Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.234.105.147 (talk) at 23:39, 1 February 2013 (→‎Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleMahatma Gandhi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleMahatma Gandhi has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 1, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 1, 2005Featured article reviewKept
February 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 12, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
May 9, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
May 8, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


Unclear Segment

If Gandhi fought the Zulus under the British then why was he proclaimed a hero by the Africans?174.89.102.243 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the black majority came to power in South Africa, Gandhi was proclaimed a national hero with numerous monuments. also Robert A. Huttenback (1971). Gandhi in South Africa: British imperialism and the Indian question, 1860-1914. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-0586-0. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Gandhi called for freedom, not slavery and colonialism unlike barbarian colonizers and enslavers.202.138.106.1 (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for a citation or reference as to when and how Ghandi called for freedom? 46.12.253.159 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
read the article -- or look at Anthony Parel Gandhi, Freedom, and Self-Rule (2000) online which looks at Gandhi's four meanings of freedom = 1) India's national independence, 2) political freedom of the individual, 3) freedom from poverty, 4) the capacity for personal self-rule. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 29 November 2012

Mahatma Gandhi is not officially "father of the nation". Kindly remove this term from the page. Please refer to the latest news available on Internet about this. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/gandhi-not-formally-conferred-father-of-the-nation-title-govt-242294 108.173.134.102 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The article already reads "He is known in India as the Father of the Nation". The news you cite just clarifies that he isn't confered with this title officially. It does not however change the fact that people still know him as the Father of the Nation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
right. the text says nothing about "official." Wiki follows the leading Biographers and scholars--eg Wolpert ("he was called the Father of India"); Surendra Bhana, Uma Dhupelia-Mesthrie ("Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of India"); Somervill ("is considered the father of India."); West ("Ultimately Gandhi's actions helped create the unification of Indians, earning Gandhi the name 'modern father of India'"); Gupta's book = MAHATMA GANDHI: The Father of the Nation etc etc [https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=gandhi+%22father+of+india%22&num=10 see this link for cites). Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda around death of Mahatma Gandhi

How does a research article "Khan, Yasmin (January 2011). "Performing Peace: Gandhi's assassination as a critical moment in the consolidation of the Nehruvian state" (abstract). Modern Asian Studies 45 (1): 57–80. doi:10.1017/S0026749X10000223. Retrieved 21 January 2012" is cited here as reliable source. There is no such controversy/propaganda before 2011. A case of poor standards enforced just to further some propaganda on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.75.165 (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in a peer reviewed journal so it is a reliable source. However, it doesn't seem that the idea is mainstream enough for an entire paragraph and we don't have a natural place for the impact of his assassination, so I've removed it for now. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it's quite an important article by a leading specialist (Khan by the way was born in London, has a PhD from Oxford and is a professor at London University). The point is that the assassination & Gandhi's martyrdom became a powerful tool by Nehru & Patel to strengthen the new government. Other historians have mentioned this and Khan demonstrates it very thoroughly. The criticism (above) by 111.91.75.165 is incoherent --for some strange reason he calls scholarship "propaganda"-- and in violation of NPOV rules. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable but, if it is to be included, then it should be rephrased so that it is not the viewpoint of one scholar. Are there other references that support her views?--regentspark (comment) 23:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
good point. I added Ramachandra Guha, India after Gandhi (2007) pp 37-40 and Sarvepalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru (1979) pp 16-17, who make the same basic point more briefly. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources mentioned above do not say anything about propaganda.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

  • In the section "Assassination" it read...."who held Gandhi responsible for weakening India by insisting upon a payment to Pakistan." Please add a footnote or something that speaks more about the payment. Like why it was made, what exactly was the payment, etc.
Rjensen, why is it changed to "guilty of favouring Pakistan"? Does the ref say such and not mention any payments? The ref to this line is "Gandhi 1990, p. 472". What exactly is this Gandhi 1990? I am unable to understand and locate any such ref below. Someone has meddled with these refs i guess. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no payments were involved. Godse had tried several times over the years to kill Gandhi. David Hardiman (2003). Gandhi in His Time and Ours: The Global Legacy of His Ideas. Columbia U.P. pp. 174–76.
the cite Gandhi 1990 is a mess -- I think it means Gandhi, An Autobiography (1990) edited by Mahadev Desai Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Assassination" it read...."While India mourned and communal violence escalated". What communal violence? Were all communities fighting amongst each others?
  • In the section "Ashes" it read...."Another urn is at the palace of the Aga Khan in Pune (where he had been imprisoned from 1942 to 1944)." This bracketed line is a borderline WP:Original Research implying that his imprisonment had something to do with the urn. In case we are giving that impresion, it would be better to point out that his wife's and secretary's memorials are in this palace. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"communal violence" = large scale rioting/killing between different religious communities. Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! So Jains were killing Jews. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Muslims" it read.... "By 1924 that Muslim support had largely evaporated." Why it happened should be stated.
the "why" doesn't relate to Gandhi --it's part of another story. see Khilafat Movement Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Jews" it read.... "In 1931, he suggested that.. " and then the paragraph ends saying "By the 1930s all major political groups in India opposed a Jewish state in Palestine." Is there some chronological error here? Should it be "By the end of 1930s" or "mid of 1930s"? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By 1931 Gandhi and Congress opposed the Zionists. Rjensen (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


From this source [from FAQ section]

Let us not ignore selectively. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right unless there are standards in Wikipedia about hiding the part in bold above.

About communal violence, there are no random communal violence, and this atleast needs to be mentioned with clarity and linked. There is no general "large scale rioting/killing between different religious communities" which occurred in India at that time as the editor is saying. It was specific and with context.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

upwards of a million people were killed in communal riots involving Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. All the RS cover that famous story. Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a famous story, it is a tragic history. Instead of beating around the bush mention "communal riots involving Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs". One can not involve unrelated parties who do not riot by generalizing this.
Also note that part about 75 crore payments.111.91.95.40 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be a bit hagiographic, maybe some criticisms from this article on his attitude to women should be included. [1] PatGallacher (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi → Mahatma Gandhi – Although this has been chewed over at some length before, oddly enough it has never been the subject of a formal move request. With such a major figure the common name trumps other considerations. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note previous discussions of Mahatma vs. Mohandas and a collection of Page names of Gandhi articles in other encyclopedias. —  AjaxSmack  21:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Pakistani usage of "Mahatma," I notice 9580 Google hits for 'Mahatma Gandhi' at Dawn (newspaper), a newspaper founded by Jinnah, revered as the founder of Pakistan. And only 464 for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" Clearly even official Pakistan is not averse to the word "Mahatma" - and even finds "Mahatma Gandhi" a preferred usage to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" by a margin of 9580/464 or about 21:1, very similar to the ratio of 25:1 observed in Worldcat titles (see comments above). Wow. This ostensible impediment to "Mahatma" certainly seems to dissolve upon closer inspection. -- Presearch (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thought, but the lack of specificity seems a problem. If we followed this logic, we'd seemingly end up with pages called simply "Nixon" (which now redirects to Richard Nixon), "Reagan" (which now redirects to Ronald Reagan), etc. I don't think that would be an improvement. --Presearch (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a thought that would occur if "Great Soul" was not in conflict with WP:HONORIFIC, which is presumably why no real encyclopedia uses it and why Hindi wikipedia doesn't use it. This kind of titling could only be used for mega-notables, such as Napoléon Bonaparte is at Napoleon. Admittedly Rajiv and Indira and more notable than the other six Napoléons. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Honorific allows for "Mahatma"; it says "There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa." Rjensen (talk) (talk | contribs) 08:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, that's exactly the problem. Mohandas Gandhi gets 118,000x results vs 3,890,000 - apart from 100% of the encyclopedias. It's 32-1 but we can't claim that "the name is rarely found without it", if we do this we are basically disregarding WP:HONORIFIC for WP:COMMONNAME, which is okay as long as we admit it.
FWIW Britannica has Blessed Mother Teresa (Roman Catholic nun) - wildly honorific - but her Albanian name Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu is unpronounceable/unrecognisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simply Gandhi: I already commented in support above, but I think simply using "Gandhi" would be better. If you refer to Gandhi, everyone knows who you're talking about. No further disambiguation is necessary. It is probably the most common name, and avoiding the unnecessary honorific is a good idea. (It's already a redirect.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing if you say "Obama", but that doesn't mean we title his article that way. The man had two given names, not just a surname. If we're not going to use the honorific, then we certainly shouldn't omit the man's given name! Powers T 01:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of view expressed by Powers resonates with me as well, so I have just struck through both of my prior position declarations and I now plan to just withdraw from this conversation to let other people sort it out. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and a comment - Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhiji (or Gandhi) are the most common names of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi --sarvajna (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Mahatma" is an honorific and should be dropped unless "use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable", per WP:HONORIFIC. Clinton's article isn't titled "President Clinton", is it? Every other encyclopedia includes "Mohandas" as part of the name and "other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register", per WP:UCN. My first choice is Mohandas K. Gandhi. This is how he is given as author of his autobiography, so I assume it is what he wanted to be called. to be called. Update: I support just plain Gandhi as well, as several other editors have now suggested. The problem with including "Mahatma" in the article title is that this confuses the reader into thinking this was part of the subject's name, or at least some sort of nickname. Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that President is a honorific, also Bill Clinton's article is not named William Clinton.-sarvajna (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know that "Mahatma" is a title, whereas Mohandas is the subject's given name? The "Bill Clinton" analogy has been used repeatedly in this discussion, and it suggests that editors do not have a complete understanding the issues involved. Kauffner (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us also consider a statement already discussed which is ignored here "There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa.". Let us be aware if this too.111.91.95.82 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support — Our article on Bill Clinton isn't entitled "William Jefferson Clinton", it's just Bill Clinton. We do not refer to Prince as "Prince Rogers Nelson" in the title; we call him Prince (followed by the word "musician" in parenthesis, so as to distinguish his name from its other definitions). Therefore, it makes sense that the title for this article should also be the name most commonly used to identify the subject: Mahatma Gandhi. That said, I oppose simply renaming the article "Gandhi". Doing so would brush aside other significant figures in Indian history who share the same surname, such as Indira Gandhi or her son Rajiv. Having "Gandhi" remain a redirect to "Mahatma Gandhi" with a note at the top of the article leading to the surname's disambiguation page is what I'm most comfortable with. Kurtis (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The article is about Mahatma Gandhi. Who is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi anyways? The page should not even have a link from "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".111.91.75.62 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you are serious, "Mahatma" is a title or honorific, not his name. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the name given to him by his parents. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not get into this who is serious and who is not if no one mentions how many times such arguments are made to change title of page Mother Teresa article. Without statistics it means nothing. One can not be unaware of this and then talk about seriousness. WP:COMMONSENSE.111.91.75.16 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is already explained earlier. Most of the world knows him as Mahatma Gandhi. Other factors for 'Gandhi' already considered.111.91.75.72 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note: A quick search of JSTOR shows that 'Mahatma' is rarely, if ever, used by scholarly journals where he is almost always referred to as Gandhi with the assumption that no reader will ask "Which Gandhi?". cf. this article titled "Gandhi and Lincoln" by Rajmohan Gandhi. To the extent that we should be looking at scholarly work, Mahatma Gandhi is a poor choice of title. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. For example...Mother Teresa.". So this position does not hold.111.91.95.82 (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is rarely. Mother Teresa is never used without Teresa but Gandhi is often used without Gandhi. For example, one wouldn't say "Teresa was a great woman" but one would say "Gandhi was a great man". Look at the many examples of Gandhi without Mahatma on JSTOR or even Maine Gandhi ko Nahin Mara. The comparison with Mother Teresa is flawed. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I count over 8,300 scholarly studies in JSTOR that used "Mahatma" --of which 95 articles and 56 books using the term were published in 2011 and 2012 alone. That's plenty of support. Rjensen (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly incidental. I find only 139 with Mahatma Gandhi in the title and many articles (admittedly this is not a exhaustive thing) make only a incidental reference. For example, in the Rajmohan Gandhi link I cite above, Mahatma is used twice: once in a reference and one in a quote. Gandhi's grandson apparently doesn't see the need to add a Mahatma in front of Gandhi. --regentspark (comment) 13:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that Gandhi should be the title of the article? --sarvajna (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I think. Gandhi already redirects here and, generally, when a more concise title is a redirect, that's what we should use. --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rajmohan has a conflict of interest and might be just being humble by not using "Mahatma". Also since when did we start using titles of non-critical films for gauging in such matter? In that case we should also look at what text-books in India refer to him as or what bloggers and twitters use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the "non-critical film" is that a reference to Gandhi is recognizable as being to Mahatma Gandhi. A reference to Teresa, on the other hand, is completely ambiguous. Using Mother Teresa as a reason to rename this article Mahatma Gandhi is ridiculous (with apologies to the IP). --regentspark (comment) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Rajmohan's reticence can be explained by the fact that grandpa didn't appreciate being called "Mahatma." This is from Gandhi's autobiography: "Often the title [Mahatma] has deeply pained me, and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me." (p. 5) Kauffner (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the likely reason. I didn't want to bring this up because we're not really supposed to care what about his likes or dislikes but I don't think Gandhi, were he alive, would !vote support for this move request! --regentspark (comment) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gandhi used "Mahatma" on the title page of his English-language books (eg Mahatma Gandhi, His Life, Writings and Speeches (1918)); and scholars prefer it today, such as A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography about Mahatma Gandhi (2007); Social And Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi (2006); The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi for the Twenty-First Century (2008); Mahatma Gandhi: Proponent of Peace (2010); plus the major recent biography Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India by Joseph Lelyveld (2011). see Amazon.com --it gives 200+ books] using it in the title since 2007.Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen, no one is saying that Mahatma is not used a lot, it is. The point you're missing is that Mahatma is not used exclusively enough for the honorific to be a part of his name. Gandhi is just as recognizable. There is absolutely no point in listing titles with Mahatma in them because there are hundreds of other titles without Mahatma, and quite a few articles where Gandhi and Mahatma are not used as a name in the text itselfl (cf. [2], [3] and doubtless many more). The exception in WP:Honorifics is very clear Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it (emphasis mine). Gandhi is very often found without the Mahatma attached and therefore adding Mahatma in front of his name is not a valid exception. --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RP, i will take this discussion to a seemingly off-track now. On one hand you are looking for an article that uses "Indian English" and on the other hand you are opposing something that Indians commonly use in their English. Don't you think this is the right article which if modified somewhat would replace the Taj Mahal example? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit off track but ... I'm not comfortable at all with this idea of Indian English because it is not at all well defined. But, even if that were not the case, there are plenty of Indian scholars and writers who don't automatically (both my examples above are by Indian writers) prepend Mahatma to Gandhi so this is definitely not an example of Indian English usage. --regentspark (comment) 15:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I meant to make the same "that the name is rarely found without it" bolding earlier and forgot to.
Dharmadhyaksha, I don't think anyone objects to the concept of Indian English here, and I myself noted that Talk:Taj Mahal is bizarrely lacking a Indian English tag, but the issue of the honorific here isn't as simple as "majority" sources, we don't always follow majority sources, ...and WP:COMMONNAME, although it has a bit too much of a populist tilt for my liking in its current edit status, nevertheless still defers to other elements of WP:CRITERIA to which honorifics is related. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of titles with Mahatma to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, which it is currently, is the point of discussion here which is huge. The current title makes little sense. It also satisfies WP:HONORIFIC in exception clause, which is why the exception clause is present right there. It is not a question of "not used exclusively enough" as it is mentioned without exhaustive, and not partial, statistics. Also words like "for my liking", "I'm not comfortable", etc. are meaningless here and can take discussion off-track dispute a clear many people preferring "Mahatma Gandhi" option. The editor "In ictu oculi" has added vague statements like "isn't as simple as" without explaining anything.111.91.95.78 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are different policies on wikipedia, the naming policy of other encyclopedias might be different.--sarvajna (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. But if there are more than a dozen good encyclopedias which contain the name in that format, and we want to differ from it, there'd better be a damn good reason for it; I do not see a compelling reason to prefer the proposed name over the existing one. MikeLynch (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not always and this is definitely not a standard on wikipedia to rely upon. Other reasons as per discussion.111.91.75.180 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My Oppose still stands. MikeLynch (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note Britannica's title for page Mother Teresa as Blessed Mother Teresa link:| link.111.91.95.22 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. But Gandhi's page on Britannica still retains the full name, and since that is directly related to this discussion, I will let my opposition stand. MikeLynch (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense, are you saying that you will support a move of Mother Teresa to Blessed Mother Teresa because that is what Britannica uses? Britannica has one policy to naming the article on Mother Theresa while some other policy to name the article of Mahatma Gandhi. I don't think we should look at Britannica to name the articles here on wikipedia --sarvajna (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall saying or implying anything of that sort. I do not know what Britannica's naming policy is; all I know (and see) is that Britannica's page on Gandhi has his full name as the title. A part of our naming policy states that it is useful to look at what quality encyclopedias name their articles, and that is one of the reasons on which I base my opposition. As far as your opinion on the policy goes, you are welcome to discuss it either on my talk page, or at the relevant discussion forum. I shall be happy to present my views on policy there. Have a good day. MikeLynch (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confirmation that other online encyclopaedia could be a mouthpiece of the Vatican or may be biased by Christian nomenclatures and over-enthusiastic Christian users that may dominate editor base - thereby making a lot of content look biased as well. Looking at the example of britannica, it does not look like britannica or such encyclopaedia have any standard at all for title. The behavior shows clear bias for Christian saints, as 'the blessed' title shows for the page of Mother Teresa(nothing bad in it other than lack of standards); and therefore such method of looking at other encyclopaedia may be just to get an initial hint as these have been around since long. Other than that such standards of looking at other online encyclopaedia may make even this discussion biased and therefore any importance placed on that clearly misplaced. "I do not know what Britannica's naming policy is" coupled with uneven naming convention pointed out by many editors itself makes this clear.111.91.75.224 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. MikeLynch (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not talking about the naming rules/conventions of other encyclopedias. Maybe they are flawed, maybe they are not. My point is clear: Many quality encyclopedias name their articles on Gandhi in a certain way, and Wikipedia policy says that it is useful to consider that while deciding on an article name. You may think my comments are misplaced, I do not. I trust the closing administrator to weigh my comments (and yours as well) appropriately. My comments are directly in relation with the Gandhi article, and shall remain so. MikeLynch (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Gandhi) AND (Mahatma)) full text search: 7.555 results. (I.e., the text contains both Gandhi as well as Mahatma, but not necessarily together)
  • ((Gandhi) NOT (Mahatma)) full text search. 28,061 results (i.e., the text contains Gandhi but not Mahatma).
  • (((Gandhi) NOT (Indira))) full text search. 27,439 results (i.e., very few results are about a Gandhi who is not the Mahatma).
  • ((Mahatma)) full text search. 8,537 results (i.e., the word "Mahatma" is in the text).
  • ((Gandhi)) full text search. 35,616 results (i.e., the word "Gandhi" is in the text).
  • The results clearly indicate that there is no basis for an exception to WP:HONORIFIC. --regentspark (comment) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indira is not the only Gandhi. Rajiv, Rahul, Sonia and many others --sarvajna (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I doubt if they'll have much of a presence on JSTOR! But will check in a bit. --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) full text search returns 24,096 results. Will add more Gandhis if you like but this seems fairly conclusive to me. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about titles here, and a Jstor search shows 139 titles with Mahatma and Gandhi. against only eight titles with Mohandas and Gandhi. That proves that "Mohandas Gandhi" is is rarely used in the titles of scholarly articles.Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the fact that the honorific is not used enough for this to be an exception to the guideline. We don't use honorifics unless we can't avoid using them. In this case, we clearly can avoid using it and so we should. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the evidence-gathering here is forgetting that Gandhi is a very common name. When one does a JSTOR search on ((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) you get 23,000+, but when you do a search on ((GANDHI) NOT ((Indira) OR (Sonia) OR (Rajiv) OR (Sanjay) OR (Rahul))) AND NOT ((Mohandas) OR (Mahatma)) you still get 16,995. Some of these have titles like "Marx and Gandhi" and are referring to Mahatma MKG, but others are such things as technical reports by authors such as Ramchandra Gandhi, Gopalkrishna Gandhi, Ajay Gandhi, Krishna Gandhi, or others. Let's remember that Gandhi is a very common name. --Presearch (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mahatma" is not the sort of honorific that the editor had in mind who suggested a rule about honorifics. As far as I know, it is only been used for one person. So I think excessive reliance on a rule that was never designed for a situation like this is out of place. I suggest people contributing to this debate read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means the rules of Wikipedia are customs or standards that derive from actual editing experience – and no one has previously edited an honorific that applies to one and only one extremely famous person. T instead, as wP: honorific demonstrates, the guideline is designed for words derived from a title, position or activity, such as The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable; His Holiness and Her Majesty. etc Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat: hit count comparisons. Regarding the admissability of "Mahatma" as an honorific, it is also informative to compare the Gandhi usage issue with examples on the WP:HONORIFIC page, such as Father Coughlin, about which 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. For example, the honorific may be included for "Father Coughlin" (presently at Charles Coughlin)...".
   Now whereas JSTOR is scholarly usage, Worldcat reflects broader usage, and may be more relevant for communicating with Wikipedia readership. In Worldcat, a search on ti:Father Coughlin gives 249 records. A search on ti:(Charles Coughlin) -ti:Father gives 58 records that use the man's first name and do not use "Father." Thus about 1 title out of 5 avoid "Father" for "Father Coughlin," whereas I logged evidence near the very top of this thread that "Mahatma Gandhi" outnumbers "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in Worldcat titles by about 25:1 (more precisely: 3537/143). Interestingly, despite 1 in 5 Coughlin entries not using "Father," the Wikipedia community had no problem with using "Father Coughlin" as the title of his page... and in fact even holds that usage up as an EXAMPLE of a situation when an honorific "may be included" in the page title. Since stand-alone Gandhi is a much more common name than stand-alone Coughlin, I think there is a much stronger case that the honorific "Mahatma" is needed for adequate specificity. On the other hand, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to using stand-alone "Gandhi." --Presearch (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - move to Mahatma Gandhi, as it is the most commonly used name for him. Note- Mahatma may be honorific but it is not a title of honor awarded. I would like page to be named Mahatma GandhiJethwarp (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'm a little surprised this is controversial so I had a good look at the oppose votes. There seem to be two arguments. One is the claim that Gandhi is the common name, and that this is the primary meaning of Gandhi. That may have been true once, but now that the unrelated Nehru–Gandhi family has produced two Prime Ministers of India also named Gandhi, it's no longer true. The other is the claim that there is a Wikipedia rule banning the use of honorifics. In fact MOS:HONORIFIC explicitly allows it in cases such as this. Andrewa (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Well most of the evidence provided by the editors who are opposing the move are the something that should be used in text. Also is Mahatma Gandhi the most common name for roads, hospitals and other institutions or is it Mahandas Karmanchand Gandhi ? --sarvajna (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Using google knowledge gragh: On searching "http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&q=Mahatma Gandhi" the right hand side shows the knowledge graph panel(by default, if not disabled) with title as "Mahatma Gandhi". The contrast to first hit on this wikipedia page, with title "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" is unquestionably remarkable. More on google knowledge graph | link. This also indicates that the current title is misplaced and of course is against WP:COMMONSENSE. 111.91.75.27 (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Simplified Gandhi -- it seems like we're going around on a couple of different variations, and it seems everyone believe that the commonname is preferred. From the information provided above, and the fact that Gandhi is already a redirect here, that we should simply rename this to simply Gandhi and move forward. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per regentspark and the basic arguments made above: (1) It's an honorific or title, so we should try to apply WP:HONORIFIC and other relevant standards. (2) The subject himself didn't approve of the honorific! (3) It confuses English-language readers as to what Gandhi's name actually is. (4) Redirects already exist for the proposed title. (5) The existing title doesn't make the page at all difficult to find and the proposed title doesn't make the page easier to find. Holy (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1,5) are discussed earlier. Points (2,4) are irrelevant. (3,5)-incorrect assumptions without any sources.111.91.75.36 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm registering my "Oppose" vote with reasons that refer to (or expand on, or restate) earlier points, not attempting to make new points that stand on their own, fully fleshed out. I may counter: (a) "Points (2,4) are irrelevant": You have cited no sources and made no arguments to substantiate this claim. (b) "(3,5)-incorrect assumptions without any sources": You have cited no sources and made no arguments to support the assertion that these assumptions are incorrect; as to "without any sources," I did not intend to provide a fresh list of arguments, fully sourced and explained. (c) "(1,5) are discussed earlier": Yes, and I agree with them; apparently, you don't; so, what's your point? Holy (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HolyT when you make some point, the onus is on you to provide sources not someone else who says that you are wrong. If you think that "Mahatma Gandhi" will be confusing title for English language readers, please provide sources for that also for your other assumptions. --sarvajna (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously HolyT has got no links even now for his views. So it is others who have to show rudimentary courtesy and ask how (2,4) above are relevant, how (3,5) are assumed arbitrarily without giving any proof, etc. About (1,5) there are enough points discussed by others using the same WP:COMMONNAME which you have cited to oppose however. Hopefully HolyT is not misleading the discussion here with his misunderstanding and lack of enthusiasm to not cite reliable sources does not help his position at all.111.91.95.197 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not measure greatness of Mahatma Gandhi by narrow focus on religions, which seems to be the case many times including the next discussion with heading "Aimee Semple McPherson's invitation to visit with Gandhi in 1935" where mention of Pope and some other fundamentalist Christians come in to bias the article with Christian fundamentalist focus and viewpoints. For the record - Mahatma Gandhi himself said that God has no religion - the point being that such discussion are misplaced on this page on Mahatma Gandhi. He was himself not a Christian fundamentalist nor Wikipedia has such policies to view any discussion exclusively in that narrow focus.
Special treatment of Christian apostles within Wikipedia - detailed discussions on which is avoided by 98.234.105.147 as to why these are treated unevenly -as also page Mahatma Gandhi should not be defiled with such tangential discussions as well; or titles like 'Blessed Mother Teresa' in Britannica outside Wikipedia, should have no affect on this discussion at all whatsoever. That Mahatma is popular should suffice here as per WP:COMMONNAME. However there is strong probability that this will occur again and again and again without anyone getting this simple message across.111.91.95.37 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here is that the common name is also a religious word, which implies a certain spiritual status (saint, mahatma, mewlana) that is impossible to verify. Hence the request for debate, consensus and guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: is WP:COMMONNAME appropriate in the case of Gandhiji? What about the Christian apostles? What about Mewlana Rumi? Why do the patriarchs of the Catholic Church have the title in their names at Wikipedia? What about leaders of smaller religious organizations, such as {Satguru} Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Saiva Siddhanta Church? --- Personally, I adore, respect and revere Gandhi, but my opinion that is he is, indeed, a mahatma carries no weight here; that is why we need guidelines. 98.234.105.147 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Semple McPherson's invitation to visit with Gandhi in 1935

Added a brief portion on Aimee Semple McPherson's 1935 visit with Gandhi(Followers and international influence). Biographer Daniel Mark Epstein notes Gandhi invited her to see him; and biographer Matthew Avery Sutton, writes about the visit as well-- the two populist leaders, McPherson and Gandhi, from opposite sides of the globe discussed Gandhi vision of economic justice for India and also her Angelus Temple's social activism in the United States. Known for her "cover to cover fundamentalism," yet avant garde approach in many areas, McPherson does not easily compartmentalize him as a Hindu, but as something more enigmatic. Seemed appropriate chronologically to place this after Albert Einsteins 1931 correspondence and before the 1936 Lanza del Vasto visit. According to Epstein, An eight page account in a book she later publishes, (McPherson, Aimee Semple, Give me my Own God, H. C. Kinsey & Company, Inc., 1936) records his responses to her questions fully and precisely. SteamWiki (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not important enough to include--of course there were hundreds of visitors. Sutton indicates that McPherson learned very little and did not understand Gandhi very well. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for re-evaluation / re-edit suggestions, reasons given

From what I gather, the Pope did not grant Gandhi an audience (http://www.academia.edu/1937868/GANDHI_VISITS_THE_VATICAN_an_inquiry_into_the_Popes_inability_to_grant_him_an_audience). Do we have other Protestant Christian leaders of McPherson's stature, especially a fundamentalist , who actually met with Gandhi in person, and came away with such respect for him?

Perhaps it could be re-evaluated Aimee Semple McPherson's importance of her visit, especially in regards to the international influence list of persons already mentioned in the article?

Where in that section there is included "Brazilian anarchist and feminist Maria Lacerda de Moura wrote about Gandhi in her work on pacifism, " It might be acceptable to reduce the earlier longer piece:

"In 1935, while visiting Bombay on a world tour to evaluate the social, religious and economic climates of many countries, popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson received a telegram from Mahatma Gandhi inviting her to visit him at his headquarters in Wardha. Gandhi explains about India's need for home rule and his vision of economic justice for India. He gives her a white sari made of the very same cloth he created from his simple wooden spinning wheel. (Daniel Mark Epstein, Sister Aimee: The Life of Aimee Semple McPherson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993),Epstein p393-394) McPherson was deeply impressed with Gandhi and admired the simple lifestyle of him and his followers. She thought he might secretly lean towards Christianity; his dedication possibly coming from catching "a glimpse of the cleansing, lifting, strengthening power of the Nazarene." (Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), page 233)"

to instead state this about McPherson:

"Popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson visited Gandhi in 1935. He gives her He gives her a white sari made of the very same cloth he created from his wooden spinning wheel. Deeply impressed with Gandhi's dedication and simple lifestyle of him and his followers; she included a detailed 8 page account of the conversation in one of her books, "Give Me My Own God." [1] [2]"

If even less detail is desired then perhaps:

"Popular Canadian-American evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson visited Gandhi in 1935, afterwards receiving a white sari as a gift from him. <add the refs>"

Note that McPherson, unlike Maria Lacerda de Moura, and several others in the international influence section, actually visited Gandhi, and received a precious gift from him, the beautiful white sari made from cloth he made from his own simple wooden spinning wheel.

If we need to establish the period importance of Aimee Semple McPherson, especially in relation to others on the list of those who referred to Gandhi, the following information may help may help:

Her serious biographers, (most notably Matthew Avery Sutton, , Daniel Mark Epstein and Edith L Blumhofer) are good sources of information.

(in the context of Sutton's biography)

-- Icon of early twentieth-century American religion and culture. (--Jon Butler, author of Becoming America: The Revolution before 1776)

--Embraced her role as a religious celebrity in an increasingly mass media-oriented age and steadfastly refused to be constrained by traditional notions of gender or sexuality. Americans of the 1920s and 1930s were fascinated by her, (Susan Ware, editor of Notable American Women: Completing the Twentieth Century)

--Her Foursquare Gospel helped catalyze a fundamental cultural realignment that brought Pentecostals and Evangelicals into the American mainstream, transforming American politics in ways that continue to write today's headlines.(--Bryce Christensen (Booklist 20070401)

--Substantive legacy--a politically powerful religious commitment shared by millions of Americans--rather than the legend of the self-proclaimed salvation-bearing empire-builder. (Peter Skinner (ForeWord 20070701)

--Important but enigmatic figure in American religious history. (Rev. Robert Cornwall (Progressive Christian 20070901)

(in the context of Epstein's biography)

--one of the best-known North American religious figures and media celebrities between the world wars. - Gary P. Gillum, Brigham Young Univ., Provo, Ut.

(Other)

--During her time she was every bit as famous as any other person one could care to mention

--Atheist Charles Lee Smith indicated he has met and debated leading fundamentalists and Aimee Semple McPherson "is the greatest defender today (then 1934) of the Bible and Christianity."

--had profound influence on what women could accomplish especially in the area of religion and social activism. --Her church commissaries and soup kitchens fed and clothed as many as 1.5 million people, many during the US depression, while other agencies stalled in red tape or were otherwise ineffectual.

--She evolved her own denomination which today has 7-8,000,000 million members, with almost 60,000 churches in 144 countries. In 2006, membership in the United States was 353,995 in 1,875 churches.

--when she returned to Los Angeles, in 1926, from Douglas Arizona, after her kidnapping incident, 50,000 people showed up to greet her, more than for almost any other person before or since.

--At her funeral in 1944, forty five thousand people waited in long lines, some until 2 am, to file past the evangelist , where her body lay in state at the Angelus Temple. A Foursquare leader noted that to watch the long line pass reverently by her casket, and see tears shed by all types of people, regardless of class and color, helped give understanding to the far reaching influence of her life and ministry.

Thanks SteamWiki (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Daniel Mark Epstein, Sister Aimee: The Life of Aimee Semple McPherson (Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1993),Epstein p393-394
  2. ^ Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), page 233
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi&oldid=536105429"