Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

1944-1950

Many things happened in gandhi's life and in india history .After facing many problems and many stricks india got independence . After all problem india got independence on 15 August, commemorating the day it gained its independence from British rule and its birth as a sovereign nation in 1947. The Republic of India was actually born on 26 January 1950 - this is when the new constitution came into effect .

Honorific Title

It has been mentioned that Gandhi was given the honorific title of Mahatma by Rabindranath Tagore. This is clearly an error as the title was bestowed on Gandhi by Swami Shraddhanand in 1915. Please rectify this error as soon as possible. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable reference for this claim. Materialscientist (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The instance where Gandhi was conferred with the honorific title Mahatma is mentioned in the book The Mahatma & the millionaire: a study in Gandhi-Birla relations by M M Juneja Modern Publishers 1993. (as,yhwh 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think, I agree with the article, Rabindranath Tagore was the person who first called Gandi Ji "Mahatma". --Titodutta (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I see there is no year or date mentioned by Wikipedia when Tagore called Gandhi Mahatma. Yes, he was one of the first notable persons who Gandhi Mahatma. But to refer Tagore as the person who bestowed this title to Gandhi is erroneous. You can change Tagore as one of the first person who called Gandhi as Mahatma. That would be compromise. I believe wikipedia does not want Gandhi to be associated with a Hindu religious leader Swami Shraddhanand , the man who pioneered the Shuddhi movement . There is no section for criticism of Gandhi, in a neutral article, how ironical as,yhwh 13:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC) as,yhwh 13:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs)

The wikipedia article on Swami Shraddhanand ... In 1915, upon his return from South Africa, M. K. Gandhi stayed at the university campus and met Swami Shraddhanand, it was during this visit that Swami Shraddhanand gave Gandhi, the title of Mahatma (great soul), after that he was best known around the world as Mahatama Gandhi to this day.[5]. Guess your right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Some one in charge here needs to make sure a semblance of reliability. as,yhwh 13:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs)

Campaigns to end untouchability?

"in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns to ease poverty, expand women's rights, build religious and ethnic amity, end untouchability, and increase economic self-reliance", from article ..

"To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system .. I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth" Mohandas Gandhi

"Gandhi is the greatest enemy the untouchables have ever had in India", Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi5.htm emacsuser (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Just a thought here: Shouldn't there be a section here about criticism towards Gandhi. For a man with such extreme views, there must be some people who have said unfavorable things about him. Winston Churchill and Christopher Hitchens are the only ones I can think of right now, but I'm sure he has many more critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.203.129 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, no a thousand times no. Every few months someone comes in here calling for a criticism section and that is just plain silly. Now, this is a different issue as to whether criticism should be integrated into the article. If you can find reliable sources criticizing Gandhi and these criticisms inform his life and work, then the information should be naturally integrated into the article in an appropriate existing section. A section devoted solely to criticism is lazy writing, as it demonstrates a failure to bother creating an integrated and cohesive article. It also smacks of POV because singling out the negative can place undue emphasis on negative material. The best thing to do is present all the major points of view on an issue in the appropriate subsection, both good and bad, and let the reader decide what to think. Indrian (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Turns out, I kind of agree with the previous speaker (I'm the guy who made the suggestion). However, I still think that this article is a bit onesided, and that the unfavorable view of Gandhi could be better represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.196.172 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Great Soul, mentioned in the next section, could be a source for some balancing statements. I've made a start. twilsonb (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not easy to find much persons who can say that they are not impressed by Gandhi. One of the main factors for this is that the greatness of Gandhi is a textbook theme that every Indian who goes in for education needs to accept. Other than that, there are issues such as: Was he is a better man to train the Indians than the British?

What would he be if the government that came to power in India after independence was not by his fan group?

Even though weak sexual morality is there in most people, both great and non-great, how would one justify a person who runs an ashram and daily entertains young adolescent females in his care with sexual activity?

What about him showing a blind eye to his close associate also making use of the young members of the Ashram, when complaints in this regard were made to him?

Why is it that the average Indian does not know anything about these things, even though he or she would be quite conversant with the peccadilloes of President Clinton of USA?

There are many other themes to be discussed. Beyond all that, is the need to understand that in India if a supporter writes about his leader, the result is a work that is definitely a 'fan' version. The same is the case in the case of everyone, not just Gandhi; including communist party leaders, spiritual leaders, political leaders, their own caste and all else. When Wikipedia articles are being written care to present a person without the hype of unilateral versions of 'greatness' should be there.

A rethinking on what would have been Gandhi's social level in India had he not been killed would be apt. For, even the killing of Gandhi is a highly suspicious incident. For, it removed a person who was gaining a notoriety not only for a sexual peccadilloes, but also for super cranky ideas that had nothing to do with his so called creed of non-violence. It gave his main fan a Super Divinity to perch on, and at the same time removed a possible political thorn.

Beyond all this, there is the need to understand that in India, the language is feudal. When Gandhi is Aap, and Unn, in Hindi (Thangal, Avar, Adheham etc. in South Indian languages), his followers and other subordinates are Thoo, and Uss (Nee and Avan in South Indian languages). This highly suppressive and snubbing language code can really elevate any ordinary individual to divine levels. Bereft of this, Gandhi would be nothing.

English writings on him cannot understand this basic power source that is present in all Indian communications. Mention should be there for his and his follower's aversion to address and refer to Gandhi as Mr.Gandhi. Herein lies the super secret of all Indian human divinities.--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone can add reliable references, I think, (s)he can think of creating a criticism section in the article. --Titodutta (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pls add Criticism section

The article is very biased. It is written just as to praise Gandhi . I don't see a section titled "Criticism". He has been criticized on many grounds through out his life - for his ideologies, lifestyle and views. Most importantly, he has been criticized for what later led to his death - Muslim appeasement. Such are not mentioned in the article that is protected from editing. Just as a heads up: When the Moplah rebellion broke out where Muslim moplahs murdered, raped and forcibly converted tens of thousands of Hindus in Malabar, Gandhi instead of chiding and admonishing Muslims went on to characterize the attackers as brave God-fearing Moplahs who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religious (see [2] and many sources). Gandhi's fast to get the Delhi Juma Masjid rid of Hindu refugees from Pakistan is another example. I hope one among the wikipedians will find time to spend on this. Thank you 117.204.86.35 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

opinion

If someone/you can add reliable references, I think, (s)he/you can think of creating a criticism section in the article. --Titodutta (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

I suggest moving to Mahatma Gandhi. TGilmour (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

thats not his name. thats an honorific title which is not wiki policy Smitty1337 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Name In Bengali

I am adding the name of Mahatma Gandhi in Bengali. --Titodutta (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed it, please do not add names in any additional languages; his native tongue and the official languages of India are sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 10:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling that I cannot fix

There is a misspelling in the text under a photograph towards the bottom of the page. It reads: "President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visiting Mani Bhavan where Gandhi stayed from year 1917 to 1934. Martin Luther King, Jr. also stayed here in 1950's."

The last word is misspelled.

Of course, the correct spelling is: 1950s. Some moron put an apostrophe in there. Gee, I'm not a special editor so I can't fix it. High standards, I see.

There are other grammatical issues with the text, but I'm not going to spell them out.

17:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed this one, but I can't help but think that this is a highly irrelevant image here, so if I don't hear otherwise, I'll remove it. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the picture. Cliff (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PamelaKoren, 23 June 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In history of Gandhi the article states that some of his ashes were scattered in the Nile. Last time I look the Nile wash in Africa. Please change it to the Ganges river.

PamelaKoren (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, please read the sources, Gandhi's ashes were in fact scattered in the Nile along with quite a few other rivers. is an additional source —SpacemanSpiff 18:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi → Mahatma Gandhi – or Gandhi or Mohandas Gandhi

• The person is most recognizable as Mahatma Gandhi.
• Readers are most likely to look for Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi, rather than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
• Mahatma Gandhi unambiguously identifies this person. No other person with the surname of Gandhi has Mahatma prefixed.
• Concise.

Arjun^codename024 05:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Mohandas Gandhi" has 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be moved to one of those titles. WP:Article titles says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name" (emphasis added). A quick glance at even the titles of our sources and further reading show that one of those is the standard Common Name. I don't know which is more common, but the current name definitely seems like the wrong one. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page name choice has to conform to the encyclopedic register. The very next sentence after the sentence you quote above in WP:NCON#Common_names says, "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." Other major encyclopedias are not 60:40 or 70:30 or 80:20 or even 90:10, they are unanimous in their choice of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as their page name. See here for evidence. By changing the page name, Wikipedia will be going against some 60 years of encyclopedic convention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To the proposer: What about "Mohandas Gandhi" (without the middle name)? Interestingly for "Mohandas Gandhi" there are 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to only 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi". The "Karamchand" can easily be dropped. The option "Mohandas Gandhi" has not been considered in the page move. It is also closer to the names appearing in the quality encyclopedias. Among books with "Encyclopedia OR Encyclopaedia" in their title there are 26,500 that refer to "Mohandas Gandhi," whereas there are only 8,800 that refer to "Mahatma Gandhi" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Another convention—Wikipedia's own convention—that a page name change would be disregarding is that of naming Indian (or South Asian) political leaders of Gandhi's era (i.e. born in the 19th century). All of the 30 odd better-known Indian political leaders of that era are currently named by their long names. Most have honorifics or common names that are different. Yet Wikipedia has preferred the longer names. Why are we making a single exception for Gandhi? An exception will need exceptional justification. As yet I don't see it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Support for just "Gandhi" I like the way its phrased in WP:OFFICIALNAMES opening lines, I highly doubt most english readers will ever type in the full name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" when trying to research this man, His full name could easily be stated in the opening line .I'd stay away from Mahatma though as that brings up concerns with WP: HONORIFIC, however just Gandhi might be ok, although to play devil's advocate a bit, there is precedent for using an honorific to disambiguate, like Kings with "The Great" or "the conqueror" etc.... however i dont know that anyone searching for just "Gandhi" would be looking for some other page, so disambiguation is not necessary. Policy says it should be used only "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." Mahatama is pretty common but not exclusivly so. I disagree with its use. after reading the arguements below I no longer agree with myself, the debate was convincing enough given the encyclopedia examples, the examples of similar article titles for different subjects with long names etc... I oppose nowSmitty1337 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be moved to Mahatma Gandhi. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You cite WP:COMMONNAME, but that page says, "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." But other encyclopedias are unanimous in choosing "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as their page name. How do you reconcile that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think a single suggestion stated in a portion of a larger policy negates the rest of the policy? The Common Name policy states that wikipedia "uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That's the second sentence of the policy; that's the thesis statement of the policy. As a qualifier, the policy suggests that other encyclopedias may be a helpful place to look when determining what term is preferred by reliable sources. Later on, the policy also states "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." In other words, encyclopedias are just one of many useful sources according to the policy. What you are espousing is the premise that "when major encyclopedias are unanimous or near-unanimous in their preferred name, then that name is the preferred name for wikipedia." Wikipedia does not appear to have a policy anywhere that conforms to your premise. Since you are so keen on asking how people can reconcile their votes, it only seems fair that you should explain why you believe encyclopedias are the first line of reference for deciding what wikipedia should call an article when the policy appears to indicate that reliable sources in general are the first line of reference. Indrian (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, the sentence, "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used," is not a single suggestion, but rather an explication of what is meant in the first sentence. Its fine to also mention, as the page does later, "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals" but there is only one of these usage benchmark-ers that applies to all the examples cited, and that is "encyclopedias." Major encyclopedias are agreed in all the examples of that section: Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton), H. H. Asquith (not Herbert Henry Asquith), Snoop Dogg (not Cordozar Calvin Broadus), and elsewhere on that page: (Non-neutral but common names) Boston Massacre, Teapot Dome scandal; (Foreign names and Anglicization) Besançon (not "Besancon"), Søren Kierkegaard (not "Soren"), Göttingen (not "Gottingen"), but Nuremberg (not "Nürnberg"), delicatessen (not "Delikatessen"), and Florence (not "Firenze"); (National varieties of English) Ganges (not "Ganga"). Again, no other benchmark-er will give you this particular sequence of examples. The second and third largest Wikipedias, the German Wikipedia and the French Wikipedia have also page names: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (German) and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (French). Even the Simple English Wikipedia has pagename Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Wikipedia's choice of its pagenames (e.g. Alexander the Great or Mother Theresa) is based on previous choices made in quality encyclopedias, not in geographical name servers or major organizations. It is based on what constitutes the encyclopedic register. That in turn is based on a 300-year old convention which is not always reducible to Wikilaws and Wikilawyering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per User:Abhishek191288.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avs5221 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your vote with the question I ask of Abhishek191288 above? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be moved. I sincerely prefer 'Gandhi' over 'Mahatma Gandhi', but both are better titles than 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi' which I would compare to the name William Jefferson Blythe III. Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your vote with the question I ask of Abhishek191288 above? But other encyclopedias unanimously prefer "Bill Clinton" to "William Jefferson Blythe III." They also unanimously prefer "Mother Teresa," "Alexander the Great," and "Jimmy Carter." In other words, the "encyclopedic register," is not always reducible to rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME and because it is recognizable, concise, natural and precise (see Wikipedia:AT#Deciding_on_an_article_title). Since Gandhi already redirects here this should not be a problem. Mahatma Gandhi is problematic because of WP:HONORIFIC. --rgpk (comment) 14:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  Additional comment Re Gandhi vs. Mahatma Gandhi. Any look at google books or other catalog shows that there are at least as many (if not more) books about Gandhi without the Mahatma added. Enough evidence, in my opinion, to negate the common name argument for Mahatma Gandhi over Gandhi. Since there is no case made for disambiguating Gandhi (which already redirects here), I suggest that the honorific is unnecessary and not supported by policy. --rgpk (comment) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to Gandhi, as Mahatma would be in violation of WP:HONORIFIC. Mahatma Gandhi would be ideal though. If some provision were to exist that allows Mahatma, I'd readily support that. Lynch7 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Mahatma may be a violation of WP:HONORIFIC, but as Qwyrxian rightly points out WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Given that RS's use the title Mahatma Gandhi more frequently than just Gandhi, this article could probably be an exception to include the honorific word in the title. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 15:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think Mahatma is used often enough in itself to justify an exception. (Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara, for example). But, on reflection, the main motivation behind honorofics is with titles that are officially given (Saint, Sir, etc.). So, perhaps, WP:HONORIFIC does not apply anyway. Perhaps someone could clarify. --rgpk (comment) 20:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't use Saint Paul and we don't use just Einstein. I suspect the real problem here is that most people don't even know Mahatma is an honorific. The current name, called above "the wrong one", is just his actual name. Srnec (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  What about Gandhi, which redirects here anyway? --rgpk (comment) 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  But we do use Saint Peter and Mother Theresa. Powers ^T 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And we also use Alexander the Great and Herod the Great. Wikipedia tends to use the most common name of a subject and that's fine by me. Flamarande (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics are ok so long as it is for the purpose of disambiguation Saint Paul isnt used for that very reason, as there are Geographic locations called Saint Paul however the article does show an example of disambiguation by calling him "The apostle" rather then just "Paul". Like if there were multiple famous people named Gandhi and the mahatma was to disambiguate them. however i think the main arguement being made is "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included" from WP: HONORIFIC they are saying Mahatma Gandhi is so frequently used that removing the Mahatma renders the name unrecognizable as being the same person? (i dont agree with that, which is why i put my support to just Gandhi but that already redirects so i'm neutral)Smitty1337 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. As per user Srnec above. Further, we don't use the most common form for the saviour of Christianity Jesus Christ either, but the name he was given, even though many people think the epithet 'Christ' is actually his surname. Imc (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: English media has very often used Mr.Gandhi to refer to people like Rajiv Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi et al, and Mrs.Gandhi to refer to Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Maneka Gandhi et al. I do not think that such a case exist for Jesus or Einstein. Arjun^codename024 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I honestly doubt that 'Mr. Ghandi' is commonly used to refer to the subject of this article. 'Mahatma Ghandhi' yes, 'Ghandhi' yes, 'Mr. Ghandi' perhaps, 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi'? Never heard of him. Flamarande (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems that the majority agrees that the current name of this article (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) is lacking. The choice is between Ghandi and Mahatma Ghandi. One or the other is fine be me (I prefer the 1st but I can live with the 2nd). Flamarande (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to Mahatma Gandhi. WP:HONORIFIC states "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. 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 would argue that Mahatma Gandhi is similar to these, few people will have heard of his real name. Plain "Gandhi" runs into the problem that Indira and her family and the film may not be much less important. PatGallacher (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:45, 2 July 2011 (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, C. Rajagopalachari, etc. That was the custom 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. Many of Gandhi's contemporaries had honorific names by which they were often known. Should we then be changing Muhammad Ali Jinnah to Quaid-e-Azam, Subhas Chandra Bose to Netaji, C. Rajagopalachari to Rajaji, Abul Kalam Azad to "Maulana" or the Nehru page to Panditji? Why should only Gandhi have his honorific? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME. – Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 07:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your vote with this quote from Gandhi's autobiography (please also note there that Gandhi always signed "M. K. Gandhi", not "Gandhi" or "Mahatma Gandhi"), "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." Why do you want Wikipedia to promote (by adoption) a title that was deeply abhorrent to the great man? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This should have never been changed from Mahatma Gandhi in the first place. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC both pretty unambiguously support the use of a title in this situation. While a google search is not the most scientific way to accumulate evidence, I think it is also worth noting that the term "Mohandas Gandhi" returns 1.9 million results, while a search for "Mahatma Gandhi" returns 21.3 million results. That's a noticeable difference. Indrian (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support the move to Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME. Since most of the prominent websites routinely use Mahatma (examples: BBC articles on The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi The lost legacy of Mahatma Gandhi), it is a no-brainer that Mahatma Gandhi be the title of this article. If that does not work, Gandhi would be a good compromise but it would still be an awkward choice and sounds naked. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: A Nobel committee member once said that Gandhi could only be compared to founders of religions. The articles on Buddha and Jesus only use their common names, i.e., Buddha is not titled Siddhartha Gautama and Christ is not titled Jesus of Nazreth. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN. I agree that in this case the title plus surname is the common name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gandhi already redirects here. Given that does not change; wouldn't Gandhi be more concise than Mahatma Gandhi? Or else the Gandhi must direct to some disamb pg if this page is to be titled Mahatma Gandhi. Arjun^codename024 06:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, no more than the current U.S. President's article needs to be at Obama because that title redirects to Barack Obama. Powers ^T 01:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME. --Nayvik (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page move has been attempted periodically by Indian nationalists for the last four years. So, there is no surprise that they have struck again, this time when many regular editors are away. The name "Mahatma Gandhi" not only violates Wikipedia's own naming convention, but also violates general encyclopedic convention. As the FAQ at the top of the page on the name in other encyclopedias states (citing WP:NCON) "Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English." (The current version of WP:NCON states, "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used.") Other encyclopedias, especially the major ones, are all unanimous in adopting the full name, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as their page name for Gandhi (see the examples here again). Wikipedia is above all an encyclopedia. Its page names must follow encyclopedic convention, not what is popular on the web, nor what is respectful or patriotic in the minds of nationalists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, first of all just because you call a post of yours an FAQ does not make it so; its just an editor's opinion like everything else on this talk page. Second of all, your "FAQ" quotes deprecated language: the current version of WP:Article Titles (which is where WP:NCON now redirects) does not use it, so it has absolutely no force on wikipedia. Thirdly, wikipedia does not have a policy that states that "page names must follow encyclopedic convention" so please do not state your personal view as the law of the land. Finally, as you quote above, WP:COMMONNAME currently states that "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." Note the use of the word "may" which means that other encyclopedias "may not" be helpful as well. Everything else you have posted above consists of baseless ad hominem attacks, which are not worthy of further comment. Now, if you would like to explain why the portions of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC quoted by other editors earlier in this discussion are not applicable in this case, I am all ears. Indrian (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)j

What is the point of facile wikilawyering? What does it matter whether it was a post or an FAQ, it still points to the overwhelming preference in all major encyclopedias for the name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." And, yes I am aware that the previous wording in WP:NCON (old version) has been deprecated, but it nevertheless points to precedent that had been used on Wikipedia for some ten years. Overturning that will require more than a tally of perfunctory support votes. When WP:NCON (current version) states that "Other encyclopedias may be helpful ...," they obviously do not mean that "other encyclopedias may not be helpful in equal proportion." Otherwise, they wouldn't be mentioning it. They mean that "other encyclopedias provide a fairly reliable guide to what is the encyclopedic register for Gandhi's name, although obviously not a inviolable one. The endless arguments about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC have already been conducted (in much greater detail, I might add, than here) in the archived link on Mohandas vs. Mahatma, again listed at the top of this page. There is nothing here that is not already there. If Wikipedia goes along with nationalist sentiment and adopts "Mahatma Gandhi" for page name that has remained stable for many years, in spite of various attempts to change it, it will also be going against encyclopedic convention in major encyclopedias that has remained stable for over half a century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Though usage of "Mahatma" has become widespread, it is still a contested honorific (even among indian nationalists).--Sodabottle (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationalists of what color, blue, green or yellow? The Hindu nationalists (those who murdered Gandhi) are actually the ones who will resist calling him Mahatma Gandhi, if they discuss him at all. They were a very small minority to begin with and are either extinct or a dwindling breed so why should we care about them? Here's another well known organization that calls him Mahatma Gandhi - "Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The honorific has become a part of his (longer) common name. It may actually even be worth it look into moving this article to just Gandhi, as it's getting about three times as many views as the second most viewed option (300,000 vs 100,000 for Indira), and this article gets more views than all other options combined (which is about 200,000views). Therefore this article actually seems to pass as primary topic for Gandhi, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose don't steal the man's name just because you haven't heard it before. That is an argument to keep the full name. Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi redirect to the man's real name as they should. Cliff (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As they should according to which policy? WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the "real names" of subjects as article titles, but rather uses whatever the subject is commonly referred to as by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support COMMONNAME.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- when I searched for "Gandhi" in Google, the first hit was http://mkgandhi.org/. Also, I expect that most people outside India just know him as "Gandhi", rather than "Mahatma Gandhi". I'm hesitant to move it to the primary topic though, because there are too many prominent Gandhis, not to mention the movie. I'd rather move the disambig page to the primary topic, but I'm sure that has its own set of problems. (Also, Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/Page names of Gandhi articles in other encyclopedias, as pointed out above.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Gandhi is a common surname as well as the surname of several other prominent people, Mahatma is a confusing and unnecessary honorific, and it has been extensively documented that "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is what encyclopedias use. Quigley (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• While I agree that usage of Mahatma is probably not universal enough for it to be an exception to the honorifics guideline, Gandhi currently redirects to this article making the surname argument weak. --rgpk (comment) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• RP, Please see the long list of examples in my third reply to Kotniski below, as evidence against "Gandhi" alone (i.e. Churchill, Disraeli, ...). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fowler, normally I would agree with you. But, there are several reasons why Gandhi is better in this case. First and foremost, Gandhi redirects here - that indicates that this is the primary topic. Second, Gandhi satisfies 4 of the 5 principles laid out at the top of WP:AT. It is recognizable, natural, precise and concise. Third, it satisfies WP:COMMONNAME which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi clearly does not. I'm uncomfortable with Mahatma Gandhi because I don't believe the honorific is used often enough for it to qualify as an exception. For example, the two films Gandhi (film) and Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara), the town of Gandhinagar, memorials in India such as the National Gandhi Museum, etc. etc., but Gandhi seems well supported by policy. --rgpk (comment) 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean why doesn't your argument apply to changing William Shakespeare to Shakespeare or Winston Churchill to Churchill or Pablo Piccasso to Piccasso, Karl Marx to Marx? In each example the short name redirects to the longer one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PS An equivalent example (in terms of number of words) is Gandhi's great inspiration, Henry David Thoreau. Currently Thoreau redirects to Henry David Thoreau. Most people don't seem to have problems with the longer name. I wonder if we are merely going through this exercise because the average (Western) Wikipedian is more familiar with "Henry" and "David" than with "Mohandas" and "Karamchand," in which case it will do them no harm to expand their horizons a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to comment on other articles because I don't know enough about them. But, I assume the difference between William Shakespeare (which could easily be at Shakespeare imo) and say Winston Churchill is that their first names are recognizably attached to their last names. Mohandas and Karamchand are rarely used with Gandhi's name (usually plain old Gandhi suffices). The logic is less what the average western reader knows or doesn't know (and I'm surprised you're using an argument of that nature - it is better left to the POV warriors who continually raise the sceptre of systematic bias in lieu of substantive arguments), but more along the lines of what the person is commonly called. WP:COMMONNAME is one of our core policies and we shouldn't dump it without good reason. --rgpk (comment) 17:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, in light of what you (and Kotniski below) have said, I would be amenable to a change to "Gandhi," provided the lead sentence remains the same. No "Mahatma," however, under any circumstances. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Upon further reflection, I still prefer the current page name, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." In my view, the overwhelming encyclopedic precedent, the prefernce among Indians of that period for full names, "Bal Gangadhar Tilak," "Madan Mohan Malviya," "Muhammad Ali Jinnah," etc., trumps WP:Commonname, which in any case urges consulting encyclopedias. Although I have sympathy for your point of view, I prefer to stick to my original vote. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support, common name and recognizability. Of course his birth name should appear at the start of the article in bold - it is this that is analogous to the "titles" that other encyclopedias use - they don't have anything analogous to our headline titles, so such comparisons are meaningless for this discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Britannica online has exactly the same headline titles: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. See also a host of other headline titles from Encyclopedia.com: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This is not just confined to English language encyclopedias; the famous French encylopedia, Larousse, has headline title: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, surnommé le Mahatma (« la Grande Âme »). Old fashioned paper encyclopedias also have headline titles, such as here, here, and when they don't, the equivalent of the headlines are reproduced in the index, the old search engine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was the old-fashioned paper sort I had in mind (they're the kind that can be claimed to represent encyclopedic tradition). And OK, you can find some paper works called "encyclopedias" that use headline titles, but even those you link to don't quite follow Wikipedia's style (and one of them feels the need to add "(Mahatma)" in the title anyway). My view is that Wikipedia is not constrained by tradition in choosing the titles of its articles, and should consistently follow the standards which it itself has developed, and generally serve the reader well: by being common and recognizable, they help answer the questions "what is this article about?" and "how might I refer to this person (subject) recognizably in a reasonably serious register?" The current title of the present article is unhelpful to most people in answering the first question, and I suggest gives a less than optimum answer to the second.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, all these arguments are ultimately made from the point of view of the novice, not of the editors who are voting here, who understand the distinctions. The name that would answer both your questions would be "Gandhi." That's how most people refer to him ("Gandhi-ji" in India.). But such a page name could be a cause for confusion, given the host of other Gandhis: Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, and Rahul, who often make the news as much as the Mahatma. The problem with "Mahatma," beyond the honorific part, is that newcomers often think it is his name. An article title, "Mahatma Gandhi," will further promote that confusion. I'm reminded of the web site of a hospital in Pakistan, which says, "The hospital was inaugurated by Mr. Mahatma Gandhi in 1930." As for the newcomer, he just has to type: "Gandhi" or "Mahatma" in Google, and he is taken to the website mkgandhi.org or to the Wikipedia page Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. In the process, he learns quickly that the great man's name is not "Mahatma," but that he is commonly referred to as the Mahatma, something, I submit, is less likely to happen with any other choice of article title. Anyway, I don't want to belabor my point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'm persuaded that plain Gandhi is probably a better title than Mahatma Gandhi. But I don't find that shorter title problematic - other Gandhis are referred to (at least out of context) with a forename, in a way that the Mahatma isn't, so I would say there's no doubt about his being the primary topic for the surname.--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not entirely against plain "Gandhi" (and sorry to be persistent!), but then there is a host of luminaries who are best-known by one (last) name (and whose last name best answers your two questions), but whose Wikipedia pages continue to be the long versions. All of the following short names redirect to the longer versions: Churchill, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Marx, Engels, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Piccasso, Dante, Shakespeare, Einstein, and in South Asia itself, Nehru, Jinnah (Pakistan's father of the nation) and Mujib (Bangladesh's father of the nation). We will need a really good explanation why we want the unredirected short name for Gandhi. In other words, we'll be opening a can of worms. Wikipedia's unredirected short names, such as Michelangelo or Titian or pseudonyms El Greco, are part of the tertiary source precedent: Michelangelo, Titian, El Greco]. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the case for just plain "Gandhi" as the title is that his full name is decidedly uncommon outside of encyclopedias as this ngram[3], these Google scholar searches[4][5] and Google news searches[6][7] show. And that as you yourself have indicated, including the honorific from his longer common name may be problematic to some groups. So seeing as he is most commonly referred to as just Gandhi (as these Google books searches show [8][9][10]), I think it in this case may be reasonable to consider to just name this article "Gandhi".TheFreeloader (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice ngram! How does it compare with the ngrams for Beethoven, Mozart, or Dante (ie versus their longer Wikipedia pages)? Should we be changing those pages too, by this logic? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison to say that "Beethoven" vs "Ludwig van Beethoven" is the same as "Mahatma Gandhi" vs "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", as in the former it's a long versus a short version, while in the later it's one long version versus another one. "Mahatma Gandhi" would not be used as a shorthand for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" the same way "Beethoven" would be used as a short for "Ludwig van Beethoven". Also, "Ludwig van Beethoven" is a broadly known as the full name of Beethoven, while I think "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is more like Pelé's full name in terms of recognizability.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can sympathize with the Fowlers' view that we don't normally use plain surnames when we have forenames available, but for me recognizability and real-world usage make Gandhi a special case - his forenames are so rarely used, and the Mahatma form so commonly used, that by using the forenames in the title we're misleading the reader as to who it is the article is about. That certainly doesn't apply to Mozart, Beethoven or Einstein, whose forenames are well known; as to Dante, I think I would prefer the shorter form there too.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support just Gandhi, seems clearly the common name. Second choice of Mahatma Gandhi because I've at least heard that construction of his name regularly, which is more than I can say for the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, preference for Mahatma Gandhi but Gandhi is acceptable. The current title has nothing to recommend it in terms of WP:AT, nor in terms of WP:IAR. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, preference for Mahatma Gandhi but Gandhi is acceptable. For the same reason we have an article on Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton. What outdated encyclopedias whose readership is a fraction of WP say should be of no concern. They need to follow what we do not the other way round.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Best not to slather your comments with grandiosity. All encyclopedias have "Bill Clinton," and "Jimmy Carter," and "Mother Teresa." Wikipedia's choices of pagenames reflect encyclopedic precedent. Can you name a few pages where Wikipedia flouts this precedent? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

says who. can you tell me where in WP:AT it says that we need to follow other encyclopedias when we pick article titles. stop presenting your deeply flawed POV as policy. other encyclopedias may choose to follow us or not. especially those published in tiny countries in terminal decline ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Lame humor notwithstanding, you have neglected to read not only WP:AT but also the exchanges above. WP:AT#Common_names, says, "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't take that passage as saying that other encyclopedias have the final say on what to call Wikipedia articles. It certainly isn't interpreted that way usually in naming debates. It's usually just interpreted as meaning that other encyclopedias is one of several places to look for what reliable sources commonly calls a subject. Although I will have to say it is quite unusual to have this stark a contrast between what encyclopedias call a subject and what other reliable sources call a subject. It might actually be useful to take it up on the policy talk page, what to do in case like this.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policy talk page? Do you have a Wikilink? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What I meant to say was "the policy's talk page", as in the WP:Article titles talk page. Although maybe it will actually get more attention if it taken up at the policy village pump.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll run it by them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used. well wonder why they use the qualifier may be helpful. nothing there says that we need to follow other encyclopedias. Why do you think "Mahatama Gandhi" is not in an encyclopedic register and bill Clinton is ??? or is there a register in the corner of your office that nobody else is privy to ;) It is clear here the consensus is that the present name is unsuitable and needs to change. Learn to follow consensus and stop pushing your POV. read WP:LETGO.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, note that this is an exercise for finding consensus. It is acceptable to state your views, whatever they might be, here. Asking users to not state their views is anathema to this process. --rgpk (comment) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

To Wikireader41: I'm afraid you haven't interpreted it correctly. WP:AT#Common_names begins with, "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." The sentence about encyclopedias is an explication of the first sentence. If they thought others sources were equally important, they would have said, "Book titles may be helpful ..." or "scholarly article titles may be helpful ...," but they don't. Also, I don't see consensus. This page name move has been attempted a few times before and each time the current page name has stayed. For such a controversial move a simple count of votes (of which many are perfunctory) doesn't cut it. There is not only unanimous encyclopedic precedent for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" but there is unanimous precedent in Wikipedia itself for using the full names of Indian political leaders born in the 19th century. All these leaders had honorifics or short names by which they are better known. Why are we making a single exception for Gandhi? We need a very good justification for that and as yet I don't see it. Encyclopedias have a tradition going back some three hundred years. What determines the encyclopedic register is convention not all of which is reducible to rules. Wikipedia's choices of "Mother Teresa," "Alexander the Great" are all based on previous choices made in encyclopedias. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Fowler&fowler. You are right is is not consensus. It is "overwhelming consensus" here is pretty obvious. the problem is that many paper Encyclopedias have a tradition especially those published in UK of pushing a certain POV. How many non white authors write "Encyclopedia Brittanica" ??? on WP we recognize that WP:BIAS exists and want to counter it per WP:CSB. and WP is not about tradition. Inspite of all your learned arguments pushing a certain POV most people dont seem to be agreeing here. exceptions to WP:AT are allowed but you are going to have a difficult time getting people to ignore consensus just because you dont agree with it. Also stop thinking of Brittanica as the bible. Its fortunes are very much sinking like its parent country.[11],[12]--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Best to not hold forth vacuously about Britannica when you don't have a clue. Britannica is not published in the UK. It has been published in the US since 1920 and since 1950 it has been associated with the University of Chicago, with a large number of articles written by the University's faculty, which, incidentally, is one of the leading South Asia departments in the world. Britannica's "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" article is written by B. R. Nanda, the preeminent Indian biographer of Gandhi, and author of Mahatma Gandhi: A biography, Gandhi and his critics, Gokhale, Gandhi, and the Nehrus, In Search of Gandhi: Essays and Reflections, Gandhi: pan-Islamism, imperialism, and nationalism in India and half a dozen other books. The Indian history article is written by a collective of leading historians of India including Frank Raymond Allchin, Romila Thapar, R. Champalakshmi, Muzaffar Alam, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Percival Spear, and Stanley Wolpert. There is nothing on Wikipedia that can remotely approach that and I say that as someone who has weighed in on countless FACs. Again don't be boastful when you have nothing to be boastful about. Britannica might be in trouble, but there is nothing on Wikipedia that matches the level of the better signed articles in the Britannica. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

well therein lies your POV. if you really think Brittanica is so good why dont you go and edit on it ???? Instead of trying to tell everyone to give UNDUE weight to a fundamentally dying encyclopedia. as far as I think "Brittanica" has clear POV issues and no good NPOV policy which is not the case with WP. if you check the total number of authors and look at whites vs non whites you will find out what I mean. Besides you can pay someone to say whatever the heck you want them to say. That is why paid editing is expressly forbidden on WP. so don't pretend that you are the only one who has any clue. we dont want editors who are wannabe Brittanica editors but have been rejected by Brittanica come here and try to make WP as biased as Britannica.please read Encyclopædia Britannica#Criticisms--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

About leaders of India, if 10 other people are not as exactly well known as Mahatma Gandhi, should we also ignore Mahatma honorific? There is really no ambiguity with Mahatma Gandhi name at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The name "Mahatma Gandhi" refers more to the personality according to me. Some books with name Mahatma Gandhi in title(using google query with intitle:"Mahatma Gandhi": by Mahatma Gandhi, edited by edited by C. F. Andrews, with an introduction by John Haynes, by Jawaharlal Nehru, by Rabindranath Tagore, book1 & more books by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, book by B.R.Nanda etc. I am sure there are many more. Here he refers to himself as 'Mahatma Gandhi'. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to careful when you surf the web. Your information is wrong. Gandhi never called himself "Mahatma." The earlier editions of book, see here, published by Gandhi's original publisher, Navajivan Trust, had author, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." Your link is a 2009 reprint of the book published by some western admirers. Gandhi always signed M. K. Gandhi, and, as I say above in my reply to Joyson Noel, the title "Mahatma" was deeply abhorrent to him. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

and how the hell does the fact that the term "Mahatma" was deeply abhorrent to Gandhi matter ( even if we believe you for a moment) ?? where did you get that one.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You have neglected to read not only the posts above, but also Gandhi's autobiogaphy, in the introduction of which he famously expresses his views about the title, "Mahatma." Let not your lack of knowledge metamorphose into incivility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

well you still havent answered my question. dont obfuscate here. Do we call the subjects of our articles and ask them what name we should give to the article? if it is abhorrent to them ? whether he called it abhorrent or not is immaterial and you still don't get it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The title Mahatma has a lot of social significance. It was bestowed upon him by Rabindranath Tagore, people referred to him and called him Mahatma. There is nothing uncivilized in the title Mahatma. As far as Gandhi is considered, I am not sure really if it is correct directive, no one called him Gandhi I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Who ever said "Mahatma" is uncivilized? If you are looking for the name he was called by, it was neither "Mahatma Gandhi" nor "Gandhi," but rather "Bapu." "Mahatma Gandhi" or "Gandhi" or "Gandhiji" was his third person description. He always signed M. K. Gandhi, and all his books were published (in his lifetime) either under "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," or "M. K. Gandhi." Indian leaders of his vintage all had long names and they often had honorifics as well. Their Wikipedia page names are shorn of these honorifics (shown here in parentheses). Off the top my head I can think of: Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Lokmanya), Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Lala Lajpat Rai (Punjab Kesari), Madan Mohan Malviya, Subhas Chandra Bose (Netaji), Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Quaid-e-Azam), Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi), Vallabhbhai Patel ("Sardar"), Abul Kalam Azad ("Maulana"), Jawaharlal Nehru ("Panditji"), C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), Chittaranjan Das (Deshbandhu), Charles Freer Andrews ("Deenbandhu"), Jyotirao Phule ("Mahatma"), Rabindranath Tagore ("Gurudev"), and Jivatram Kripalani ("Acharya"). Most of these people were better known by their honorifics. Yes, their Wikipedia pages just have the names. (Even the pariahs, such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had honorifics ("Veer.")) Why are we making an exception for Gandhi? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The name most commonly used as I understand and have always read is 'Mahatma Gandhi'. It is WP:COMMON as per me. As I referred earlier, many people including Nehru, Sarwapalli Radhakrishnan, Rabindranath Tagore, and on referred to him and called him Mahatma. The honorific 'Mahatma' is also very common. I am at a loss to understand why western sources have not read such books and not referred to him as Mahatma if that is true, and it is very ignorant of the sources in deed to lack that acknowledgement but that would be going tangential.

About being an exception, I don't mind putting honorific to the names of everyone mentioned above, for that is how the titans of Indian freedom movement were referred to as per me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that honorifics or shorter names are OK for each of the 30 odd Indian political leaders born in the 19th century, all of whom—along with Gandhi—have long Wikinames, then we need a bigger discussion for it that addresses the problem collectively. Making a single exception for Gandhi will need exceptional justification. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether honorifics are okay is tangential. For the name 'Mahatma Gandhi' there are several standards and references already presented. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat, "Mahatma Gandhi" isn't really a name, at least not anymore than "Doctor Phil" or "General Patton". Gandhi was a Mahatma. To some he was the Mahatma, but it was never a name. The policy against honorifics is not tangential because Mahatma is an honorific, not a name. Cliff (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On WP:HONORIFIC

"Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. 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."

Please understand there are such examples on WP:HONORIFIC already which seems to have been missed:Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, François Leclerc du Tremblay, etc.

As an examle, gbooks (intitle:"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" versus intitle:"Mahatma") gives a ratio of 68,400 v/s 5,860 = 11.67 times; on google web search it goes upto 22,300,000/1,250,000 i.e. 178.4 ;I would call it 'rare' by any standards. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You say, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." But that is not true for Gandhi, who is most often referred to as "Gandhi" without the "Mahatma." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A ratio of 178.4 does look rare to me. As also, a google search on "Gandhi" would get anyone, everyone and anything who has anything to do with the name Gandhi, like (Indira Gandhi some scheme name), or, as a tiny example about list of people here etc. Mahatma Honorific is therefor essential as per me and there is neither lack of popularity nor ambiguity with "Mahatma Gandhi". It is very apt. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about plain old "Gandhi." A Google Books search for books with title "Mahatma Gandhi" brings up 48,000 titles, however a binary search for books with title "Gandhi" but without "Mahatma," "Indira", "Rajiv," "Sanjay," "Rahul," "Feroze," brings up 72,000 results. And currently "Gandhi" redirects to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." Most people would search for "Gandhi," and would be taken directly to this page. I would like to hear from one person who genuinely got lost and couldn't find the page and they could tell me how. As yet, everyone is citing WP:Commonname for "Mahatma Gandhi," when plain old "Gandhi" is much more common. The Wiki-nationalists, all of whom together haven't contributed as much to the Gandhi page as I have, cringe at plain old "Gandhi" as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

About Wiki-nationalists, lets not make this a podium for tangential discussions and passing remarks on Wiki-nationalists which is not motto on this page. In either case, it is unsubstantiated. It would be prudent to not to POV push here when the discussion is on Mahatma Gandhi. I am not sure how books mention here already -- [by Jawaharlal Nehru, by Rabindranath Tagore, book1 & more books by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, book by B.R.Nanda -- justifies any assertions of nationalism, etc. If I wanted to, I could say as earlier, that ignoring Mahatma honorific for particularly this personality makes all those ignorant etc, though the intitle search does not mention the fact that articles/books without word 'Mahatma' ignores the honorific completely. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to "Mahatma Ghandi". A google Books search for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", in quotes, gets 14,800 results; "Mahatma Gandhi", in quotes, gets 249,000 results: a different order of magnitude. If "Mahatma Ghandi" were not in more common use, then you would expect most if not all of the books found under "Mahatma Gandhi" also to contain "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Apparently they don't. Not all of the titles on the first page of the former search results have "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in the title; all but one of the titles in the first six pages of the latter have ""Mahatma Gandhi" in the title. Only three of the books on the first page of the former have a proper cover image; all of the books in the first seven pages of the latter do. That is some indication of the quality of the sources thrown up by the searches. The assertion that "Mahatma" is not common use simply is not tenable. The MOS argument is a red herring: MOS is concerned with POV use of honorifics, not with common use. "His Holiness Pope John Paul" or "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" do not appear often in book titles. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument is more complex than how you are stating it: 1) As for common use, "Gandhi" alone, without "Mahatma" gets many many more Google hits than "Mahatma Gandhi." 2) There is unanimous encyclopedic precedent for the full name, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which WP:AT#Common_names itself recommends, 3) There is Wikipedia's own convention of naming all Indian polititcal leaders of Gandhi's era by their full names. Disregarding 2) and 3) will require exceptional explanations. Book titles are not enough, for example, there are twenty five times as many books with title "Goethe", than with title Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, yet the Wikipedia page on the literary genius continues to be Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. His forenames are hardly recognizably attached to his last name. Encyclopedic convention is important. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You have stated your case 30 times so far. I am content to state my case once. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm aside, if common use is your argument, you still haven't answered my query about why "Mahatma Gandhi" is preferable to "Gandhi" alone, which still yields 671,000 returns, after ruling out all the other Gandhis including "Mahatma." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, haven't you already kinda answered that with your Goethe example. Wikipedia tends to use the "fuller" common name when it has the choice. And the fuller common version of Gandhi's name is Mahatma Gandhi. I think it's kinda like Saint Peter, who might often just be called Peter, but the longer version is used as article title. But in any event I don't see how this question of whether to use the longer or the shorter common name could lead back to calling the article "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi", so I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. As I see it both "Mahatma Gandhi" and plain "Gandhi" satisfy WP:COMMONNAME by the usual reading of the policy, while "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" only satifies WP:COMMONNAME if unusual weight is given to what other encyclopedias use.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In 1) I wasn't trying to make a case for the full name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," but rather for plain old "Gandhi," which is my second choice, which currently redirects to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which has much more common use than "Mahatma Gandhi," and none of the problems of a contested honorific. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then building that case, as an example where Wikipedia calls the article the shorter common name there is Napoleon. There too Wikipedia goes against what other encyclopedias usually call the person, which is Napoleon I, and uses what he is most commonly called by other reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that example. I think Jesus might be another (Britannica has Jesus of Nazareth). I'll look for more later. Too tired right now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

To: TheFreeloader, Interestingly for "Mohandas Gandhi" there are 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to only 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi". The "Karamchand" can easily be dropped. The option "Mohandas Gandhi" has not been considered in the page move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, "Mohandas Gandhi" does look like a common name for Gandhi. Then it looks like we have 3 common name options to choose from. WP:UCN says we must then look at criteria given in WP:CRITERIA to decide which of the common names to use. I am not sure that any of our options stand out as fulfilling those criteria better than the others. Plain "Gandhi" is more concise, although given all the examples of other articles going for the longer common name of people, this may not be as important when dealing with biographies. I have seen some people in this discussion note that they did not recognize the current title of the article as the name of Gandhi. This might indicate that to some "Mohandas Gandhi" is less recognizable. Looking at naturalness, it does seem that "Mahatma Gandhi" is the place where most people look first look for the subject of this article, as the traffic date shows that the redirect Mahatma Gandhi is used about 40,000 times per month[13], which is a lot more than the about 7,000 times Mohandas Gandhi got used[14]. It's even more used than the redirect Gandhi, which must assumed to be used by some people who are not looking for this article too, which gets used about 23,000 times per month [15]. As for precision, there are quite a few other notable people who also have the last name Gandhi, which may make plain "Gandhi" somewhat ambiguous as a title, although I doubt that any of the other Gandhis are anywhere near as frequently referred to as just "Gandhi" given the fame of this one. I do find it hard to make up my mind on this issue, but given the evidence from the traffic data, I must say I am starting to lean toward "Mahatma Gandhi".TheFreeloader (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Mahatma Gandhi, as per "common name" policy. — Bill william compton^Talk 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Mahatma Gandhi or change Alexander the great. Any way great for Alexander isn't the entire truth, for Indian's all he could muster was a phyrric win against a small kingdom on the north-western edge of India, after which he had to turn back, if we have to suffer with Alexander the great, the world might as well suffer for Gandhi the great-soul, and (yawn) that is how he is commonly known as wp:COMMONNAME, and for heaven's sake it isn't Ghandi but Gandhi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also it is downright moronic to use ghits for Gandhi against Ghits for Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi is a family name in India, all the Gandhis in the world would be searched for and would be counted. Common name means is Gandhi more commonly referred to as (1)Mahatma Gandhi (2)Gandhi (3)Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the answer to which is elementary, which is Mahatma Gandhi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your analogy is incorrect. One can easily search on Google books and thereby rule out the average person in India who might happen to have surname "Gandhi," on the grounds that books are not written about them. One can then do a binary Google search for "Gandhi -Mahatma -Indira -Rajiv -Sanjay -Rahul -Feroze" (in other words rule out all the better known Gandhis, such as Indira Gandhi, Feroze Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi, about whom books might be written, including "Mahatma Gandhi"). For "Gandhi" alone then, there are some 678,000 Google Book returns, all referring to the subject of this page. For, "Mahatma Gandhi," however, there are only 323,000 book returns. One can do even better by examining book titles. For, that certainly rules out any random person with name Gandhi who might be referred to in a book. A binary search for "Gandhi -Mahatma -Indira -Rajiv -Sanjay -Rahul -Feroze" in the title of a book, returns 74,800 book titles, whereas a search for book titles with "Mahatma Gandhi" in them, reveals 48,000 titles. Given that "Mahatma" is a contested honorific, and you yourself, Yogesh Khandke, are on record, more than once on Wikipedia deriding and opposing the title, it is best not to push it here for reasons known only to yourself. This is tendentious editing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Interestingly for "Mohandas Gandhi" there are 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to only 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi". The "Karamchand" can easily be dropped. The option "Mohandas Gandhi" has not been considered in the page move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

For those who dont like the fact that mahatma means great soul, don't take it too hard, don't we have Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov's article titled Vladimir Lenin which means Vladimir the industrious, Gandhi the great-soul shouldn't hurt Wikipedia too much, in view of Alexander, Lenin, Akbar, Teresa et al in the oozing list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Those who cringe on the honorific Mahatma, however apt, may notice this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever thought that a "nauseating" and "half naked fakir"[16] could be a "great soul". Too bad that racism persists to this day. Also dont forget Ivan the Terrible for those concerned with inappropriateness of honorifics--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, your own Time Magazine link above, refers to Gandhi as "Mohandas Gandhi," not "Mahatma." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be sad about it Fowler&fowler. some people definitely call him by that name. just like some people refer to Bill clinton as William J Clinton[17] yet WP calls him Bill Clinton. What do you think of Ivan though. OK to call him terrible ??? If we listen to Ralph Raico maybe we can have an Article on "Churchill the racist" also.[18]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. That is the way he is always known. No one in India will refer to him Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Like no one refers Mark Twain as Samuel Langhorne Clemens.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain is not a honorific. Besides all encyclopedias refer to him as "Mark Twain." All encyclopedias refer to Gandhi as "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" or "Mohandas Gandhi," not "Mahatma." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

The consensus as manifest from the vote and the discussion is pro move by an overwhelming 21 support to 7 oppose. Administrator please close in favour of move.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Voting is "of basically zero importance". Move requests are considered on strength of argument; not on headcounts. Quigley (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't hear this on the Ganga talk page during the move, when heads were counted, nobody listened to wp:NOTDEMOCRACY. Any way here is another convincing argument, the roads and institutions named after him. The numerous roads named as Mahatma Gandhi, 27.6 million ghits.[19].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that "on the Ganga talk page during the move, when heads were counted, nobody listened to wp:NOTDEMOCRACY." One should not apply policies selectively which is shameful according to me, it could definitely lead to system bias. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great find user:thisthat2011: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. 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., if Putana mavshi can become mother, so can Bapu become Mahatma Gandhi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What is "Putana Mavshi?" This is the English Wikipedia. Snide asides, made in another language, which you have been making with increasing frequency lately, are not looked upon kindly on Wikipedia. Let this serve has a polite but firm warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you should show some sort of police or judicial ID before making declarations like "Let this serve has a polite but firm warning." You're in danger of taking yourself far too seriously. Scolaire (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. If you mean Putana, the demoness, and Lord Krishna's foster mother, you are risking alluding to Mother Teresa intemperately and abusively. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote above from WP:HONORIFIC is an argument for the title "Gandhi", without Mahatma since the two are used with about the same frequency. It's clear that Mahatma is out. I think that if there is consensus here, it is to move to Gandhi, though I still think it should stay where it is. Cliff (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is strong enough to avoid 'Mahatma' as Honorific as per WP:HONORIFIC. It is not out. Please read above where someone pointed out that "A Nobel committee member once said that Gandhi could only be compared to founders of religions. The articles on Buddha and Jesus only use their common names, i.e., Buddha is not titled Siddhartha Gautama and Christ is not titled Jesus of Nazreth.". As far as articles that reflect the mentality that Gandhi, a helf-naked fakir, can't be Mahatma; such articles should not be considered for their uncivilized overtones during counts. Considering that racism was pervasive during those times, it becomes unavoidable that such uncivilized references are removed from consideration. The title 'Mahatma Gandhi' is therefore very apt. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutly correct that wiki is not a democracy wp:NOTDEMOCRACY but based on the strength of each arguement, and there has been only a few that were made then severely derailed repeatedly. Ok here is an attempt to make a list of the arguements, It is likely missing some, and i ignored repeated arguements which there really is allot of that.

• WP:Article titles says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name,

Opposition says - Most sources use his full name. All ecyclopedias use his full name.

• WP: HONORIFIC Says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included"

Opposition says - It has been domonstrated, via google searchs and books, that Just "Gandhi" is very common as well, thus negating the conditional clause "Rarely found without it"

• WP:COMMONNAME says The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." Many examples are given above in the main arguement section

Opposition says - That is selectively quoting poliy "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used."

• There is precedent for using Honorifics to disambiguate. "(Name) the Great" etc. There are many people named Gandhi. Mahatma disambiguates.

Opposition says - just plain "Gandhi" already redirects here, so that arguement is flawed. His name in long form is already disambiguated and the redirect serves to bring in the Gandhi searchers.

• WP: Primarytopic The honorific has become a part of his commonname. It recieves three times as many views as the second most viewed option (300,000 vs 100,000 for Indira), and this article gets more views than all other options combined (which is about 200,000views). Therefore this article actually seems to pass as primary topic for Gandhi

Opposition says - ???

• Opposition contests that this would set a precedent of changing longer form names to just last name, despite the existance of available longer forms. Several examples were given of people such as William Shakespeare to Shakespeare or Winston Churchill to Churchill or Pablo Piccasso to Piccasso, Karl Marx. The shorter versions all redirect, as is the case with Gandhi

Support says - Those individuals are all well known by their full names and short names, and are not comparable to the relatively uncommon full First and middle name of Gandhi.

the form of your summary makes it seem as though the "opposition" is opposing policies, and not arguments. Further you seem to think there is only one proposal. There are three. I'll support your summary when it seems neutral worded and organized. Cliff (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I copied most of the arguments i didnt write them myself. Some of them i paraphrased from much larger discussions if you object to any please specify and it can be corrected. This was intended as nothing more the a brief summary, not my personal opinions, Please feel free to alter my writtings just be sure to use a Strikeout so the alteration can be seen and rebutted. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@CliffI suggest you could go through arguments presented again, as well as by others above and mention exactly where the confusion is. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove my signature from the post, and anyone may feel free to alter it to make the arguments agreeable to the side that corresponds. I would ask that you only alter the side for which you lend your support, dont sabotage the arguments of others. And refrain from discussion or rebuttal just 1 point and 1 counter point, let the reader decide or discuss in the discussion section above. And of course avoid making the same arguement twice. Also if anyone is more clever the I, in terms of wiki formatting, then feel free to make it into a proper looking table or something. I dont care.Smitty1337 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Smitty, I think it might be better to have a table with For and Against arguments for each page name option. I will create a table at the end of this section, if you like it, you may move it up and replace yours with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to Cliff. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Scolaire, if this perks you, you should brace yourself. (2)Sorry in advance. For two wrongs don't make a right, you edited my talk page edits, which shouldn't have been done, I am returning the favour. Actually consensus on Wikipedia has always come across to me as an euphemism for vote, which as noted above was 21-7. Overwhelming, would be an understatement.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk page rules allow others to refactor section heading they see as inaccurate. You don't have ownership of section headings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

- (od)(edit conflict)Smitty you are right, a table would be very useful, I had made one for the Ganga move proposal. Actually Smitty, the score 21-7 is heavily in favour of Mahatma Gandhi, it is how the subject of the article is known, just as Stalin or Vladimir Lenin or Ivan the Terrible, or Vlad the Impaler or Mother Teresa, whether anybody deserved to be called mother or mahatma or terrible isn't Wikipedia title's look out, titles should reflect common usage.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Why then for "Mohandas Gandhi" are there 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to only 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi"? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Or is it three hundred for Mohandas Gandhi against three hundred thousand for Mahatma Gandhi. If some one doesn't know how to ride a bicycle he lands in the gutter.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first search, for "Mohandas Gandhi", seems to have only returned results with the name in the book title (or author). Whereas your second returned all mentions of "Mahatma Gandhi". A comparable search (with term in book title) would be "Mohandas Gandhi" (337), "Mahatma Gandhi" (556). Not sure why a factor of a thousand didn't alarm you. Christopher Connor (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Christopher Conner's correction of Yogesh Khandke's results. However, in my own Google search, I deliberately left the quotes out. When you search for Mohandas Gandhi (without quotes) you are searching for all pages in books that have both Mohandas and Gandhi in them. This may occur as "Mohandas Gandhi," "Mohandas K. Gandhi," "Gandhi, Mohandas," "Gandhi, "Mohandas K.", "Mohandas" and "Gandhi" separately, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," "Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand," etc, whereas when you search for Mahatma Gandhi without quotes you are searching for pages which have both "Mahatma" and "Gandhi" in them, this may occur as "Mahatma Gandhi," "Gandhi, Mahatma," or "Mahatma" and "Gandhi" separately on the same page. Clearly "Mohandas" and "Gandhi" occur more frequently on both pages and book titles than "Mahatma" and "Gandhi" In other words, we can do without the title or honorific. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris I'll try it again, why don't you try the other way round, instead of searching book titles, try general search, let us see what we get?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

For all encyclopedias it is even more lopsided: Among books with "Encyclopedia OR Encyclopaedia" in their title there are 26,500 that refer to "Mohandas Gandhi," whereas there are only 8,800 that refer to "Mahatma Gandhi" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Major encyclopedias are unanimous in their choice of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as their page name. See here for evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A factor of ten nevertheless, still overwhelming enough???? Mahatma Gandhi 245k against Mohandas Gandhi 28k still a factor of ten, Chris I fell for the ghit, as nobody calls him Mohandas Gandhi out here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You can keep on pontificating if you'd like, Yogesh Khandke, but you can't use quotes in your Google search for reasons I have explained above. You are also in danger of violating 3RR. Please be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't wrestle.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, I did not change the section heading on a whim. Neither am I disputing your vote count. The simple fact is, as I know from having participated in page move discussions before, that instructing closers on how to close a poll is counter-productive. It's worse if you put your demand in a section heading. And the longer you make the section heading the worse it is. Polls are not closed by bureaucrats, but by ordinary people - nice people, mostly - who want to help editors to improve articles. And contrary to what you might think, all of them are capable of counting votes and calculating majorities. And all of them have feelings, just like us. People who see this on the RM page and decide it's time to close it, when they see that heading they will just click off and go to something less contentious. Besides which, as I said in my edit summary, the discussion in this section has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Quite the opposite, it is two people shouting the same two contrary arguments back and forth at each other. Since you take exception to my good faith edit, I will not involve myself further. I have just realised that you are edit-warring over this, so I am going to revert again and give you 24 hours to have a proper think about it. I strongly advise you, if you don't want the page to stay at this title forever, to leave that provocative heading out. And I advise both of you to reduce the level of aggro generally. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(1)It is unfortunate (my bad) that I come across as aggressive, actually reasons are historical and beyond this page. One fellow can provocate to the hilt and others get penalised for it. But all that is beyond this page. (2)Well I explained what I meant by consensus, it is an euphamism for vote, raw numbers my little experience with the process has taught me. A fellow received a topic ban based on this interpretation of consensus. Counting of votes. (3)Well the section could well be titled bickering, but is it my fault alone? (4)I have one experience with a page move, GangaxGanges, there I remember this kind of scoring was done atleast once, with repeated calls to the administrators to take note of the vote (consensus). (5)All that said you were one of the rare blokes who said shut up to the trouble-monger. In view of your evenness on the subject, and in deference to all above said by you I change the section name.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scolaire: I was beaten to the post regarding section change. But my intentions to do it are declared.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem :-) Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has written the lead and the early life section of the Gandhi page, although it seems to have been worked (for the worse) by others since, I'm glad you mentioned improving the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back. That will help the move discussion enormously. Scolaire (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It might or it might not, but it points to the fact that among the people weighing in here RegentsPark and I are the only two people who've made an effort to improve the article. When I say that there is a historiographic convention of referring to other Indian nationalist leaders of Gandhi's era by their full name, though all have honorifics, I am speaking from knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to belittle your contributions, F&F. And I appreciate that a long-term involvement with the article must give you an insight into the issues. The other side of the coin, however, is that it must necessarily make you less inclined to see the bigger picture. A "historiographic convention" on Indian nationalism articles does not necessarily equal a naming convention in the wider community. For instance, you have given several examples above of Indian figures whose articles are titled with their full names. None of them are familiar to me, apart from Rabindranath Tagore and Jawaharlal Nehru. I'm willing to bet most people in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain and Ireland are not familiar with them either. On the other hand, everybody knows of Mahatma Gandhi. He is a world figure. He came second after Einstein in Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. Therefore, naming criteria must take account of things other than "historiographical conventions".

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Anybody who reads this page must be fully cognizant of your views. Anybody who hasn't been convinced by now is not going to be convinced if you repeat the same things another fifty times. It is time for you to step back and let matters take their course, as they will no matter what you do. Scolaire (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, the question is whether Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhi is the right title for this article. That Gandhi is as used as often, if not more, than Mahatma Gandhi is fairly clear (your Time article, for example, doesn't use the term Mahatma at all). A search of google books shows plenty of books with just plain Gandhi in the title. Given that Gandhi already redirects here (indicating that this is the primary topic and no disambiguation is necessary), then shouldn't the article be at Gandhi? The Mahatma only serves as something added on to honor the man, something that we explicitly try to avoid on wikipedia. (And, trust me on this, I would be the happiest of editors on this page to see the term Mahatma permanently affixed before the Gandhi, I just don't believe it fits with our philosophy on wikipedia). --rgpk (comment) 19:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the question is whether "Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi" or one of the other alternatives is the right title for this article. Second, I registered my vote on that several days ago, and I've taken no part in that discussion since. The question I am posing here is whether there is any benefit in Fowler&fowler repeating the same things endlesly. I don't see it as an advancement for somebody else to start repeating the same things on his behalf. Scolaire (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. I totally understand. Sometimes we all find ourselves trapped in a position that we can't justify and would rather not answer direct questions. I've been there myself and empathize with your plight. --rgpk (comment) 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• No RegentsPark, the being trapped is a description which fits you and the the gentleman, whose hopeless position you seem to be arguiging for, why don't you see Scolaire's point? He is not arguing about content, all he is saying is that a particular argument is seen, and repetition is unnecessary.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please pardon me for entering this discussion. Why should the name be changed from Mahatma Gandhi to M.K. Gandhi? The reason that google results in "English" returns it so is not a valid one. Bali or Gandhi can't be delineated from Mahatma. Why are we even discussing this. If anyone calls Mother Teresa without Mother that's like an abuse. So let's change it to Mahatma Gandhi and get moving. There are thousands of articles to cover so let's not stick to this non-issue. Anyways you should consider how he was know and what's his legacy. Please redirect M.K. Gandhi, etc. to Mahatma Gandhi.

Check these sites that are from Britain: http://www.britsroyal.com/kings.asp?id=george6

Martin Luthar King addresses Mahatma Gandhi with this name. Please read King's biography. Interestingly this site is from UK.

Http://www.Spartacus.schoolnet.co.UK/USAkingML.htm

As far as usage is concerned, India has far more English speakers than with many other nations combined.

Please advice if this isn't clear. The scope of the work is huge. So let's change this to Mahatma and move on. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Nameisnotimportant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Table

Here is your table Smitty.

Page Name	For/Against	Arguments
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi	For	1. WP:NCON#Common_names says, "Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used." 2. Quality encyclopedias unanimously favor "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi 3. There is a historiographical convention of preferring "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." 4. All of the 30 odd better-known Indian political leaders of Gandhi's era are currently named by their long names. 5. "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" has been the stable page name for over four years despite a number of attempts to change it. 6. All the other names Mohandas Gandhi, Gandhi, and Mahatma Gandhi currently redirect to this page, so really there should be any problem finding the page, no matter how you search for it. 7. A page name other than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" will make Wikipedia less credible, as it will be seen as kowtowing to popular (especially nationalist) sentiment.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi	Against	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Mohandas Gandhi	For	1."Mohandas Gandhi" has 356,000 Google Book returns in contrast to only 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi" 2. 3. 4. 5.
Mohandas Gandhi	Against	1. Mahatma Gandhi 245k against Mohandas Gandhi 28k 10 to 1 in favour of Mahatma Gandhi 2. 3. 4. 5.
Gandhi	For	1. A binary Google Books search for "Gandhi," which excludes the other well-known Gandhis and "Mahatma Gandhi," returns 678,000 titles in contrast to 323,000 for "Mahatma Gandhi". 2. The result in 1. shows that reliable sources prefer plain old "Gandhi" to "Mahatma Gandhi" by 2 to 1 3. 4. 5.
Gandhi	Against	1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Mahatma Gandhi	For	1. Mahatma Gandhi 245k against Mohandas Gandhi 28k 10 to 1 in favour of Mahatma Gandhi 2.The issue isn't about right or wrong of using great mother, terrible mahatma, it is about accuracy. 3.If honorifics like mother in Mother Teresa can be used, so can Mahatma. 4.Mahatma Gandhi is a world figure, that this issue is about popular nationalism is a hit below the belt. Smacks of colonialism. 5.
Mahatma Gandhi	Against	1. Mahatma, as its own page, informs us is an honorific or title 2. Gandhi himself was deeply pained by the title. 3. 4. 5.

To every one, please feel free to add your arguments, but please don't be disruptive, or make the argument excessively long (i.e. more than one reasonable sentence long). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)