Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 12

Images needing attention

The following images of the article need attention. According to Wikimedia policy, an image should be free in both US and the image's own country. The following images don't have US tempolate. Please add relevant templates. This list will be included at WT:INB

• File:God is Truth.jpg
• File:Young Gandhi.jpg
• File:Gandhi and Kasturbhai 1902.jpg
• File:Gandhi South-Africa.jpg
• File:Gandhi suit.jpg
• File:Gandhi spinning.jpg
• File:Gandhi and Nehru 1942.jpg
• File:Gandhi Jinnah 1944.jpg
• File:Mountbattens with Gandhi (IND 5298).jpg
• File:Funeral Procession of Mahatma Gandhi.jpg
• File:Gandhi and Indira 1924.jpg

Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 06:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

Rilaz the dog (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

He was born in stoneygate

 Not done And your sources are? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

graffiti might be a misquote "First they ignore you, then they laught at you..."

The picture of a wall graffiti in San Francisco containing the quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" might be a misquote. There is no reliable source which proves that Gandhi ever said this. This quote is listed in wikiquote as disputed. It might be a good idea to add in the caption of the picture that Gandhi might be misquoted here. However the quote remains important because it is a good summary about the stages Gandhi's movement faced. --Wikigh0st (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I can see RS here --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the first result states exactly the same as in wikiquote and lists the quote as disputed. Only because the quote is attributed in many sources to Gandhi doesn't mean necessary that he really said it. So it would be good to investigate here more.

--Wikigh0st (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move (June 2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi → Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi / Gandhi– "Mahatma" is, at best, a sort of an honorific. We don't use them. "Mahatma" is not the name of the subject, that is a value-laden descriptor and to some extent misleading. If we're talking about COMMON NAME then I think simply Gandhi is far more common, but that's also a surname so will it be inappropriate to rename it to just Gandhi? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Care to check the archive on talk page? it was moved to Mahatma Gandhi after a lot of discussion.-sarvajna (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't see the previous discussions. Having said that, I still stand beside my request. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

MrT, the fact is that this page was moved after a long dicussion, tomorrow some other editor will come and raise another request, I am not sure what is the procedure. I thought we should go for WP:MR, in any case, nothing has changed since last move. If you have anything extra that was not covered in the last discussion then add it or else it would be a waste of time. -sarvajna (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for guidance from the previous closer, if the recommendation is to withdraw it, I will withdraw. I don't wish to cause any disruption. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Recommendation from the previous closer

There's not much one can do now - to stop it early will get editors who want a move complaining, to let it run will do the same with the other camp. It was a close call in February, so I would let it run - and then maybe add some sort of banner to the talk page to warn against repeated RMs
— User:Ronhjones 20:23, June 12, 2013‎ (UTC)

I have, for brevity, quoted only the second half of the comment. I encourage others to read the full comment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is decided - someone should add {{Oldmoves}} to the headers to inform users about all the old move requests.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HONORIFIC. Mahatma is not a good idea because it is both an honorific as well as unnecessary for disambiguation (Gandhi already redirects here and is the commonname). Gandhi would be the simple and appropriate title. In my opinion, the close in the previous move request here was flawed and a new move request is not unwarranted. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support- to Gandhi. Agreed with RP. At least the horrifics should not be there in the name of the article. Faizan 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use a move request, you will have to go for a move review. RP, I hope you can explain more on that.-sarvajna (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Most native English speakers have no idea that "Mohandas Karamchand" is Gandhi's real name. Even the article states he's commonly known as "Mahatma Gandhi". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Mahatma is unique to one person in history and not the sort of oft-used honorific ("The Right Honourable," "Lord") that the rulemakers had in mind, so the rule does not apply. In any case we went over this recently, and Mahatma is the usual term used worldwide. "Mohandas Karamchand" is pretty well guaranteed to mix up millions of users to no gain for anyone. Gandhi can't stand alone-- there are several very well known Indian prime ministers named Gandhi (like Indira--no relation to him) Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Again, per WP:HONORIFIC: ‘Mahātma’, ‘The Great Soul’, cannot be a part of the article title.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 16:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's false to say "of an honorific. We don't use them." The WP:Honorific is a general guideline not an ironclad rule and it was not designed for unique honorifics. The rule even gives permission for exceptions ("but may be discussed in the article. "). That is, it is not some sort of ironclad rule that overcomes common sense and modern usage. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you do not consider it a hard and fast rule, then just make it consistent with other article titles... ‘Quaid-e Azam’ is the name used in most Pakistani contexts for Mr. Jinnah... It is also a unique honorific, but is not a part of the title. The article title is just his full name.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia so we use English common names. 310 Google News hits for Quaid-e Azam [1], 10,400 for Jinnah [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How childish! He got blue, I also want blue. If you wanna move Jinnah start RM there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How frantic! Who said I want to rename Jinnah?? I just called for consistency!—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Not an honorific but an epithet - honorifics are titles in general use. This is no different from how Alexander the Great is located at ... Alexander the Great.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me get it to you... There are better encyclopaedians at Britannica to decide on article names, aren’t there? At Britannica, the article on Alexander is ‘Alexander the Great’ and on the Mahatma is ‘Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’. Not seeing my reason, still?—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Go and talk at Britannica. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also please read the previous discussion where the page was successfully moved to Mahatma Gandhi, your every question would be answered, check out how Mother Theresa is referred to as at Britannica.-sarvajna (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

An epithet is an adjective or short phrase which is used as a way of criticizing or praising someone. An honorific title is used to show respect or honour to someone. I don't see how it is a big difference here. As Шαмıq said above that honorific means ′The Great Soul′ that's a POV, many don't see him as a great soul, even though you and I would want to call him "mahatma". It should be crystal clear to anybody that Mahatma is an honorific, whether it's appropriate for an article title or not is the subject of the discussion. We are here to decide whether the prefix "Mahatma" is so commonly attached to the Gandhi that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN and WP:DEADHORSE. As was successfully argued in the move discussion which resulted in the article getting moved to its current name, the name Mahatma Gandhi is far more commonly used in English sources to refer to Gandhi than his full birth name. As such it fits as the article title of choice under WP:UCN. I also would like to object to even having this discussion at all again, so soon after the last one. There is nothing to gain from having such a large discussion all over again, as it is very unlikely that consensus will have changed, so soon after.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN, Mahatma Gandhi is way more commonly used then Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. The only use of later, I have seen is as answer to full name question of Mahatama Gandhi. Mahatama was maybe given as honorific. But now is used as part of name.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 17:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong Venue: Please take this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so that some Special:Preferences can be arranged so every editor can choose their preferred name of article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: There are no new arguments/reasons to move this page back to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Nothing has changed since the last RM which would necessitate this RM -sarvajna (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, move to snow close. "Mahatma Gandhi" gets more than ten times the number of Google results as "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". People who have never heard his full name know him as Mahatma (I knew his first name but was at a loss for the second). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, move to snow close. Nothing has changed since last RM. Current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and move to snow close - it was moved to Mahatma Gandhi after a lot of discussions just a couple of months age - no need to start a new RM - there should some policy on Requested Move - every other day we cannot start a RM - for a page which was discussed and moved just a few days ago. - Jethwarp (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mild support for → Ghandi - User:Rjensen says that Ghandi can't stand alone in the title but it does as a redirect. User:NeilN User:TheFreeloader User:Jethwarp User:Khazar2 User:Evanh2008 User:Ratnakar.kulkarni User:Vigyani all aware that Ghandi already redirects here anyway, so what is the purpose of the extra word "Mahatma" when it is counter WP:HONORIFIC and (to comment on User:Maunus's comparison with Alexander the Great) as far as I can see not generally used by Pakistani and Bangladeshi writers? Unless first impressions are wrong and Pakistani and Bangladeshi writers do also use Mahatma? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani and Bangladeshi use is not relevant - English use is. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about Pakistani and Bangladeshi writers in English In ictu oculi (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment if it is be moved to Gandhi, then it will also have to be decided which one. Ghandi or Gandhi--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose IIO meant Gandhi and not Ghandi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

IIO, redirects are also made of wrong spelling (just like you have picked) because they are probable search terms. Also other search terms have redirects. But that doesn't mean that article should have that as the title. Or else we could move it to Father of India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I find the redirect questionable as it is. I don't think the name "Gandhi" has a clear primary topic. The guideline says that a primary topic should be highly likely to be the topic referred when term is used. I don't think that that is the case for Gandhi. Even in everyday speech, "Mahatma Gandhi" is very often used for referring to him, to distinguish him from the other notable Gandhis. As such, the name "Gandhi" might not qualify as common name, much less as the primary topic. To rename this article "Gandhi" might almost be like renaming the Winston Churchill article "Churchill".TheFreeloader (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. But, the analogy with Churchill is not a good one because there are some clear differences. Though Churchill redirects to Winston Churchill, the actual article is at his name not at a sobriquet or honorific. Also, our policy on honorifics is quite clear, we don't use them unless it is almost always used when referring to a person. For example, Mother Teresa is never called "Teresa", and her actual name is completely unknown. Therefore, that article is at Mother Teresa. Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand, is almost never called just Elizabeth but her article is not at Queen Elizabeth because Queen is a title and because Queen Elizabeth needs disambiguation. Therefore, her article is at Elizabeth II. In the case of Gandhi, the Mahatma title is not used nearly often enough for it to be a part of his name therefore we shouldn't use it in the title. Whether the article be at Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is a separate question. --regentspark (comment) 16:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I search Google, most of the entries which are referring to the Gandhi in question here, have the word "Mahatma" in front of "Gandhi". So I think "Mahatma" is used often enough to be part of his common name. I am not denying that just "Gandhi" is sometimes used for referring to him, but I would say it is done about as often as, or maybe even less often than, Winston Churchill is referred to as just "Churchill".

And about WP:HONORIFIC, I think it is quite an overstatement to say that it is a clear policy. To me the policy seems about as clear as mud. It seems to have as many exceptions as cases where it applies. And I think this is one of the cases which has to be seen as an exception too, given that the honorific title has become part of the subject's common name. And the "Mahatma"-honorific is in most cases not used by third party sources for showing reverence for the subject, but merely for distinguishing him from other Gandhis in a way which is clear and recognizable to most readers. I think we have the same goals here at Wikipedia in our writing, and as such, I think we should use his common name too.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Bapu is better. It is easier on the tongue (for me at least, of course others are free to disagree).OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The current title goes against WP:HONORIFIC and misleads readers into thinking that "Mahatma" was his given name. Britannica, Encyclopedia of World Biography, The Columbia Encyclopedia, and many other reference works use the proposed form. My first choice for the title is "Mohandas K. Gandhi". The subject's name is given in this form as author of his autobiography, so I assume that it is what he wanted to be called. Kauffner (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing can be done of those people who think that King is his first name, Size his father's name and Dick his surname. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also,If some person who has his article on Wikipedia wants to be called as “King of the world” will we entertain it? It is highly irrelevant what the subjected wanted. About the Britannica, the question has been answered in the previous move, Mother Theresa is called “Blessed Theresa of Calcutta” there, should we follow that convention here as well? -sarvajna (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is for those who want to learn about this subject, not for those who already understand these subtleties. As far as Britannica goes, every source has its peculiarities. That's why I used multiple sources. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what names are most frequently used," per WP:TITLES. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Maunus is right. people are assuming "Mahatma" is an honorific and therefore fallse under the suggestions for honorifics. Not true--an honorific is closely related to a person's formal roles (such as priest/"Father"; king/"his highness"); pope/ "his holiness"). "Mahatma" is an epithet more like "Charles the Fat." We have no rules about epithets. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. An honorific is any word that is used to convey respect or veneration. It doesn't have to be formal or tied to the role of a person. Cf. OED Doing or conferring honour; importing honour or respect; spec. applied to phrases, words, or forms of speech, used, esp. in certain Oriental languages, to express respect, e.g. certain adjectives meaning ‘august’, ‘eminent’, ‘venerable’, etc., substituted in Chinese and Japanese for the possessive pronouns of the second and third person; forms of the verb used in respectful address, etc. or our own Wikipedia definition An honorific title is a word or expression with connotations conveying esteem or respect when used in addressing or referring to a person.--regentspark (comment) 17:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is correct because WP:HONORIFIC covers honorific titles not epithets or other non-titular honorifics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The text of WP:HONORIFIC doesn't clearly restrict itself to titular titles (in fact, it links to the Wikipedia definition above). But it is quite clear that honorifics should not be used unless it rarely used by reliable sources without it and, in the case of Gandhi, reliable sources don't use Mahatma more often than the do use it (821 vs. 136 on JSTOR titles-only search). --regentspark (comment) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As regards to arguments for Mahatma and WP:HONORIFIC - there were discussions on this point only when last RM - Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_11#Requested_move was closed and page was moved to Mahatma Gandhi. I find again more or less same people arguing in favour and against the move. This is really going back again ........!!!!!! - Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as this GA says "commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM — RM — RM — now STOP these. PLEASE.

We already have too many RMs. Now, STOP these, PLEASE.

• When I GA reviewed this article last year, the article title was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Then someone started this RM and the article was moved to Mahatma Gandhi.
• It was not the only RM, see more a) Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_7#Move.3F b) Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_9#Requested_move c) Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_6#Requested_move, d) Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_4#Move_article_to_Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi.3F and there might be more...
• The largest and the best one is this where we dedicated a separate page to decide the article title Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Mahatma_vs._Mohandas

What is happening here? The article is 12 years old and we are still debating on title. Do we realize everytime the article is moved, a number of previous consensus are rejected? In the last move discussion we had a consensus to move the article to "Mahatma Gandhi". Today, we are trying to move it to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi". Tomorrow someone will come again and discard our today's consensus. The day after tomorrow another guy will come and......... Now, stop these.

Proposal

Do it once and for all. If you see Talk:Jesus, they have added a FAQ note on the article title Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q_1:_What_should_this_article_be_named.3F. They discussed and decided it in 2004. Now, I want something like this in this article.
If necessary, invite the best editors of Wikipedia, request the best scholar editors of Wikipedia to comment (Doctor Jensen is already here), start RFC, involve all super contributors of WikiProject India noticeboard or WikiProject History— do anything and everything and decide the article title and stay there. --TitoↂDutta 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Common name may not always apply but there is a definite presumption, and not good practice to re-open so soon. PatGallacher (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't the subject's common name simply "Gandhi"? At least that's what this ngram would suggest. Kauffner (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • In that case, isn't Winston Churchill's common name just "Churchill"? [3] Or isn't Barack Obama's common name just "Obama" [4]? I wouldn't put too much weight into what Google ngram says. It's results are often not that useful for determining common names.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You folks are focussing on what you think his name was. That is not the proposal. The proposal is to have a once-and-for-all discussion about the name. If you want such a discussion, then say Support; if not, then say Oppose. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's naïve to assume that it is possible to have a once-and-for-all discussion about this sort of issue, as consensus can change. However as a general rule it is not good practice to re-open a discussion after a couple of months. I have sometimes reluctantly accepted defeat after finding myself in a minority in relation to some issues. PatGallacher (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gandhi died in 1948. And the best of best media, scholars and institutions have already covered his works. Nothing is going to change radically. In every few weeks someone comes and starts RM. How many years we are going to take before deciding the article title? Note, I have not voted in this discussion, nor I suggested any name in my proposal. About "Once for all" discussion, if we organize a mega-discussion inviting the best editors and WikiProjects, the editors who'll start RM later will need to do something larger than that to go against the consensus --Tito☸Dutta 00:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support the proposal lest someone, like me, gets confused and initiates another imbroglio without the necessary prior knowledge of why the page was moved and when. That's all. Thank god I didn't move it unilaterally! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Whether or not this produces a true "once-and-for-all" decision (as someone else pointed out, consensus can change), I support the spirit of having a big-tent discussion to produce a decision on the name that can be put into an article FAQ for all to see how we arrived at the article's (hopefully more permanent) name. It should at least slow down the repeated RMs, particularly if editors bringing a new RM have to bring a new argument or have their RM summarily closed as "see FAQ". That's my 2¢ anyway. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't say when we should have that discussion, but I would give it some time and advertise it as widely as possible in the mean time. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Note: I've converted this into its own section in case editors are interested in continuing this discussion. There's clearly consensus against the move above, but I didn't want to cut off discussion here prematurely. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Gentle oppose per PatGallacher. RMs asking the same thing in frequent succession can rightfully be closed per WP:IDHT, but discussion and contention over names is a normal, healthy part of the Wikipedia process. As I was creating the {{oldmoves}} tag above, I noticed that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was in fact a stable title for over five years, and had been upheld over multiple RMs before being changed in January. "Freezing" the current name, then, would be inappropriate. This will sound facetious, but let's save this discussion for when Mahatma Gandhi has remained a stable title for longer than the previous name ever did. It may happen. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Jesus isn't the best analogy here anyway. He's always going to be primary topic, and "Jesus" is plenty concise and common. POV editors may want to change that, but here there's honest disagreement over two perfectly legitimate titles. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think you will get a much larger discussion, than the one which moved this article to its current title, these days. I think all the arguments to present in this debate have already been presented, and a consensus has formed on the basis of that. The article name for this article will probably never be 100% stable, but as of now, I think a consensus has formed here, and don't see any reason to discuss this further until the facts or the people interpreting the facts change.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per TheFreeloader. The proposer seems to be frustrated by the massive waste of time, effort and other Wikipedia resources on a trivial looking issue. I fully agree. But the proposer seems to be proposing what he criticizes others for doing, and he proposes to do it on a mega scale. Well, I fail to see the sense in doing so. However, the FAQ idea looks great to me. We could even do it without the mega waste of Wikipedia resources. Just show links to all previous discussions (as we are doing currently up there) and say something like "Please do not bring this up again unless you have some new and substantial argument. Please check previous discussions to make sure that your argument has not been discussd already and accept our thanks for avoiding a pointless rehashing of old arguments. See you."OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Specifically for: "White rule enforced strict segregation among all races and generated conflict between these communities. Bhana and Vahed argue that Gandhi, at first, shared racial notions prevalent of the times and that his experiences in jail sensitized him to the plight of blacks." Subsequent paragraphs in that section do nothing to elaborate on Gandhi's sympathy for native Africans. 70.238.140.125 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gandi's final resting place, India.JPG

The image, File:Gandi's final resting place, India.JPG added by Joshua Doubek in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahatma_Gandhi&diff=566354300&oldid=565906675 seems questionable, as Gandhi was cremated, and his ashes were placed into several rivers. This image is probably of a memorial, not of "his final resting place", but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to back that up. Rwessel (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it as to my eye, it looks like the Raj Ghat. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

His quotation in section "Role in World War I"

I put this quotation from Gandhi in the subsection, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to the Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.", since I found that it should be mentioned here and its context properly established. Noticed that this quote of his has been taken out of context in many places. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

bare quotations belong in Wikiquotes. Here it is meaningless. You need a reliable secondary source to demonstrate a) what it means b) that it is important enough for this major article. Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tried to find some, nothing in google books but have come across this. Does not seem that reliable, but I think it's possible to cite some of it, since it quotes reliable sources and historians. Thoughts? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote looks like a fake -- no one has found it in any published RS -- only in polemical recent web sites where anyhing goes. --see for example Gandhi actively recruited soldiers for the British Army in WWI. see his speeches on why Indians should become soldiers & learn to shoot Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, it has been taken out of context in many recent books and websites, but rather than fake it seems like an obscure quotation since it can be found in his autobiography, where we see its actual context. Too bad there are no reliable sources that cover it and clarify its meaning. Anyway, thanks for your time. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreadable

The lead section of this article is filled with umpteen tags that making it completely unreadable.Please improve or remove those tags.RouLong (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it was already unreadable, full of errors. I am merely pointing them out. If you can't improve it, don't bother to make irrelevant posts here, or remove tags with the highly descriptive (and disingenuous) edit summary "ce." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC

okay ..! RouLong (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

:::I have removed the umpteen tags. Please go ahead and read the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding "ji"

We don't allow Islamic honorifics like PBUH. In the same vein, there's no way we should be adding "ji" here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Further, the edit summaries about "respect" [5], [6] have no basis in policy. If they did, again, we would be adding (PBUH) after Muhammad given all the entreaties we get. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is nonsense. If we are going to call him Mahatma Gandhi, which includes the irredeemably honorable honorific "Mahatma," then how can we be showing disrespect by calling him "Gandhi?" Do we call Saint George, "George" in his article? Do we call the adult Mother Teresa, "Teresa" in the article, then in what racist, occidental abuse of Indian sensibilities are we able to call Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi?"

With respect to the tags you just put up - that's a nice piece of wikilawyering. The Times of India does not use "ji" [7]. Are they racist? The article Elizabeth II, presumably written in British English, does not prefix "Queen" to "Elizabeth" as she is "consistently referred" to by the English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has a point that our use of honorifics is ethnocentric and privileges Christianity. Let me ask this: do we allow "Christ" to follow references to Jesus? It's an honorific in that is calls him the messiah, which most people (non-Christians) disagree with. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Christ does not follow every occurrence of Jesus in that article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

India Today - racist too? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@NeilN: Indian newspapers might not always use -ji, but they use some honorific ("Mahatma Gandhi," "the Mahatma," "Gandhiji," "Bapu,") significantly more often than they use unadorned "Gandhi." In the Indian vernacular press, plain "Gandhi," would be unthinkable. If you're going to change the name of MKG to "Mahatma Gandhi," then you are saddled with the burden of your choice and all its consequences. The unadorned "Gandhi," cannot be used in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please don't throw examples from Indian newspapers at me. I've just spent a couple of months there, not to mention I've written a large number of India-related articles. I know the deal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you sound exactly like the new/IP editors at Muhammad who "know" PBUH should always follow his name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I was a part of the original discussion and a proponent of the move from Mohandas Gandhi ==> Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, (the name unanimously used in all encyclopedias). If in my absence, people (not necessarily you) are going to change the name to the unencyclopedic Mahatma Gandhi, then they have to bear all consequences of the name change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fowler's changes were utterly useless, apart from making the article unreadable it did not even had consistency. Using Gandhiji, Bapuji and also Papuji, MahatmaJi. It is also to be noted that English sources do use Mahatma Gandhi as well as Gandhi and I do not see how using just Gandhi in an English article would mean disrespect to Gandhi. Fowler, if you have issues with the page being moved to Mahatma Gandhi then nothing much can be done about it. stop being disruptive.-sarvajna (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No I understand that you don't agree with the consensus and are trying to make a point. We do not have to "bear" the consequences you choose to inflict. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have "bear" in quotes but not "consequences?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The title was changed when no one was looking, by perhaps same male under some arbitrary sense of entitlement and without vote from Mahatma Gandhi to something else here, and others had to discuss title for years. Now the title has been corrected by open vote and still it is made to look otherwise. If it is changed by vote there is no point wasting others time for years unless there is a valid reason to repeat weird behaviour of years of discussion over page title already decided by vote.223.232.175.230 (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Born and raised in a caste: clarification needed

As fowler has pointed out in the article, one cannot be probably raised in a caste. My question is do we need that at all in the lead? This info should be in the early life section. Also, perhaps changing the sentence in this way, "he was born and raised in a baniya family", would help. What say? Or else, just born would suffice.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, What can I say? This is a third-rate article, in the same way that Porbandar state became a "third-class" state, demoted by the British, in the year of Gandhi's birth, 1869, because the ruler cut off the ears and nose of a courtier for influencing his son to drink from the effects of which the young Rajkumar expired. It calls Gandhi's father a "senior government official." Never heard of a dewan of a tiny state of some 500 or 600 square miles and population of 60 or 70 thousand being described as a "senior government official." The article never mentions that after 1869, the affairs of the state were neglected, and the British took over direct the administration in 1886. More importantly, it never mentions that the Gandhi family left Porbandar for Rajkot in 1876, when Gandhi was seven. It says, as you mention, Gandhi was born and raised in a Modh Baniya community. Born and raised? Porbandar town had Vaniyas, Bhatias, Lohanas (among the trading castes); it had Kawahras(?) (fishing caste); it had Muslims; it had the Rajput ruling clan (this off the top of my head) ... The Modhs are a sub-sub-group of Vaniyas (with more Brahminical pretensions). How, pray tell, was it possible to be raised in a Modh Baniya community in such a town, especially when Gandhi family left for the city of Rajkot when Gandhi was seven. It has all kinds of other stupid mistakes, such as died in New Delhi, Dominion of India! I have some dozen original Indian newspapers of 31 January 1948 and the days thereafter (Times of India, Pioneer, Statesman, ...) Nowhere is the word "Dominion of India" mentioned. This of course is a Wikipedia-wide stupidity. They say so and so was born in Calcutta in the Bengal Presidency of British India in January 1947. When was the word "Bengal Presidency" used in 1947, or 1946, or 1945, or ... The article has the usual nonsense added by drive-bys who are convinced their family lore is the gospel truth. I read Gandhi's autobiography last time some 20 years go. I remember Gandhi distinctly says, his father became PM of Rajkot and then of another state Vanker(?) and then retired drawing his pension from Rajkot. I don't know how many contributors have really read Gandhi's autobiography.

Frankly, I don't know what to do with this article. I edited the lead and early life section briefly on 4 and 5 July 2008. Look at what the early life section looked like then, on 5 July 2008 and what it looked like, five years later, on the 12 August 2013 before I corrected it slightly. How in the world did it become a good article? People turn out to vote for the name change from MKG to Mahatma, people who haven't the foggiest idea about Gandhi, yet in the end if this article is not to disrespect one of the great men of the age, it is people like me who have to do the cleaning up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Aaahhhhhh!! So is that the grudge? That the article is called "Mahatma Gandhi" now; while the most fiercest defender was away on wikibreak? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no grudge. I'm merely pointing out the inaccuracies which will need to be removed. Each time I add the in-line tag, I explain in the issue in the edit summary. Please go ahead and fix them. I will soon be tagging the rest of the article. I don't believe it rises to the level of a good article; if it is not fixed, naturally, I will be requesting demotion. The name change is a separate story, which I will address later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have ready access to any of Gandhi's biographies, and probably won't edit significantly in the article in near future. So, what's the plan you have? First, thorough tagging, and then addressing those? Of course others may at times help out.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayan: Yes. I'll try, but I too have limited time. I believe the burden lies equally on everyone. As Jimbo Wales has said, and Wikipedia policy WP:EDIT says, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." I'll be following Wikipedia policy on fixing problems:

"Instead of deleting text, consider

• requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
• doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself"

There is no Wikipedia policy that an article give the appearance of completion or be easy on the eyes ("readable"), when it has errors. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Dwaipayan, the article doesn't need me. I reverted all my edits. You of course are an old fellow-traveler, so I understand your concern for the article, but I wish the motley crew of Hindu nationalists, Randys from Boise, and those native speakers of the English, who in user:NeillN's felicitous words "have no idea that "Mohandas Karamchand" is Gandhi's real name" all the best with editing the article. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help the article. I think you should continue your effort. There are many others concerned about the article. I guess if we coordinate with your concerns, the will only get better.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've reinstated the tags. Will work on the article as and when I find time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi Is The Father of Nation

To Clarify FAther of Nation: The full text of Jawaharlal Nehru’s address, broadcast over All India Radio on January 30, 1948.

The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere. I do not know what to tell you and how to say it. Our beloved leader, Bapu as we called him, the Father of the Nation, is no more. Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/we-must-hold-together/article4358063.ece

Father of the Nation was given to the Mahatma by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, who in his address on Singapore Radio on July 6, 1944 has addressed Mahatma Gandhi as Father of the Nation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose's_political_views ( in Note 2: Father of Our Nation" (Address to Mahatma Gandhi over the Rangoon Radio on 6th July 1944) The Essential Writings of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Edited by Sisir K Bose & Sugata Bose (Delhi: Oxford University Press) 1997 pp301-2)

April 28, 1947 Gandhi was referred with the same title by Sarojini Naidu at a conference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merilturock (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bapu in Gujarati means "father," not "father of the nation." Nehru was not providing an exact translation, only adding more information. Gandhi was called Bapu long long before there was a nation, before even the notion of independent India in the near future was a realistic hope. No one is denying that he is not called the Father of the Nation in India. There are much better sources, the Government of India's own website. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong about the Government of India's website. It does refer to him as "Father of the Nation," but apparently Gandhi Actually is only informally the Father of the Nation. The Indian Constitution Article 18.1 (Abolition of Titles explicitly says, "No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State."). A schoolgirl last year petitioned India's home ministry to officially make Gandhi the Father of the Nation and the petition was denied. See report here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi Heritage Portal

Please add Gandhi Heritage Portal in the 'External links' as it has :

1. Life & Times of Mahatma Gandhi,
2. THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI, and
3. Key Texts of Mahatma Gandhi.

अनुनाद सिंह (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for a suggestion. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi's name in Hindi/Gujarati

May I ask/suggest that Mr Gandhi's name in the article be edited to add his name in both Devanagari and in Gujarati, given his background? Thank you. 128.164.135.250 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable change in Struggle for Indian Independence (1915–47)

In the second paragraph of Struggle for Indian Independence (1915–47), two recent edits have changed "In August 1947 the British partitioned the land, with India and Pakistan each achieving independence on terms Gandhi disapproved." to "In August 1947 the British partitioned the land, with India and Pakistan each achieving independence on terms approved by Gandhi.", thus reversing the sense.

I'm pretty sure he disapproved of the way the partition was done (and that is implied by the preceding sentence). I'd make the change, but given the contentiousness of this page... Rwessel (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm slowly editing the article (slowed down even more right now because I'm rereading his autobiography and caught up with a few other things). I'm done with the lead for now (which states clearly he disapproved). Will get to early life etc next, and ... eventually to ... that. You could change it back, but in my experience most Wikipedia readers are smart, they know when POV is being pushed like the stalled car it is, and their eyes glaze over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

About time we got this up to GA status..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi being shot pic

File:Gandhideath.jpg

Should we link this pic or is it too violent? ABHIJEET (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Before we discuss whether the photo should be used on this page or on Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi (where, if genuine, it would almost surely be relevant), we need to be confident that the photograph is (1) indeed genuine and not a photoshop job, and (2) in public domain. Anyone know where it originated, and/or where it was published ? Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a copyvio screenshot from Nine Hours to Rama —SpacemanSpiff 19:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, it looked real. As no author, source was given I have tagged it as copyvio. ABHIJEET (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

Hi, I'm trying to add a citation for an unreferenced statement about his role in the Congress Party. I've got a printed biography by Jad Adams to cite. Thanks. --Elliot.billingsley (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Elliot.billingsley (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elliot.billingsley You can either wait until you're confirmed or add all the necessary info here and someone will probably add the cite for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

write a short autobiography

i want to tell that this biography is very long . i am a student of class 7 . I wanted the biography of mahatma gandhi just for my holiday homework,so ,if you are reading this then please edit this biography. -niyati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.80.9 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do your own homework. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Niayti: People who have done big things (good or evil) should always have big biographies. Trying to shorten such biographies would be saying all that they did is not worth knowing and understanding. That is disrespect for not only the person but for the student of the person. I hope you have more respect for yourself as a student than to take the easy road of lazy expediency. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys... dont be so mean. Niyati, try this one https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha: I wasn't trying to be mean, my apologies if it seemed that way. I was just trying to explain to Niayti that it is unrealistic to expect a small biography at Wikipedia for a great person. His request for us to edit the article to make it easier for him was (IMHO) a bit excessive for a "class 7" (which I assume is similar to the American "7th grade" age 12-13) student. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Niyati, here is a recently published 600+ page book that covers just the first three sections of our article, ie the period before Gandhi even became involved in India's freedom struggle. Doesn't the wikipedia article magically look shorter now ? :)

More seriously: you can ask at Wikipedia's Humanity Desk for help finding reading resources more suited to your age and purpose. Simple Wikipedia, as Dharmadhyaksha point out, is a useful site to check in general but their article on Mahatma Gandhi is not very good, and I'd recommend against using it for your school work. Hope this helps. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Niyati, you might want to look at the different tabs in http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi.aspx Remember the best way to do homework is to read those biographies, but then write your homework in your own words. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: what drama is inspried by ga...

182.19.54.184 posted this comment on 24 November 2013 (view all feedback).

what drama is inspried by gandhi to take satyam & ahimsa

Any thoughts?

Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

He imbibed truthfulness from the characteristics of the hero of the play ‘Harishchandra’. He wondered― ‘why should not we be truthful like Harishchandra?’ The question haunted him day and night. King Harishchandra became the ideal hero of his dream and the paragon of truth. He so inspired him as to remain truthful all through his life even under trying circumstances and to stand firm on his convictions.

He was not the father of nation

False claim: As per the statement given by the government, it says that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi cannot be accorded the 'Father of the Nation' title as the Constitution does not permit any titles except educational and military ones. While giving reference to the Article 18 (1) of the Constitution, the MHA had said that it does not permit any titles except education and military ones.

Hence, many textbooks and articles misdirect the students and the knowledge seekers by impounding on the claim that he was the father of the nation which is totally false.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit Dande (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You can read "though not officially" .. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox had this superior photograph which has been suddenly changed. I can find no trace of how the change occured. What happened? 122.172.32.91 (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That image was deleted for copyrights issues. Refer Commons:Deletion requests/File:MKGandhi.jpg. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.122.172.11.178 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 201आइए आज गाँधी की कुछ असलियत जानते है, जो हमे हमारी स्कूली किताबो मे पढ़ने को नही म...

117.201.48.233 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you need to get changed? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Father of Nation" origin

This April 2012 article in Hindustan Times says;

"As per Wikipedia, it was Subhas Chandra Bose who used the term for Mahatma Gandhi, in a radio address from Singapore in 1944. Later, it was recognised by the Indian government. When Gandhi was assassinated, India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in a radio address to the nation, had announced that the Father of the Nation "is no more.""

Currently i see that no such claim of Bose calling him FoN is made through our article. Any idea where the claim went and why did it go away? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014

Gute morge kann ich ebes ändre?

84.159.33.209 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ... You could also post in de:Mahatma Gandhi. Sam Sailor <sup>Sing</sup> 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done: As this is the English Wikipedia, your request should be in English, however, you cannot change the page, because it is semi-protected. If you wish to request that a page is unprotected you must apply at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not ask here - Arjayay (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Celibacy section, the sentence, "But Gandhi said that if he wouldn't let Manu sleep with her, it would be a sign of weakness.[189]" the word "her" should be replace with "him". Reference to the article justifies this, which also makes the sentence comprehensible in context.

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 03:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Imari and Kai were princes, amd they were the most important people in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.9.118 (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Gandhi as anti-apartheid?

Gandhi is in Category:International_opponents_of_apartheid_in_South_Africa. Considering that Gandhi was murdered months before the 1948 elections after which apartheid legislation begun, I find this dubious. In particular, considering his racist views on SA blacks (at least earlier in his life, I do not know about later) and the fact that he apparently expressed pro-segregation sentiments, I find it hard to believe that he was particularly opposed to the legislation, apart from how it may have affected SA Indians (hagiographies notwithstanding). Is there a cite where he specifically criticises any prospects, plans or actions that could reasonably be termed "apartheid"?LCNielsen (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014

Please insert link or explanation who is "Guha". It can be read at some points of the text that "Guha argued..." or "Guha noted..." without any previous mentioning of Ramachandra Guha, or explanation of who he is, or what connection he has to Mahatma Gandhi. JhnyBp

Done I've linked the first occurrence. If you think more information should be given, please state exactly what should be added and reopen the request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014

Friends,

The article on Gandhi currently includes this line:

"In 1888, Gandhi travelled to London, England, to study law at University College London, where he studied Indian law and jurisprudence and trained as a barrister at the Inner Temple."

This is incorrect in several respects: (1) Gandhi did not study law at University College London. (2) While he did achieve barrister status, he did not "train" as a barrister. (3) And he did not study Indian law and jurisprudence in England.

A correct description of Gandhi's law studies would read as follows:

"In 1888, Gandhi traveled to London, England. There he enrolled in the Inner Temple and studied law until he was called to the bar in 1891."

The article also includes this line: "Ramachandra Guha argues that when he returned to India in 1914 he was proficient at public speaking, fund-raising, negotiations, media relations, and self-promotion.[31]"

You might add: "Charles DiSalvo points out that Gandhi developed these skills in the context of his South African law practice." And you might also correct 1914 to 1915. Gandhi left South Africa in 1914, but did not return to India until 1915.

Charles R. DiSalvo, M.K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law: The Man Before the Mahatma (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). (ISBN: 0520280156)

Submitted by: Professor Charles R. DiSalvo [Author of M.K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law: The Man Before the Mahatma (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). (ISBN: 0520280156).] Woodrow A. Potesta Professor of Law College of Law West Virginia University PO Box 6130 Morgantown WV 26506 304-293-7342 cdisalvo@wvu.edu

98.236.101.170 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there 98.236.101.170,

I have actioned your edit request as follows:

• Apropos your first comment, I haven't used your sentence verbatim - the call to the bar (which I have now linked) is mentioned further down the page. I have corrected the inaccurate details of how the UK bar system works.

• I have included your observation in the appropriate section. Please would you provide a page number for the reference.

 Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 06:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've undone the edit. In a much worked and trafficked article such as this, we can't have authors attempting to have their own books cited by posting a suggestion on the talk page. It violates WP conflict of interests policy. What the IP says might or might not be true, but it needs to be independently evaluated for accuracy, notability, and WP:DUE. Until such time as this is done, I've undone the edit. My apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the Ramchandra Guha sentence as well. It seems the only section we mention historians by name and present their arguments is the Principles, Beliefs, ... section. What Guha, a maverick popular historian, says I don't believe is notable enough for that WP:Summary style section, which, for the most part, sticks to factual details. I should add that the IPs earlier comments seem reasonable. I had myself not heard of the UCL connection until I saw the Wikipedia article. UCL goes unmentioned in most major biographies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PS I am traveling and don't have access to the larger literature, but I did just get the professor's book on kindle. It is rich in factual details, but even it doesn't mention UCL except in the acknowledgments. Perhaps the professor can help us out here: what exactly did Gandhi do at UCL (which apparently does claim him as an alum)? Audit a few courses? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PPS Philg88, has decided to resort to edit-warring! I have left a post on his user talk page and will give him some time to reconsider, to at least self-revert until we have heard from Prof Disalvio. My main point is that we can't go around mentioning scholars by name and including their opinion in the distilled chronological history sections of the Gandhi page. There are too many opinions around, and before long the article will balloon back to its previous size, the hard-won summary, the work of many editors over time, going to waste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Reinstating an edit that removed inaccurate information is hardly "edit warring". Please see the further comment at my talk page.  Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 06:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, granted you did correct some inaccuracies, but you left the Indian jurisprudence bit in. According to DiSalvio, for the bar, Gandhi took exams in English common law and Roman law (requirements) and for the University of London matriculation more exams in Latin, French, and Physics (in addition, presumably, to English, and English history); failed the latter in his first attempt; changed from Physics to Chemistry, redoubled his efforts and passed the second. He didn't study Indian jurisprudence specifically (unless one sees it, e.g. the Indian Penal Code (1860) as composed by Macaulay in 1834-38, as Macaulay did, as reform of English common law.)

Granted I was impatient too. Please accept my apologies. DiSalvio's book has some other details, e.g. out of a total of 109 students taking the bar exam, Gandhi placing 34 out of 72 successful candidates, which might be useful in the article. They seems counter Gandhi's own very modest assessment of his abilities and drive as a student. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I think Desalvio's book would make a good source for this section, but not necessarily with quotes. The 2012 edition is available for preview at Google Books but the 2013 edition he himself cites is not. Maybe it would be better to use the online version for those readers interested in more detail. I'll leave it to you as to which parts merit inclusion. Best,  Philg88 <sup>♦talk</sup> 07:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

Friends,

As I have pointed out previously, Gandhi did not study Indian law during his time as a law student in Britain.

Accordingly, the current sentence that reads as follows should be corrected:

In 1888, Gandhi travelled to London, England, where he studied Indian law and jurisprudence and enrolled at the Inner Temple with the intention of becoming a barrister.

This sentence can be corrected by deleting the word "Indian."

I am the author of "M.K. Gandhi, Attorney at Law: The Man before the Mahatma" (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013).

Charles R. DiSalvo Woodrow A.Potesta Professor of Law West Virginia University College of Law PO Box 6130 Morgantown WV 26506 cdisalvo@wvu.edu 304-293-7342

Please correct this.

157.182.120.232 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Done as "Indian law" was unsourced. You might want to think about creating a Wikipedia account so you don't have to keep on adding your personal contact info. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 23:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Prof DiSalvo, What about the University College, London (UCL) connection? UCL claims Gandhi as an alum. I've been reading your book. The only place it mentions UCL is in the acknowledgments. Other biographies I have read, don't mention UCL at all. Was Gandhi at UCL? If so, what did he do there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 07 May 2014

I think information could be added into subsection: World War II and Quit India To reflect Gandhi's documented hypocrisy after he refused his pneumonia stricken wife penicillin in favor of traditional Indian medicine, solely due to his 'spiritual beliefs'. His wife due to being denied penicillin, a 'western treatment', was let die on 22 February 1944 and yet only SIX weeks later when he had a bad malaria attack allowed doctors to save his life with the non traditional 'western medicine' quinine. Although quinine is natural he had also allowed British doctors to preform a appendectomy on him when he had appendicitis in February 1924, so once again in the past had no problem accepting western and non traditional medicines for himself.

It could also me noted that Gandhi's son Devdas badly wanted to give his mother the life saving Penicillin but his requests were completely denied by Gandhi apparently in favor of letting her die.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.102.152 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to support any information you may wish to have added. Thank you, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Naked Ambition

Hi all, After reading a book named "Naked Ambitions" by Jad Adams (a historian), we come to know about mind-blowing facts about The Father of the Nation's procual life. Do you think, these informations should be added to the article? Remember Jad Adams is a qualified historian (not a biographer or journalist that we can call the informations fake). At the same time I am coming to know all these details for the first time and in no other book I have read so. I am totally confused. Further comments are welcomed. RRD13 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Jad Adams is a TV producer and director who is also the author of popular books on several topics. Among his books are: AIDS: The HIV Myth, Rudyard Kipling, 'A History of Kings & Princes Garth and Forest Hill, A Brief History of Women and the Vote, Double Indemnity: Murder for Insurance, Tony Benn: A Biography, The History of Shirley Oaks Children's Home, Pankhurst, Madder Music, Stronger Wine: The Life of Ernest Dowson, Poet and Decadent, Hideous Absinthe: A History of the Devil in a Bottle, in addition to his book on Gandhi. While I have no doubt that his books are well-written, he is not a professional historian of South Asia. Wikipedia, in general, gives greater weight to scholarly, peer-reviewed sources; see, for example: WP:Reliable sources#Some types of sources.

This article has used scholarly biographies of Gandhi such as those by historians Judith M. Brown or Stanley Wolpert or political scientists Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, or work on Indian nationalism and decolonization such as that of Anthony Low or Ravinder Kumar. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what facts you are referring to, but if you mean Gandhi's experiments with celibacy or "Brahmacharya" in 1946 during his stay in Bengal, then please consider that they been public knowledge since 1946 itself, Gandhi himself widely discussing it with his followers during his Bengal sojourn, and many authors writing about it thereafter, including Gandhi's secretary, Nirmal Kumar Bose. They are also discussed in Celibacy and experiments ... section of the Gandhi article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 24 March 2014 (U

Can you be more specific what you want to add or specify ? Shrikanthv (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The book Gandhi: Naked Ambition is available for preview on Google Books here. As for the author, " He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and is currently a Visiting Research Fellow of the School of Advanced Study, University of London." This makes Adams a noted academic and the book is published by a reputable publisher. That means it passes the test of a reliable source and is therefore suitable as a reference for the article where relevant. ► Philg88 ◄ <sup>talk</sup> 09:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but neither the Fellowship of the Royal Historical Society, awarded routinely to popular historians, nor Visiting Research Fellowship, a temporary appointment, makes his work scholarly, reliable, by Wikipedia's definition, though it may be. Scholarly work is usually peer-reviewed, published by scholarly publishers, and reviewed in scholarly journals. To date, the book has not been reviewed in any journals. Among reliable sources, Wikipedia gives more weight to scholarly sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My problem is the line "we come to know about mind-blowing facts about The Father of the Nation's sexual life.... I am coming to know all these details for the first time." Welcome to Wikipedia wehere the facts are already in the article. Best look at the large scholarly literature on the topic--much of which is already summarized here. Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen and Shrikanthv: A summary of the book can be accessedhere. RRD13 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: That's why I put the "where relevant" in italics for emphasis, e.g. a sweeping generalisation unsupported by other sources would not be valid. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ <sup>talk</sup> 10:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

British enemies of Gandhi (Churchillians usually--like Roberts) have this strange interest in Gandhi's naked-non-sex. Seems to get them very excited. Maybe it blows their minds. But Adams has not added anything new. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rjensen +1. I also agree with FowlerAndFowler, Adams should not be included in this article. --Tito☸Dutta 04:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Really distastefull opinonated personnal attach thats what i could see , I would not really support such proclaimed truths Shrikanthv (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That last sentence is badly spelt and very poor English. By "proclaimed truths", do you mean "allegations"?

Gandhi was a great man. But he was also a hypocrite. For instance, he would not allow his first wife to have antibiotics because he disliked modern medicine. Because of this, she died from pneumonia. Later on, he himself used modern medicine to save his own life. Sources are available if required. Best wishes. Fletcherbrian (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

High-Souled?

What on earth is high-souled supposed to mean. Maha is best rendered as 'Great' and Atma of course is 'Soul'. Hence Great Soul. 114.143.119.135 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

formatting error

Indentation error after the Einstein quotation. Article's semi-protected status means anonymous users can't make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.49.170 (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Shy and Bombay

I've removed the statement that says his practice in Bombay failed because he was too shy. The source does not say that. What it says is that his first case was a fiasco because he didn't have the courage to get up and cross examine. That is not the same thing as saying that his practice failed because of shyness (or even that his practice failed because he couldn't get up and plead on his first case). Shy he might well have been, and Brown says this in numerous places, but the statement as written is not supported. --regentspark (comment) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Having double checked the source, you're right. I got a little sloppy, because I've been dealing a lot with drive-by tagging of unpleasant information by people who do not understand referencing convention, and got a little impatient. Thanks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks  :) Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to past tense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Awards Nelson Mandela, the leader of South Africa's struggle to eradicate racial discrimination and segregation, is a prominent non-Indian recipient. In 2011, Time magazine named Gandhi as one of the top 25 political icons of all time.[232]

I recommend "was a prominent non-Indian recipient."

81.110.177.180 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Keiran

 Done Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

"memorial?"

"In regard to this bill Gandhi sent out a memorial to Joseph Chamberlain, British Colonial Secretary, asking him to reconsider his position on this bill."

Surely this should be "memorandum", not "memorial"? And the sentence is also a little wordy; I suggest:

"Gandhi asked Joseph Chamberlain, British Colonial Secretary, to reconsider his position on this bill." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalmar (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Change - His Name Was Never Mahatma

"Mahatma" being an honorific title for the man, the title for this whole article should be changed to accurately reflect the name of the man the article is about: Mohandas Gandhi. There was never a person named "Mahatma Gandhi," just as there was never a person named "King George." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9A80:D8:F4FD:7653:4EA5:A07E (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. See the move nomination block at the top of this talk page for links to those discussions. Rwessel (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. Consensus is the rule here, not fact. Nevermind that redirects fully compensate for any ignorance on the part of Wikipedia readers. You might be thinking, "however understandable and excusable that ignorance might be, Wikipedia shouldn't reflect it." But it does. So there ya go. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the best scholarship, which calls him "Mahatma Gandhi". Anyone reading the article will quickly shed his ignorance. Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It would be an exaggeration to say it relies on Google results, but not much of one. Wikipedia: COMMONNAME instructs editors to use scholarly resources, but they don't. In any case, scholarly sources will always use the common name because people need to know what it's about. There's no such thing as a physical world redirect. Not so in Wikipedia. Redirects fix every single problem with using the correct but not popularly known names for things. Yet WP pretends they don't. And I've still yet to find anyone with a satisfactory reason beyond that it's the accepted practice. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, COMMONNAME doesn't refer to "scholarly" at all. What it actually says: "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 14:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that applicable Wikipedia: COMMONNAME here should be Mahatma Gandhi when in fact the most applicable common name here actually is Gandhi. Scholars also have referred to him as Gandhi. The title should changed to Gandhi or his original name. Spandaze 8:00 PM 13 October, 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spandaze (talk • contribs)

August 2014

A very good article! Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Gandhi a leader of the Congress?

Quote: Gandhi took leadership of Congress in 1920 End of quote.

How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.242.171 (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

edit required

A line mentions - Indians widely describe Gandhi as the father of the nation.[10][11] Here it needs to be mentioned that this is not official and even constitutions does not allow such titles to be used. The citation for above line already have this detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.95.19 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The wikilink makes it clear that it is an honorific and that level of detail is not needed. --NeilN <sup>talk to me</sup> 09:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)