search for the exact expression "the name, Mahatma," produces around 1,500 links. Among scholars it is even more lopsided: in Google scholar the search for the exact expression "the title of Mahatma" OR "the title, Mahatma" yields 78 links; however, that for the exact expression "the name, Mahatma" yields on 12 links."

That has to be the most biased couple of searches I have ever seen. For instance, you have compared the usage of "the title of Mahatma" OR "the title, Mahatma" against the usage of "the name, Mahatma". Can you see why that is biased? You have given "title" two chances to win that google contest, but given "name" only the one. Why doesn't "name" get an "OR" as well? You also didn't add "-wikipedia" to remove any Wikipedia bias, nor did you remove instances of the use of one when compared with the other (like I mentioned in my first point in this post "Name A" -"Name B"). Nor is it feasible to test this particular point with a google test. There are other ways it could be phrased, like "Mahatma is a title" or "the Mahatma title" or "titled Mahatma" etc etc, there are literally hundreds of combinations to keep track of, so this test is unfeasible. Your search here was also a nice strawman. I never said that Mahatma was a name. I said it was a nickname or an epithet etc. I don't particularly mind if you include instances of "name" as a paraphrase for nickname, as I guess someone saying "Mahatma is a name" backs up my views more than yours, even if originally it was a strawman. So in conclusion, Mahatma has not been shown to be a title based on those searches you did. It is therefore a nickname as I said above, and we should move to "Mahatma Gandhi". Deamon138 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title or nickname?

The reason why you don't search for the exact expression, "the name of Mahatma," is because in the English language you don't say, "he was given the name of Mahatma." A search for the "name of Mahatma" will turn up only sentences like "... and the Devi commanded her followers to take vows in the name of Mahatma Gandhi" or "... the name of Mahatma Gandhi will always remain a part of the History of India's struggle against British rule ...," but never something like "Gandhi was given the name of Mahatma in 1915." Here are all 43 links in the Google scholar search for the exact expression "the name of Mahatma. Not a single one refers to the "name of Mahatma" being given to Gandhi or Gandhi being called by the "name of Mahatma."

As for whether "Mahatma" is a nickname or epithet, scholarly opinion is even more decisive: a Google Scholar search for exact expression "the nickname Mahatma" OR "the nickname of Mahatma" turns up just 1 link, the book, Jackie Robinson: First Black in Professional Baseball, which on page 51 says, "Branch Rickey's well-planned anti-discriminatory efforts earned him the nickname, "Mahatma," after the visionary Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi." A Google Search for exact expression "the epithet, Mahatma," OR "the epithet of Mahatma" turns up just one citation, but no link. Don't know which one does better "nickname" or "epithet," but neither has a ringing endorsement on Google Scholar.

Dictionaries consider "Mahatma" to be a title as well:

Complete Oxford English Dictionary, on-line edition, 2008 (requires subscription):
"2. Mahatma. In South Asia: (the title of) a revered person regarded with love and respect. Freq. applied to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948). Examples of usage: 1931 Manch. Guardian 11 Aug. 8/2 The great soul in the insignificant-looking body is the distinguishing mark of the Mahatma. 1948 C. LESLIE Goat to Kali v. 203 His casual mention of great names convinced her that he was an intimate friend of them all: of the Mahatma, of Nehru, of Subhas Bose. 1949 H. N. BRAILSFORD in H. S. L. Polak et al. Mahatma Gandhi viii. 96 On 9 January, 1915,..Gandhi landed in Bombay... Soon after..in a published letter, the poet Rabindranath Tagore conferred on him the title of ‘Mahatma’, of which the literal meaning is ‘great soul’."

The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, 2006, says, "2. Mahatma: (Hinduism) Used as a title of respect for a person renowned for spirituality and high-mindedness."

Encarta Dictionary: Mahatma (noun). Definition: (South Asia) esteemed one: a title given to somebody who is deeply revered for wisdom and virtue. [Late 19th century. From Sanskrit mahātman, from mahā "great" + ātman "soul"]

Online Etymology Dictionary: Mahatma: 1884, lit. "great-souled," from Skt. mahatman, from maha "great" (see maharajah) + atman "breath, soul, principle of life." In esoteric Buddhism, "a person of supernatural powers." In common use, as a title, a mark of love and respect. Said to have been applied to Gandhi (1869-1948) in 1915 by poet Rabrindranath Tagore."

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English: "Mahatma, n. [Skr. mah[=a]tman, lit., great-souled, wise.] (Theosophy). One of a class of sages, or "adepts," reputed to have knowledge and powers of a higher order than those of ordinary men. Note: The title was popularly applied to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in tribute to his wisdom, though not implying any supernatural powers."

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, 2007 says, "Mahatma: [Sanskrit,=great-souled], honorific title used in India among Hindus for a person of superior holiness. Mohandas Gandhi is the best-known figure to whom the title was applied."

Here are 14 more dictionaries including A Dictionary of South African History, Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism, An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies, Webster's Biographical Dictionary, Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and more that consider "Mahatma" a title.

And 15 more encyclopedias including Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature, Propaganda and Mass Persuation: A Historical Encyclopedia, Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of World Peace and more that also consider "Mahatma" a title.

And 550 books including An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth by M. K. Gandhi (1920), The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer (1959), Mahatma Gandhi: Essays and Reflections by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (2000), The Lonely Pilgrim: Gandhiji's Noakhali Pilgrimage by Manuben Gandhi (1964), Mahatma Gandhi: A Selected Bibliography by April Carter (1995), Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope by Judith May Brown (1989), Gandhi's Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light by Uma Majumdar and Rajmohan Gandhi (2005), Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life by Kathryn Tidrick (2007), Gandhi by David Arnold (2001), Mohandas Gandhi by Christopher Martin (2000), The Wisdom of Gandhi by Trudy Settel (2001), The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi by Robert Payne (1969), The Historical Trial of Mahatma Gandhi by Mulk Raj Anand (1987), Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics, 1915–1922 by Judith Brown, and more that all describe "Mahatma" as a title.

One of the few times, I get to quote from my first edition of Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, 1946. Page 17, editor's note: "The suffix in the form Gandhiji is sometimes mistaken by American and English readers to be an affectionate diminutive. On the contrary, it is the simplest of numerous terms of respect used in the Hindustani language and is preferred by Gandhi over the title Mahatma. It amounts to calling him Mr. Gandhi."

Finally, even The Brittanica Children's Encyclopaedia says in the third sentence of its lead: "His efforts on behalf of Indians earned him the title of mahatma, meaning “great soul.”

Let's just stick to the question first of whether "Mahatma" is a title (according to OED, American Heritage Dictionary, and other dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, Google Scholar, and Gandhi himself) or whether it is a nickname (according to you). So far the evidence is overwhelmingly against your formulation, but perhaps you have some other evidence? Perhaps you can find some dictionaries and encyclopedias that consider "Mahatma" a nickname? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.