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 Beamathan (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 6 June 2008 (→Straw Polls Suck, how about another try at discussion instead?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMahatma Gandhi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
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
Current status: Featured article

Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/archivebox

Education

If you read Gandhi's autobiography you'll find he was never a student at Imperial but was a student at hollywood gaa grounds, ha ha ha, and there's a statue of him there to prove it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.54.133 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full name

The page name should be named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That is what all the tertiary sources have. (See below; the article/page names are in boldface. These include three signed articles by experts, which by Wikipedia policy, are equivalent to reliable secondary academic sources.)

  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica: (Signed article by B. R. Nanda, Former Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.) "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born Oct. 2, 1869, Porbandar, India, died Jan. 30, 1948, Delhi, byname Mahatma (“Great-Souled”) Gandhi leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, considered to be the father of his country."
  2. Encyclopedia Encarta: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1869-1948), Indian nationalist leader, who established his country's freedom through a nonviolent revolution.
  3. Columbia Encyclopedia: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 1869–1948, Indian political and spiritual leader, b. Porbandar.
  4. World Book Encyclopedia. Signed article by Iyer, Raghavan. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. The World Book Encyclopedia, Millennium 2000 Edition. World Book, Inc., Chicago, 2000.
  5. Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia: Main Entry: Gandhi, Mohandas K(aramchand) Pronunciation Guide. Variant(s): known as Mahatma Gandhi Date: (1869-1948). Preeminent leader of Indian nationalism and prophet of nonviolence in the 20th cent.
  6. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Signed article. Judith M. Brown, (Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford), Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand [Mahatma Gandhi] (1869–1948)’, first published Sept 2004, 6400 words

It is pretty clear that even though newspapers overwhelmingly use "Mahatma Gandhi," encyclopedias tend to go for the full name. As for "Mohandas Gandhi," no one ever called him that. It is ludicrous. Please change pronto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Although Manual of Style (India-related articles): Biographical articles does seem to prefer Mahatma Gandhi, please note that Manual of Style: India-related articles is a proposed guideline, the work largely of two editors, not yet an end-product of consensus. It says explicitly at the top: "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption (which is not determined by counting votes). References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is a proposed guideline should not necessarily influence whether this decision should be implemented. I think this issue can be resolved by simple common sense; I already said earlier that other titles/names can be created as redirects, but that the main article can be named 'Mahatma Gandhi'. Either way, I've just left a message on their talk page asking them to contribute their thoughts.
That's good research work by the way, finding out what other encyclopaedias use to refer to him. Good job. :) Ekantik talk 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious based on the sources from Fowler and myself that academic usage is split between "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" and "Mahatma Gandhi". Signed encyclopedia articles are possibly as relevant as the academic books I've cited, and the notable news sources I've cited. But common sense, and common usage for "Mahatma Gandhi" is far more prevalent, and that is the #1 convention cited at WP:NAMEPEOPLE: "1. the name that is most generally recognisable". P.S.: "Mohandas Karamchand" is an improvement over "Mohandas", but still doesn't meet policy, in my opinion.–priyanath talk 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misreading of WP:NAMEPEOPLE. Note that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is not his name, it is his name with a qualifier prepended. It therefore cannot be in accordance with 'the #1 convention cited at WP:NAMEPEOPLE' as you claim. Further note that WP:NAMEPEOPLE specifically excludes the addition of qualifiers and that this policy is adhered to even when it produces results such as 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' for 'Queen Victoria' even though the latter is overwhelmingly the most usual way of referring to her. 'Mahatma' is clearly a qualifier and no-one has attempted to dispute this. Note also that the most common way of referring to Gandhi is exactly that. Every relevant part of WP:NAMEPEOPLE supports 'Mohandas Gandhi'. Personally I can see no argument in favour of the addition of Karamchand since WP:NAMEPEOPLE supports <first name><last name> in general although it contains nothing else against the middle name. treesmill 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see it as split. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not an academic monograph, not a newspaper, not a magazine or journal article. Encyclopedias, as far as I can tell, have certain ways of naming people. For Gandhi, it is unanimously "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" I really shouldn't have mentioned signed encyclopedia articles, because this is not an issue of content (for which a signed Britannica article would be a reliable source comparable to an article in an academic journal or an academic monograph), but rather one of a naming convention. For Gandhi, the naming convention in encyclopedias is unambiguously, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi."
As for "common sense," I am not sure what it means here. Most Pakistanis refer to Jinnah as "Qaid-e-Azam" and Iqbal as "Allama." However, the Wikipedia pages remain Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal. Of course, it is true that the "Mahatma" appellation is more widely used internationally than the previous two honorifics, but so is "Queen Elizabeth," yet the Wikipedia page remains, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, or "Queen Victoria," yet the page remains, Victoria of the United Kingdom. There are really no rules here, just convention. Saint Francis of Assissi is Francis of Assissi, yet St. George is Saint George. It may be that a hundred years from now all encyclopedias will change to "Mahatma Gandhi," but that hasn't happened yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well argued, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I would still prefer Mahatma Gandhi, the current title is better than the previous one. - Aksi_great (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gahndhi does what he pleads when he pleases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.211.63 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Gandhi Quote

Also, in Harijan, December 17, 1938, Gandhi asserted that Jews "so far as I know, have never practised non-violence as an article of faith or even as a deliberate policy," and alleged that Jews sought to "punish Germany for her persecution and to deliver them from oppression."[1] [2]

I deleted this quote again; someone else deleted first time:

  • The quote seems to be a POV excerpt meant to paint Gandhi as an anti-Semite, as opposed to a person theorizing about non-violence on a specific issue. Therefore, it would be useful to present the FULL incontext quote so we can figure out its relation to rest of that section.
  • It's not clear who is being delivered from oppression.
  • Also there could be clear context to the "Jews" punishing Germany since around 1933 some Jewish leaders loudly "declared war" on Germany after Hitler was elected, even though it was by a minority of voters. (I can search around for the reference if you like.) And maybe Gandhi was specifically referring to that and NOT to pushing some anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, as the person who put that quote in may be trying to intimate.

Presenting the full quote will clear up those issues. Carol Moore 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Move it back

Why was the article moved without any request? Where is the formal move discussion before the move? When Bangalore was moved to Bengaluru, every silly and obscure argument was used to move it back to claiming that Bangalore was ' the most common name'. Interestingly, it was pointed at that time that Encarta and/or Enc. Brit also called it "Bengaluru". And yet, it was moved back from Bengaluru.. even as Bengaluru happens to be the "official" name of the city. Move the article back to "Mahatma Gandhi" and invite comments before any unilateral moves. Thanks. Sarvagnya 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent confusion between moves and related talk- and history-pages, one need only file a WP:RM request for it to be done properly. Thanks, Ekantik talk 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No formal discussion or consensus. Since the page is semi-protected, only admins can move it - and an involved admin did just that. ~ priyanath talk 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, both Encarta and Britannica have Bangalore as the page name. Encarta has only Bangalore in the lead sentence (Bangalore, city in southern India, capital of Karnātaka State, ...) and Britannica has Bangalore as the page name, but in the lead sentence says: "Bangalore," officially Bengaluru also spelled Bengalooru, city and capital (since 1830) of Karnataka (formerly Mysore) state ..."). In other words, in both, the page name eforemains Bangalore, as it does on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to go back and figure out who the administrator was since he didn't announce he was an administrator and just came in and did it in the middle of the debate, per the below:

I am moving this article to Mohandas Gandhi, leaving redirects to it from Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All double redirects have been fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice at the time if Jossi told us he was an administrator. I still don't have that much of an opinion on the outcome, just the process. Carol Moore 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Yay! Thank goodness someone finally had the sense to fix this article's title to the man's proper name instead of the honorific which some people found offensive. This was unquestionably the right thing to do, by both common sense and Wikipedia's own rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.176.239 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is his correct birth name (translated into English) rather than the Mahatma honory title (which embarrassed him, by the way). Far more encyclopedia-like and Gandhi-like (just the truth - nothing more, nothing less). nirvana2013 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add Gandhi's Nationality (as a Gujarati) in his biodata on the top right-side of the page.--70.51.184.192 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I rather think that 'Indian' would be his nationality. Given that the man himself is inextricably linked with Indian history, there's a possibility that this information is rather redundant. Ekantik talk 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Jimmy Carter is the article name of that person, depite his name being James Earl Carter Jr.. He is popularly known as 'Jimmy Carter' and that is the article name. Ekantik talk 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most common usage (as pointed out in the article itself) is Mahatma Gandhi. That's what this article should be called. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=126353491 Indologist Koenraad Elst also critiqued Gandhi. He questioned the effectiveness of Gandhi's theory of non-violence and argued that it achieved only a few token concessions from the British. Elst also argued that it was British fear of violence (along with depletion due to the after effects of World War II) rather than non-violence, that led to Indian Independence. According to Elst, this was exemplified by Indian public support for Subhash Chandra Bose's Indian National Army.[3] As praise, "Gandhi's major claim to fame was that he, almost alone among the freedom leaders in the entire colonized world, had sought and developed policies and strategies rooted in native culture rather than borrowed from Western models (nationalism, socialism etc.)—"[4]

The view by Elst is actually inteesting since he has written a book on Gandhi. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Mohandas Gandhi

Obviously, we cannot use "Mahatma" as that is a title, a controversial one nonetheless. But "Karamchand" isn't necessary; "Mohandas Gandhi" was fine. 75.57.74.18 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with Mahatma Gandhi? That's his most common name in English. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, "Mahatma" is not a name, it's a title. In fact, quite often he was referred to at "The Mahatma Gandhi". My preference would be to move this back to Mohandas Gandhi, or perhaps to Mohandas K. Gandhi, but Mohatma Gandhi wouldn't get my fur riled up at all, either. I do think that this, the way it is now, is slightly awkward. I would list Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in bold in the opening sentence, just as it is now, but shorten the title. I wasn't here before, so I have no idea of whether or not procedures were properly followed in the move. Unschool (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mahatma Gandhi is better:'Mahatma' is not just another title like 'sir','lord' etc.There shouldn't be be too many people who have an objection to the use of the worldwide known title.In India or abroad, the name 'Mohandas/Mohandas Karamchand' will not mean a thing to more than a handful of people.Every one will be looking for 'Mahatma Gandhi'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajithps (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Mohandas K. Gandhi is the preferred title, as this is what he used to sign his letters and books. I see Gandhi as one of the greatest man in all human history, but Mahatma is a honorary title, so I think it better not to use it in the article title. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is also fine, although very few people will use Karamchand to look for Gandhi. Yann (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koenraad Elst 's nonnotable criticism

has been included in the article by some Hindutva pov pushers. While Ambedkar's crticism is very much relevant, this fringe theorist's rants deserve no mention here. 59.91.253.113 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

description of picture of birla house

the current description of the picture of Birla house reads "Gandhi Smriti (Mahatma Gandhi's house, New Delhi)". doesn't it create the impression that the grand building belonged to Gandhiji? I am talking about the case when a person is just viewing the picture and not reading the article.Better option would have been something like this:"gandhi smriti(formerly Birla house where he spent his final days),new delhi" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.68.63 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want Washington DC Gandhi Memorial Photo?

I have one of my own I'll put up as public domain if it's not putting up TOO many photos and if it's of acceptable quality. What do yo think? http://www.carolmoore.net/gandhimemorial1.jpg Or maybe Gandhi needs his own Wikipedia:Galleries? Carol Moore 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Nothing about adopting Feroze

Why is there nothing about him adopting Feroze Ghandy? --207.215.78.126 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmacharya: Pedophilia and purity

There is a rumor that Gandhi enjoyed sleeping with young naked girls and sharing enemas with them. http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt Is there any known evidence of this? Herorev (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you research this talk page you could find it's been discussed. Info on whether the other is just an imaginary rumor can be found through any internet search. Carol Moore 14:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Also your insulting and libelous redirect to Barak Obama makes me question the good faith of your question.Carol Moore 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I just read the hole talk page, and couldn find any topics about this. Anyway, is a legitimate question also to me, as if Brahmacharya isn't just the greatest way to uncover pedophilia and young lust sex. Many books have done this legitimate question. Or is it just me how finds uncredible that as proof (and test) of purity you choose to sleepover with youngs instead of your wife? Sully76cl (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Gandhi in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Does anyone know where I can find information regarding contemporary (to Gandhi) and modern views on Gandhi in Pakistan and Bangladesh? It would be an interesting addition to the article, and if not, at least for my own edification! Arthurian Legend (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repititious

This article repeats itself, even giving a large quotation twice, and comment afterward that appears to at one point to have ben identical. Because some of the comment differs, and I don't know enough about the subject, I won't change anything.211.125.177.13 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When back in London in 1895, he happened to meet Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, the Radical-turned-ultra-Tory, whose son Neville became Prime Minister in the 1930s and helped suppress Gandhi. Chamberlain Snr. agreed that the treatment of Indians was barbaric but appeared unwilling to push through any legislation about this however.

"however" at the end is redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.37.181 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There are some grammatical errors in the "Role in Zulu War" section (english version). Some of the sentencing needs a bit of work. Can someone with editing access to that page clean it up for me. 87.152.89.145 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Daniel Nugent - 2 February 2008[reply]

Everyone has editing access. Edit it just like you edited this page. Just be careful :-)Carol Moore 15:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

gandhi's autobiography ( my experiment with truth )

          gandhi's autobiography is one of the best books in world.a book's main objective

is to turn the readers thoughts the way the book ahead. whether the book was right or wrong. this book will definitely turned us atleast for two to days towards ahimsa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramnarain89 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if this should be added to the article. There are a few documentaries on Ghandi available for free streaming, most are on google video. This includes the 5 hour Mahatma: Life of Gandhi, 1869-1948 and some of its shorter versions. Should this link be put in the external links section or maybe create another external links section for online films? Should there be a section added to list Ghandi biographies on film and/or print? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.61.25 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question of Anarchy

It was briefly commented in a now archived topic that Gandhi was an anarchist. I find this to be a highly dubious suggestion which was glossed over at the time. The only evidence put forward to support this notion was an article produced by an anti-war organization, Gandhi Was An Anarchist? This article doesn't actually cite Gandhi self-identifying, but instead refers to other references identifying Gandhi as being a general anti-authoritarian, and then explaining how his notions of self-governance are parallel to that of anarchist philosophy. This is technically no different from the situation of Henry David Thoreau, making Gandhi a partial Anti-statist. Note that an anti-statist isn't necessarily an anarchist. They may also be council communists, situationist, or another branch of thought. Swaraj was never declared by Gandhi to be an anarchist philosophy, and any evidence that it may be must be backed with a citation. Otherwise, it is merely a contemporary, parallel philosophy to anarchist thought. I'll be removing the Anarchist category. When citations for Gandhi's status as an anarchist are produced, then it may be replaced.--Cast (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note: I've read a quote where George Woodcock claimed Gandhi self-identified as an anarchist, but he gives no citation. (Woodcock, George (2004). "Prologue". Anarchism: a History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Peterborough: Broadview Press. p. 21. ISBN 1551116294. ...Gandhi [...] sometimes called himself an anarchist...) I find this dubious, because of the copious documents surrounding Gandhi, we should have at least one where Gandhi says this for himself, and had he, I imagine his detractors would have jumped at it to ruin his reputation by associating him with "dynamiters". I believe I've read a quote from Gandhi stating "I am an anarchist, but of a different sort...", but I can't remember where I got that from. Does anyone recognize this?--Cast (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
second note: In the section Gandhi's principals, in the subsection of Nonviolence we get this quote: "The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on non-violence...A society organized and run on the basis of complete non-violence would be the purest anarchy...." I can accept this is a statement in favor of anti-statism, but the section doesn't read like it. It says "[Gandhi envisioned] a world where even government, police and armies were nonviolent." If we are to understand this as an anarchist statement, this is a contradictory interpretation of his meaning, because in an anarchist society there would be no government, police or army. If we do find confirmation of Gandhi as anarchist, this has to be properly integrated and and clearly explained. As it stands, I'm reading mixed messages.--Cast (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm probably the person who added the category of Anarchist to the article let me explain my reasons for doing do. Before that let me reiterate that anarchist philosophy is not a single philosophy but is a general name for a whole range of ideas which reject government imposed on an individual. That is the only idea that unites all anarchists & serves as the definition of anarchism. Gandhi's views explained in the Swaraj article on self-rule explains with citations that he was opposed to the existence of a state since the state is a "soulless machine" which, ultimately, does the greatest harm to mankind. (BTW in my opinion, if we accept the above definition of anarchism, then Gandhi is an anarchist on the basis of this quote. For similar statements and further details see the Swaraj article.) An example of the application of this definition is the Noam Chomsky article which belongs to the category of American anarchists. (Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and not explicitly as an anarchist). Now for the reasons:
  1. In this article it is specifically mentioned that Gandhi called his village republicanism a form of "enlightened anarchy".
  2. Here it is clearly mention that Gandhi called himself a philosophical anarchist. Nehru also later quoted this.[1]
  3. Historian George Woodcock has claimed Gandhi to be an anarchist. I fail to understand why an eminent personality like Woodcock will fabricate this. G.B. Dhawan in Anarchist Elements in Gandhian thought, (one of the few analytical works on Gandhian political thought), has asserted that Gandhi was a philosophical anarchist.
  4. Thoreau was according to Gandhi one of the foremost influence of his life.[2]. Admittedly Anti-statism is not always the same as Anarchism but in the case since Gandhi explicitly calls for removing the entirety of the state it is (The state evil is not the cause but the effect of social evil, just as the sea-waves are the effect not the cause of the storm. The only way of curing the disease is by removing the cause itself.-Gandhi)
I have a big list of sources showing that Gandhi had a definite anarchist leaning for anyone who cares to read them. The book Hind Swaraj written by Gandhi himself is enough. The Anarchism in India article also contains a section on Gandhi. As for note-2 I agree that it should be clarified. Cheers. --Shahab (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the tardiness of this response. In considering your presented points, I will retract my objections to categorizing Gandhi as an anarchist, but I feel it necessary to press this matter further. I will be responding to your respective points in order. I hope you will come to understand why I do not consider anti-statist quotes to qualify others as anarchists.
  1. Unfortunately, the term "anarchy" is so commonly conflated with various meanings, negative, positive, or neutral, that adjectives such as "anarchic" are not enough to identify anyone as an anarchist. The term must be quite specific, and even then may be scrutinized if the context carries negative connotations.
  2. Alone, this point may not have been useful, but would have been more so than that made by Woodcock. (More on that in the next point.) However, the author makes a claim of a specific quote, the wording of which which I consider more useful and credible, given the context of Gandhi's more commonly known comments regarding his politics. The quote by Naru is made in an audio clip I cannot access. It would seem to have been deleted.
  3. I can understand why some may be quick to take the words of "experts" at face value, but lets not kid ourselvs. There are many "eminant personalities" who would also claim Leo Tolstoy or Ursula K. Le Guin are also anarchists, but they would be wrong for the simple fact that no matter how "anarchic" these two individuals are, in their ethical, political, and even spiritual philosophies and sympathies, they themselves reject the label. Gandhi may well have rejected the term "anarchist" for his own reasons, and it is out of respect that I would then place him in the category of individuals categorized as anarchists by third parties, but not proclaim him one. He had plenty of chances to do that himself, and if I can find none of them, it is possible he chose not to. I hope we would respect that choice. This is in no way a slight against anyone who would consider him an anarchist. We are all free to our interpretations, but popular opinion is not fact, even when they should emerge from the minds of "eminent personalities." Woodcock's assertion was vague and without context. With the specific reference to the label "philosophical anarchist", by which I find it likely Gandhi may have qualified his philosophy, I am given to lowering my guard and accepting the notion.
  4. Thoreau was not an anarchist. Nor was Tolstoy, though I understand he also influenced some of Gandhi's beliefs in non-violence, but both have been claimed by "eminent personalities" to be anarchists. Must we travel this road again? That quote is quite anarchic, but again, it does not identify Gandhi as an anarchist. It merely makes him anti-statist in his sympathies. Let us consider a hypothetical. A prominent politician of the classical enlightenment tradition proclaims that government is at best a necessary evil, and that the citizens of a nation would do well to overthrow the government every seven years. Now imagine his name was Thomas Jefferson. His limited government statements do not make him an anarchist.
  5. I have searched through that book. Not a single use of the word "anarchy", "anarchist" or "anarchism." Again, it may have been anti-statist, but that is all it is. It would not be appropriate to begin tagging any remotely anti-statist piece of literature as anarchist. That slippery slope leads to labeling only lightly anti-statist works as anarchist. Just as we must insist specific self-identification to categorize others as anarchist, we ought to insist a work is explicit in its anarchist leanings in order to consider it a work of anarchist literature. That said, I would be more than willing to consider this work anarchist, because we've established that I consider Gandhi an anarchist (even if only "philosophically" rather than practically) and thus this reads in a new context as an anarchist piece. Were he not a philosophical anarchist, I would consider this an anti-statist, but non-anarchist work.--Cast (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. In my opinion (which is BTW uncalled for on wikipedia) Gandhi was an anarchist but of a different kind. He may appropriately be called a philosophical anarchist. Philosophical anarchism, according to the accepted notion qualifies as a type of anarchism (specifically a kind of individual anarchism). His concept of Swaraj included discarding all kind of political, economic, bureaucratic, legal, military, and educational institutions[3], as established by the British in India. That coupled with his own admission of a philosophical anarchist is I think enough to settle the matter.
Your response is very constructive and certainly not negative in any way. My own views differ only slightly from you (I consider Leo Tolstoy to be a religious anarchist for example and believe he rejected the label of anarchist because he associated the word with violent revolutionary activism), and look forward to interacting with you again.--Shahab (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Fighter

Gandhi is more popularly called freedom fighter than a political leader as it says in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.128.123 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpleasing paragraph

"When back in London in 1895, he happened to meet Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, the Radical-turned-ultra-Tory, whose son Neville became Prime Minister in the 1930s and helped suppress Gandhi. Chamberlain Snr. agreed that the treatment of Indians was barbaric but appeared unwilling to push through any legislation about this however."

This is the final paragraph of Early Life. I don't like this being the start of a new paragraph. There has been no prior mention of Gandhi returning to London in 1985. This paragraph should start more like "Gandhi returned to London..." DanTheShrew (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Next time, be bold to edit yourself. Thanks - KNM Talk 16:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I could not. I would never have added this information in the first place - I have no idea why Gandhi was back in London in 1895. If I had decided to write this in the first place, I would have made sure I did have this information to hand. DanTheShrew (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, based on the paragraph as I read it, Gandhi may well have returned to London prior to this. In addition, I would be able to provide no citation. I have no problem cleaning up messy articles when I know what I'm talking about. DanTheShrew (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sentence

In "Swaraj and the Salt Satyagraha (Salt March)"

"Making good on his word, he launched a new satyagraha against the tax on salt in March 1930, highlighted by the famous Salt March to Dandi from March 12 to April 6, marching 400 kilometres (248 miles) from Ahmedabad to Dandi, Gujarat to make salt himself"

Who is he? Gandhi's name has not been mentioned for some time, and other individuals' names have been mentioned since last it was. This is poorly written. I have tidied up the sentence, and it is now readable:

"Making good on his word, Gandhi...." DanTheShrew (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

There is no citation for the most controversial quote in the article: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." whoever put this in - cite it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.232.160 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to add the following link http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19310105,00.html as a footnote for the TIME Person of the Year of 1931 --Kevindkeogh (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Mahatma Ghandi was well known as India's father of the nation. By Nishat Hassan[reply]

Cause of death "soundbite"

The "summary" box on the top right of the page lists "Cause of death" as "Assassinated by gunman." To refer to Nathuram Godse (his assassin) as a gunman, with either the nuance of a man hired to kill, or that of one versed in the use of a gun is ludicrous, and inconsistent with the truth.

I move that this be changed to "Assassinated by gunshot", or "Assassinated by firearm", or simply "Assassinated".

86.146.151.44 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) SM[reply]

Role in Independence Movement

There exists an argument against Ghandi's role in India's progress towards independence. In a nutshell, it states that the end of WWI, by the manner of weakening the British Empire, and the Amritsar Massacre of April 1919, by the manner of heavily undermining the British authority, have made it evident that British rule over India will soon end. Ghandi, having emerged right at the time, was advocating specific religious principles and thus made it harder for the process to go smoother by obstructing power-sharing with Muslim minority. In the end, the result was a 'bumpier' and longer road to independence, infliction of "Muslim-on-Muslim bloodbaths in Bangladesh in 1971, the rise of an aggressive Hindu nationalist party and a confrontation in Kashmir that is still the likeliest provocation for a thermonuclear war" (Hitchens, 184). Apparently, secular approach selected by Negru and Rajagopalachari was more effective and it was Negru who led India to independence, not Ghandi. Ghandi also, in this argument, is accused of being hostile to technology, machinery and development that greatly backlashed industrial development of India and led to unnecessary suffering from famine.

This particular bit of information is taken from God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I wonder if similar observations had been publically made by others, and if this criticism, thus, has a valid place in the article?

just ran a quick search on google - seems Wyatt Woodrow has a lot to say on the matter :) i'm certain there are others, so i guess the argument must be put into the article on Ghandi... source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199708/ai_n8766542 --85.160.4.158 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mahatma Gandhi World Peace Memorial

Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine, there should be a link to it on the mainpage, I feel.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.237 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.200 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Mohan Das Gandhi is given wrong credit for Indian Independence Movement. Before his name could be uttered there are many many Independence Movement heroes from Bengal must be remembered and given due respect. Mr Mohan Das's contribution to Indian Freedom Movement is much much smaller than what he is given credit for. I think due credit should be given for Mr Gandhi's gift of Kashmir Issue to the Indians. Because without Mr Gandhi probably there would not have been a Kashmir Issue. Kashmir,without doubt, would be India's. I think Mr Nathuram Godsey made a mistake by killing him. Because assassnation makes the victim a hero always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strange language usage in the Legacy section

From the first sentence:

On 15 June 2007, it was announced that the "United Nations General Assembly" has "unanimously adopted" a resolution declaring 2 October as "the International Day of Non-Violence."

to the best of my knowledge the United Nations General Assembly is not some sort of self-identifing body which is not usually recongized as such, so why is it in quotation marks? 130.85.251.16 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I read two books about Gandhi. One of them said he said, "Oh, God" before dienig, and the other: "Rama, Rama, Rama" (meaning I forgive you (3times). which one is it? or is it both?

Move to Mahatma Gandhi

This is an invalid move attempt. The rules for "controversial moves" were not observed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. This is an invalid move attempt. The rules for "controversial moves" were not observed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Naming Conventions, it would be best to move the article to Mahatma Gandhi, as this is the common name for the person. N0 one calls him Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. People call him Mahatma Gandhi.

General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

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


Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens

The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person.

However, King Billy can be a redirect, but not the article name for William III of England: there's no reason to use the short name in this case.

If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen.

Further examples:

  • George Eliot - pen name of Mary Ann Evans
  • Le Corbusier, not Charles-Édouard Jeanneret
  • H. G. Wells - as author Herbert George Wells abbreviated both his first and middle names: the abbreviated "artist's name" is used in wikipedia as page name.
  • Scotty Bowman, not William Scott Bowman
  • Dizzy Gillespie, not John Birks Gillespie
  • 50 cent, not Curtis James Jackson III
  • MC Hammer, not Stanley Burrell

Examples of common names that Wikipedia uses instead of a more elaborate, more formal or more scientifically precise version include (note that the latter is a redirect to the former):

  • Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)
  • Bill Gates (not William Henry Gates III)
  • George W. Bush (not George Walker Bush)
  • Tony Blair (not Anthony Charles Lynton Blair)
  • Julius Caesar (not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus)
  • Pelé (not Edson Arantes do Nascimento)
  • Occam's Razor (not Ockham's Razor)
  • Venus de Milo (not Aphrodite of Melos)
  • Dog (not Canis lupus familiaris)
  • Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
  • Sea cucumber (not Holothurian)
This has been discussed before, but was accidentally commented out. Please see Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Full_name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aurvey

I'm afraid, it is not a precedent. Pseudonyms like Bell Hooks, or George Elliot, or stage names like Muddy Waters, or Bo Diddley, are nonetheless names. Books are printed or records made under those names, and sometimes authors (like Mark Twain) even have signatures that incorporate that name. Mahatma, on the other hand, is not a name; it is a qualifier like Saint, as its wikipedia page itself says; furthermore, WP:NAMEPEOPLE is very clear that qualifiers can be used only if needed for disambiguation. All of Gandhi's books were published under "M. K. Gandhi," or "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," or "Mohandas K. Gandhi," not "Mahatma Gandhi." (See also his signature below.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Francis Schonken: I'm afraid Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) is not Wikipedia policy. Not even close. It is the work of two editors and has remained in draft stage for the last two years. In fact, one of them was asking for help on the India portal notice-board the other day.
However, Wikipedia WP:NAMEPEOPLE, itself, is very clear on qualifiers (of which honorifics are a special case): they are permissible only if they are needed for disambiguation (as in Mother Teresa or Alfred the Great) but not permissible when they are not (as in Queen Elizabeth II, or St. Francis of Assisi, or Queen Victoria, or the numerous South Asian ones: Maulana Azad, or Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, or Allama Iqbal, or Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, or Pandit Ravi Shankar, or Ustad Bismillah Khan.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT "The Great" in Alexander the Great is also not a name by WP:Name uses it as an example for using the most common name. Nikkul (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the Great" is a qualifier, which by the lead paragraph of WP:NAMEPEOPLE is allowed only if it is needed for disambiguation. Since the name "Alexander" is not enough to identify the son of Philip II of Macedon, a qualifier like "the Great," or "the Macedonian" is needed, producing: Alexander the Great or Alexander the Macedonian. Similarly, the musician Prince can't be identified with Prince alone, so he needs a qualifier: Prince (musician). In contrast, there is no ambiguity about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, so he doesn't need any qualifier like "Mahatma" or Saint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who support this move (from previous discussions):

You can't simply list people from previous discussions. That is not what consensus building is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont cross out my comments. Who do you think you are? Nikkul (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not done to reproduce old comments; it could be viewed as disruptive.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Opposes

You are being less than forthright when you display the "support" list in the manner you have. Your list goes back to 2003.

  • Some of the discussants have long gone. User:Juicyboy 325 for example, made a total of 35 edits on Wikipeida, all in October and November 2004.
  • Your links are to discussion pages like Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Mahatma_vs._Mohandas, where the discussants have said many things. Many have nuanced and evolving views. User:Jay, for example, who is on your list, also agreed that "Mahatma" was POV:

So, that's 14 already. Plus three more:

makes seventeen and lord knows how many other discussions there are in the archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Who put that tag up there? The previous move should NOT have came to this in the first place. Move it back, than let people try to have it moved here. Beam 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMEPEOPLE is very clear on "qualifiers" (which include honorifics). It says unambiguously in its lead: "*Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation." "Mahatma" is a qualifier and it is not needed for disambiguation, since there is no other person with exactly the same name (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). In addition, WP:NC says, "When in doubt, consult a standard mainstream reference work." There are no more standard tertiary sources than the following below and they are all agreed on the name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica: (Signed article by B. R. Nanda, Former Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.) "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born Oct. 2, 1869, Porbandar, India, died Jan. 30, 1948, Delhi, byname Mahatma (“Great-Souled”) Gandhi leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, considered to be the father of his country."
  2. Encyclopedia Encarta: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1869-1948), Indian nationalist leader, who established his country's freedom through a nonviolent revolution.
  3. Columbia Encyclopedia: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 1869–1948, Indian political and spiritual leader, b. Porbandar.
  4. World Book Encyclopedia. Signed article by Iyer, Raghavan. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. The World Book Encyclopedia, Millennium 2000 Edition. World Book, Inc., Chicago, 2000.
  5. Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia: Main Entry: Gandhi, Mohandas K(aramchand) Pronunciation Guide. Variant(s): known as Mahatma Gandhi Date: (1869-1948). Preeminent leader of Indian nationalism and prophet of nonviolence in the 20th cent.
  6. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Signed article. Judith M. Brown, (Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford), Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand [Mahatma Gandhi] (1869–1948)’, first published Sept 2004, 6400 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, as I pointed out above, Wikipedia does not follow other encyclopedias. WP is not like other encyclopedias. Per policy the name should be Mahatma Gandhi as supported by the facts at the beginning of this section. I'm sorry to see that this was moved to this current name based in part, at least based by you, on what other encyclopedias do. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Beam 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC) And regarding "qualifiers", per policy if a person's well known and english used name includes a qualifier than it can be used. That just makes sense. Beam 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and your edit summary isn't helpful, or you know... correct. Beam 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is farrr from other encyclopedias. Other encyclopedias dont allow everyone to add information and most encyclopedias are NOT based on consensus. They are based on what a small group of people feel.
Follow the naming conventions of Wikipedia not other encyclopedias!!! Nikkul (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens from WP:Naming Convention
The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person. Nikkul (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point! I don't see a reason why we can't make the move now. We'll wait another day or so for more input of course. Beam 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fowler&fowler's comments

(Please reply only at end of subsection)

Since this issue has plagued this article from 2003, and since people keep making the same arguments, it is useful to recall exactly what Wikipedia says in its WP:NAMEPEOPLE page. Here is the first paragraph:

General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

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

Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably:

  • Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation
  • Are in English
  • Are not insulting

I have deliberately boldfaced "name," since the guidelines are about names, not descriptors. I also want to point out that "qualifiers" like "Saint," "King," etc. are allowed only if they are needed for disambiguation.

Names

Starting in 2003, and intermittently since—with Nikkul (talk · contribs) but the latest example—people have been parading "Bill Clinton," "Tony Blair," "Jimmy Carter," "Bill Gates," etc. as example of Wikipedia page names that are not the formal full names of their respective protagonists. In this context, it is important to remember:

Bill Clinton signature
File:Tony Blair signature.svg
Tony Blair signature
Jimmy Carter signature
Mahatma Gandhi signature
  • "Bill Clinton" might not be his formal name, but it is a name nonetheless. His signature in his Wikipedia page attests to that; see also image on right.
  • "Tony Blair," again might not be his given name, but it too is a name. See signature on right.
  • "Jimmy Carter." Same again. See signature on right
  • "Bill Gates." Again, even though Wikipedia has chosen his formal signature, there are plenty of instances of Gates signing his name simply "Bill Gates"
Mahatma
Descriptors

If "Mahatma" is not a name, but a qualifying descriptor, albeit a very popular one, does that allow us to change the Wikipedia page name to "Mahatma Gandhi?" If it does, here are a few examples of equally popular descriptors to ponder:

Mainstream Reference Works

Finally, WP:NC says, "When in doubt, consult a standard mainstream reference work." There are no more standard tertiary sources than the following below and they are all agreed on the name.

  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica: (Signed article by B. R. Nanda, Former Director, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.) "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born Oct. 2, 1869, Porbandar, India, died Jan. 30, 1948, Delhi, byname Mahatma (“Great-Souled”) Gandhi leader of the Indian nationalist movement against British rule, considered to be the father of his country."
  2. Encyclopedia Encarta: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1869-1948), Indian nationalist leader, who established his country's freedom through a nonviolent revolution.
  3. Columbia Encyclopedia: Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand, 1869–1948, Indian political and spiritual leader, b. Porbandar.
  4. World Book Encyclopedia. Signed article by Iyer, Raghavan. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand. The World Book Encyclopedia, Millennium 2000 Edition. World Book, Inc., Chicago, 2000.
  5. Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia: Main Entry: Gandhi, Mohandas K(aramchand) Pronunciation Guide. Variant(s): known as Mahatma Gandhi Date: (1869-1948). Preeminent leader of Indian nationalism and prophet of nonviolence in the 20th cent.
  6. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Signed article. Judith M. Brown, (Beit Professor of Commonwealth History, University of Oxford), Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand [Mahatma Gandhi] (1869–1948)’, first published Sept 2004, 6400 words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Again the basis of the naming policy leads to the fact that the most common and used name by the English reader should be the name we use. I'm puzzled as to how you continue to use other encyclopedia. Wiki is not just "another" encyclopedia. We'll see what everyone else thinks, but as it stands the consensus is for the name to be put back where it was. I don't think a RM page is necessary as I don't agree with the move to this name to begin with. However, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to have the name corrected. I'm still willing to hear different arguments though. Beam 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "name." "Mahatma" is not a name. Why don't you try changing the John F. Kennedy page to JFK? Or, Franklin D. Roosevelt page to FDR, or Victoria of the United Kingdom page to Queen Victoria? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Beam) (ec) Um, there's an entire section where he used examples from Wikipedia? Mahatma is not part of his name; its like Sir or King. Further, could you point me to the policy that specifically says that Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias with regard to naming conventions? Thanks, indopug (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Nikkuls point above. Beam 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That tells us what Wikipedia's naming policy is. How do you know that other encyclopedias' is not the same (or similar)? What if Britannica's naming policy is pretty much the same as ours and yet they still name it Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? indopug (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Wikipedia doesnt decide on people's names by looking at their signature. Nikkul (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if he signs MK Gandhi, are you saying we should change the page to MK Gandhi? Nikkul (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I LOVE how even Fowler&fowler uses "Mahatma Gandhi" when referring to him, proving that it is indeed the most common name. This argument is total bs. Nikkul (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Nikkul (talk · contribs), The signatures are provided to point out that "Bill Clinton," "Tony Blair" are names, not just popular descriptors or qualifiers to names, since their owners sign that way in an official capacity. For the last time, "Mahatma" is not a name. It is a qualifier like "Saint," "Queen," "Maulana," "Netaji," as described above. It doesn't matter that "Mahatma Gandhi" has many more Google returns than "Mohandas Gandhi." So do, "Queen Elizabeth," "JFK", "Queen Victoria," and "FDR" than their respective Wikipedia page names in each of the the examples above. You are welcome, of course, to be facetious (and imply that I am asking for the name to be changed to MK Gandhi), but you don't help your cause any. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the signature clarifies matters, totally. The name of this article should be: "wn iopn.shn." the 2nd period being a "raised period." Hohohahaha (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (continued)

Let's use Fowler's comments (capitals are only used to highlight, please do not get offended):

General Wikipedia Naming Conventions start from easy principles: the name of an article should be the most common name (MAHATMA GANDHI IS THE MOST COMMON NAME) of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". This boils down to the two central ideas in Wikipedia article naming:

  1. The name that is most generally recognisable (MAHATMA GANDHI IS THE MOST RECOGNIZABLE!)
  2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles (NO ONE ELSE IS NAMED MAHATMA GANDHI! IT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS!)

Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably:

  • Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV (MAHATMA IS NOT A QUALIFIER IN ENGLISH LIKE KING OR SAINT)
  • Are in English
  • Are not insulting
MOST COMMON NAME OF GANDHI
MAHATMA GANDHI - 5,160,000 hits on Google
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi- 238,000 hits on Google
Hmmm now which one is used more in literature? Nikkul (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is basically User Fowler vs. everyone else. Nikkul (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Bolds and capitals; now its obvious that you are correct. Congrats on winning the argument. indopug (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to highlight the stark differences. Not screaming or anything. Just highlighting. Nikkul (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Mahatma" is an epithet, not name. Mahatma literally means "great soul". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions on Talk Page are totally unacceptable

To the regular talk page censors here: Please refrain from deleting material posted in good faith on the talk page. I returned to check on an answer to my earlier question and found this deletion. Censoring talk pages is not something to be done lightly. Deleting this kind of material adds nothing to the community process or to the encyclopedia. It is entirely destructive behaviour. The reason cited for the deletion is perhaps the most tenuous citation of a wikipedia policy I have ever seen and raises my alarm bells for there being major bias problems on this article. If the material bores you, simply archive the page. Don't delete it. 220.245.150.171 (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. I'm a long long time user of wikipedia. So let's not get into a policy citation war. I think everybody knows by now that talk pages are a place for discussion, not censorship. There was no "abuse of free speech" argument to be made against the material deleted above. 220.245.150.171 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. However, I feel the urge to delete this section. lol Beam 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone monitor this talk page?

i noted a simple problem here a month ago and it has not been corrected. if a page is to be semi-protected it should at least be actively maintained. 130.85.251.16 (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm now throwing my (sizeable) weight (i'm fat) behind this page (more like on it). I hope that makes you feel better! Beam 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMI of gandhi

please include the BMI of gandhi (or his weight and height) into the article; this is important as reference for the diet he created. Info:

Gandhi also kept his weight low, with a Body Mass Index of 17.7. Gandi height and weightBMI calculator

Thanks. 81.245.160.187 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source other than some random person on Yahoo Answers? Beam 12:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WP:RS, WP:V

The whole crux of it, is what do the majority scholarly RS's call Ghandi?

WP is based on citing other works. End of story. 69.107.70.70 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be reasonable if you were dealing with a straightforward question of names. "Mahatma," however, is not a name, as the Wikipedia link "Mahatma" itself says (see below); it is an epithet or qualifier applied to a name, similar to Queen, Saint, etc. Wikipedia policy WP:NAMEPEOPLE says explicitly in its first paragraph that qualifiers are to be avoided unless they are essential for disambiguation. Otherwise, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom or Victoria of the United Kingdom would be replaced by Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria respectively, since the latter two are far more popular in all RS databases, even the highbrow ones like Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Google:edu (ie university web sites). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own page on Mahatma

Wikipedia has had a page on the epithet "Mahatma" since April 2002. It says very clearly in its first paragraph:

"Mahatma is Sanskrit for "Great Soul" (महात्मा mahātmā: महा mahā (great) + आत्मं or आत्मन ātman [soul]); it is similar in usage to the modern Christian term saint. This epithet is commonly applied to prominent people like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jyotirao Phule.

It should be clear now that "Mahatma" is not a name. If you read further, you will realize that it was first applied to Gandhi in 1915 when he was 46 years old, and it didn't really become wildly popular in India until the mid 1920s, well after Gandhi's non-cooperation movement began, when he was in his mid-50s.

Finally, Gandhi himself regarded "Mahatma" as a title and had no illusions about even remotely considering it his name. A famous passage from his autobiography says,

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

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt matter. Mahatma Gandhi is THE MOST COMMON NAME!!! just like Alexander the Great. Go to WP:Name- It uses Alexander the Great as an example of the most common name, hence it is not an exception but an example of what to do. Nikkul (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find Alexander the Great on the page you pointed out. indopug (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, Nikkul (talk · contribs), you have it wrong again. Since there are many well-known "Alexander"'s (see Alexander (disambiguation)), some qualifier is needed to identify the one who was the son of Philip II of Macedon. It turns out that simple qualification like Alexander of Macedon or Alexander III doesn't work, since there are many even of those. Further qualifiers can take the form of Alexander III of Macedon or Alexander the Macedonian or Alexander the Great. In other words, "III of Macedon" or "the Macedonian" or "the Great" are essential qualifiers, since without them, we wouldn't have any way of identifying the son of Philip II of Macedon. Wikipedia has chosen the last to be the page name, but they are all qualifiers.
In contrast, there is only one Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That name doesn't have a disambiguation page: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (disambiguation), and, consequently, any qualifier, like Mahatma or Saint, would be redundant. Even when qualifiers are added, WP:NAMEPEOPLE asks for the simplest. In other words, Alexander the Great's page doesn't say King Alexander the Great, since "King," like "Mahatma" for Gandhi, is a redundant qualifier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. It wouldn't matter if Mahatma meant poopy pants. If that's what everyone who speaks English calls him and knows him as.... that's what our article should be called. Thanks for reading. Beam 23:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beamathan (talk · contribs): Pretty much every one who speaks English says "Queen Victoria" instead of Victoria of the United Kingdom. In fact the disparity between the popularity of "Queen Victoria" (with 6.55 million Google returns) and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" (with 37 thousand Google returns) is greater—by 1 million Google returns—than that between "Mahatma Gandhi" (with 5.56 million Google returns) and "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" (with 221 thousand Google returns). In other words, the greater injustice—by 1 million Google returns—being perpetrated at the Victoria of the United Kingdom page is crying out for redress.
As a Wikipedian of full three months standing who has made no contributions to either page, why don't you consider cutting your teeth on the Victoria of the United Kingdom page and have it changed to Queen Victoria, perhaps even to her full title: Victoria, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Queen. Defender of the Faith. Empress of India.
Why are you wasting your talents on Gandhi who had no need for grandiloquent titles anyway? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wish I had read this before my other response. Now i know I did take your comments as belittling and unhelpful. You shouldn't reccomend that editors go elsewhere. That's anti Wikipedia, a new editor could be damaged by such a rude and biting personality and may never come back. Actions like yours could ruin a chance at a worthy contributor and personally I'd reccomend you work on that.

In regards to your actual point inside that attempt at intimidation, the name of that page is the way it is because there could be a different Queen Victoria. That's why Victoria of the united Kingdom makes sense, where as how many Mahatma Gandhis are there? One that I know of. Also, Mahatma Gandhi's personal preference doesn't have a lot of weight in naming his article's title as far as that goes. Again sir, I'm happy to discuss the actual content issue here regarding the name but please don't try to have editors that disagree with you stop editing this article. It's insulting to Wikipedia. Beam 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really a different Queen Victoria? Have you clicked on Queen Victoria? And a different Queen Elizabeth II? And a different Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru? And different Pandit Ravi Shankar, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Ustad Bismillah Khan, Maulana Azad, and Allama Iqbal? Why the special dispensation for the Mahatma? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as in the disambiguation page. There isn't a disambiguation page for Mahatma Gandhi. I hate to repeat myself but we keep arguing in circles. There's only one notable Mahatma Gandhi that the majority of english users would search for. It's really the name that makes the most sense. Beam 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, the main point here is that "Mahatama" is not name, it is epithet. Your argument "It wouldn't matter if Mahatma meant poopy pants" is a fallacy, yes it would not matter if Mahatma was a name and it will not matter what is the literary meaning of the name of a person. But this is not the case which has been discussed above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've had a discussion, I think the move should happen.

In a month if fowler or someone who is in the opposing non consensus group *now* wants to try to start a new consensus they can do it through normal channels. But to get back to the status quo and, imo and consensus opinion, the correct name should be done soon. Beam 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beamathan (talk · contribs) don't push your luck. Right now there are more people (17) against the move than there are for it. If you plan any such rash action, I will get admin help. OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Push my luck? I must have misread the whole conversation. Following the discussion of policy all the way through it appeared that the arguments for the move back had consensus. It isn't a voting system here at wikipedia. I'm also perplexed by your, well I guess for lack of a better word, your threats towards me based on an assumption. Unless I read that wrong too, but just so you know I always welcome a third party if necessary for dispute resolution. It's just reading the discussion it didn't seem really that serious or harsh of a situation.

But if we have more discussion without anything really new brought up and you continue your "threatening" pose about "pushing luck" and "rash action" that I'd insist on some method of dispute resolution. I don't know about whatever admin you were going to request "help" from but I feel that we should give other methods a chance if your staunt opisition remains after more discussion. I wouldn't want anyone to feel that policy or process was broken.

Which brings me to the previous way the article was moved. I noticed that you were very involved which I think explains your perception of my actions here. I don't have a personal problem or issue with you, but the naming of the article. Please don't take offense just because I or others disagree with you or a decision made in the past. It's not helpful.

Again, and this is the lack of my vocabulary, but your threats aren't necessary. I'm always happy to keep discussing it, but it almost seems like the conversation is going in circles and I think the policy is pretty clear. But, let's discuss it! I'll give you concise view of how I see this situation later tonight or tomorrow. I look forward to it. And relax buddy! OK? ;) Beam 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should learn to write clearly and concisely first. I can't make head or tail of your rambling disquisition. A page move (and this is one is out of order anyway since the directions for a controversial move were not followed) is not brought about by votes, especially when cast by editors who have made no contribution to the page. "Mahatma," "Queen," or "Saint" are all qualifiers. They are allowed, per WP:NAMEPEOPLE, only if they are essential for disambiguation (as in Mother Teresa, or Alexander the Great, or Prince (musician). "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" doesn't need disambiguation, therefore, it can't have qualifiers. What is it about this you don't understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to insult me. Please let me know what you don't understand and I'll try to clarify it for you. Myself and one or two other users already explained your "qualifier" argument. I don't why you didn't see that above, but I'm sure you'll find it if you look. Your attitude, as I kindly mentioned on your talk page earlier, isn't helpful either but the insulting nature of your arguments is really unappreciated. Plus I don't want to keep having these arguments. If you really can't understand what I said point out the specific phrase or sentences and I'll type them in a different way for you. And as I pointed out on your talk page, please focus on the content and not the editor. And a quick review of WP:OWN would be good, I think, especially when you say "....is not brought about by votes, especially when cast by editors who have made no contribution to the page." I'm sorry but everyone's opinion about this is valid towards consensus as I stated on your talk page. Beam 04:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many more people supported the move during the current discussion than opposed it. Nikkul (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, I see only two people supporting the move. Besides you continue to fail to realise that "Mahatma" is not a name, or that "Alexander/Alfred the Great" is named so because of disambiguating factors. Nor have you explained why "Queen Victoria" or "Sardar Vallabhai Patel" isn't so. In fact, your only rebuttal has been to state the same thing over and over again with increasing intensity: its the most common name → its the most common name! → ITS THE MOST COMMON NAME!!! → ITS THE MOST COMMON NAME!!!!. indopug (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is also not your myspace, where whatever you feel goes even if there is an agreement that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common name. Nikkul (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, if Alexander the Great's name is Alexander III of Macadon, then why isnt that the name of the page? According to your logic, shouldn't his name be Alexander III of Macedon? Well, let me tell you why. It's because Alexander the Great is THE MOST COMMON NAME! And this example has been used as convention on WP:Name. Stop wasting everyone's time. You and Oltmer are the only ones opposed to this move. Nikkul (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens

The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time: Alfred the Great is the name most used in literature to refer to this person. Changing the name to Alfred-not-so-Great-after-all or whatever would be more POV than using the name that is most commonly used. It is best to remember that Wikipedia does not make reality: Wikipedians note down what is the closest to facts they can find, in this case that the name "Alfred the Great" is most often used to refer to a certain person.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), the reason Alfred the Great was chosen has nothing to do with disambiguation whatsoever. Stop making excuses! Nikkul (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll on Move to Mahatma Gandhi

Let's take a straw poll, based on the current discussion regarding the move to Mahatma Gandhi.

For Moving to Mahatma Gandhi

People who voted for moving to Mahatma Gandhi in previous discussions

Against Moving to Mahatma Gandhi


And people who voted against Mahatma Gandhi in previous discussions

This is an invalid move attempt since the rules for the "controversial move" were not followed. Besides in the last discussion in January 2008, when the name was Mohandas Gandhi, there was certainly no appetite for this move. This issue has been discussed to death since 2003, and name has changed already a few times from Mohandas Gandhi (original) to Mahatma Gandhi back to Mohandas Gandhi back to Mahatma Gandhi back to Mohandas Gandhi, and finally to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi which is in keeping with all major print encyclopedias. Finally, for whatever it is worth, Gandhi's own vote, were he a Wikipedia editor, would be firmly in the against category. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Besides, four of the "for" votes have been cast by users, who not only have never edited the Gandhi page, but have significant history of edit-warring or sock-puppeteering on Wikipedia:
WP:NCON explicitly discourages people with no history of editing a page from attempting controversial name changes. It also says,

"Reference works. 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."

As I have indicated half a dozen times above (with examples), all major encyclopedias: Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, World Book Encyclopedia, Webster's Encyclopedia, and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have the same page name: "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making excuses. If there is agreement on the move, it will be moved. The move to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was also controversial but the rules for controversial move were not followed. Nikkul (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the last move was from Mohandas Gandhi to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That was not a controversial move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a controversial move? There has been a debate about the name of this page since 2003! Any move is controversial! Provide me the discussion that occurred before this move was made. Nikkul (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be a controversial move considering common use and WikiPolicy, but as I said on your talk page: i'm willing to keep discussing it I just don't want to repeat the same solutions to your arguments. Beam 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Polls Suck, how about another try at discussion instead?

As Wikipedia is not a Democracy, I honestly don't see the point in a straw poll, especially one where we simply put our name on the side we agree on.

We need to discuss this further apparently. I thought all the anti move arguments were met, but I could be mistaken. Can't we try this gain? Straw polls without discussion usually do not lead to a consensus. Beam 14:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument against using "Mahatma" is based on the following premises:
As I have indicated more than half a dozen times above (with examples), all major encyclopedias: Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, World Book Encyclopedia, Webster's Encyclopedia, and Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have the same page name: "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi."

What arguments have you met? 1. Are you saying "Mahatma" is a name? 2. Are you saying it is not an honorific? 3. Are you saying that the lead sentence in WP:NAMEPEOPLE does not apply to names, but to any descriptors like FDR or Mahatma Gandhi or Queen Victoria? 4. Are you saying that "Mahatma" is an essential qualifier, like Mother Teresa? Or, 5. Are you saying all print encyclopedias have page name Mahatma Gandhi?

You keep repeating Mahatma Gandhi is the most popular ..., but the question remains: most popular "what"? Otherwise, why not attempt changing John F. Kennedy to JFK? The latter is more popular than the former by 12 million Google returns, twice as popular as Mahatma Gandhi is over Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My argument is pretty simple. Just like Alexander the Great, Ghandi is most commonly known by Mahatma Gandhi to English speakers. Following Wiki Policy that's what we should call the article. Beam 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Oh and ""the name of an article should be 'the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things'."" supports my case as most English speakers aren't even aware that Mahatma is a "qualifier." They probably believe it's his name, that's how common it is. But as Regents has pointed out, I think even just Gandhi by itself is preferable to his full name, but than that leads to the disambiguation issue which is why Mahatma Gandhi is really the most sensible per Wikipedia. Beam 16:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Alexander is his name, which is ambiguous and requires qualification in some form: either Alexander the Macedonian, Alexander III of Macedon, or Alexander the Great. Wikipedia has chosen the last because it is what the precedent is for (print encyclopedias, history books, etc.). Gandhi's name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, not Gandhi (like Prince or Madonna). You can't chop down a person's name and then claim it requires qualification. Otherwise, there are lots of possibilities John F. Kennedy-->Kennedy(ambiguous)-->JFK (most popular); Franklin D. Roosevelt-->Roosevelt (ambiguous)-->FDR (most popular); Victoria of the United Kingdom-->Victoria (ambiguous)-->Queen Victoria (most popular), and of course: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi-->Gandhi (ambiguous)-->Mahatma Gandhi (most popular). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep just avoiding what I'm saying I think. Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi is what most English speaking people, the common man, the proposed user of Wikipedia, calls him. That's it. That's the reason it should be the article's title. I'm sorry to see how this was moved to the current name, and like I say before I know you were involved. We're not arguing against you personally Fowler. It was a bad move and against policy to bring it to its current name and we're just trying to fix it now. Beam 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gah, I hate to get sucked into this morass, but I am sick of seeing poor fowler have to shoulder this burden alone. Beam, you are right that most English speakers refer to Gandhi as Mahatma Gandhi. I think, however, Fowler brings up a good point as to names versus titles. According to your logic, Beam, Victoria of the United Kingdom should be Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom since the first part (Queen Victoria) is how she is most commonly referred to in English and the second part (of the United Kingdom) is needed for disambiguation. She is apparently not called Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom because wikipedia frowns on honorifics even if they are the most common form of address except in extraordinary circumstances. I think this discussion could get moving in a positive direction again if you were to explain, Beam, why Gandhi should be treated the same as Alexander the Great instead of as Queen Victoria. Indrian (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because that's the logic used for Wiki naming of articles. The end user, the reader, should be the one we serve at Wikipedia, and rightfully so. Seeing as you agree with me that most of these readers refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi, than the article should be named accordingly. I see it as pretty simple. But I understand that Fowler was involved with the move to the current name and is kind of "involved" for lack of a better word. I just wish he hadn't treated me so poorly for simple disagreement. Thanks for agreeing on my point though, it is very appreciated and nice to have a civil discussion. Beam 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that means you are also opposed to the article being named "Victoria of The United Kingdom" as opposed to "Queen Victoria"? (same logic applies in both the Queen's and the Mahatma's cases doesn't it?) indopug (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the same experience with Queen Victoria. I have read about and discussed Mahtma Gandhi with many people over the last few years as I have done some research about him for educational purposes. But if that is what Queen Victoria is commonly referred to and there is no problem with disambiguation than yes, that's what WikiPolicy would dictate. Beam 22:26, 6 June 2008 Oh wait, earlier in this argument I believe Fowler brought up Queen Victoria, and I pointed out that it is a disambiguation issue with Queen Victoria. There isn't one with Mahatma Gandhi at all, which makes it the correct answer. Beam 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't any ambiguity question with Queen Victoria, and that's not why we don't use it. There may be a disambiguation issue in the foreseeable future, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL now; and even when there is a Queen Victoria in Sweden, we will have to see what primary usage is to see what to do with the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had saw a disambiguation link on that article. Regardless, as I said, I don't have the experience with Queen Vicky as i do with Mahatma Gandhi. Beam 22:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ 'SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED', BY GANDHI — FROM HARIJAN, DECEMBER 17, 1938
  2. ^ Non-Violence, I, 167–169, Harijan, Dec. 17, 1938, as cited in Paul F. Power, Gandhi on World Affairs, Public Affairs Press, 1960
  3. ^ Elst, Koenraad. Learning from Mahatma Gandhi’s mistakes.
  4. ^ Elst, Koenraad. A Tale of Two Murders : Yitzhak Rabin and Mahatma Gandhi.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi&oldid=217633872"