Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma vs. Mohandas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit or add comments here. Leave new comments at the current talk page. The following discussions dealt with how the Gandhi article should be named.

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

Contents

[edit] Name of article in different language wp

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

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

[edit] What is more common, Mahatma or Mohandas?

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

[edit] Gandhi on mahatma title

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

[edit] what do people look up?

I personally feel the edits that were done to convert Mahatma to Mohandas in multiple pages was not necessary. As I had mentioned in Jeandré,'s talk page, the search results in Google show "Mahatma Gandhi" is being searched for a lot more number of times than "Mohandas Gandhi".
Now lets see what Wikipedia is meant for. It's for looking up information. Replacing Mahatma with Mohandas in every page where the text appears, means lesser people are going to find a wikipedia link while they search. Redirection to Mahatma from Mohandas (his official name but not the name by which he is known) is the best approach, which is the way it was till a few days back, not the other way round.
--Jay 22:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Jay on the statement that the editing replacing Mahatmas with Mahandas was unnecessary. The titles of Mahatmas and Mahandas are virtually the same thing, and apparently Gandhi went by both titles. The names aren't in dispute with one another, and it's common fact that Gandhi (Mahatmas or Mahandas, whatever you prefer) was a great man.--Juicyboy 325
"Lesser people"? RickK 23:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ahh.. lesser number of people i meant. this refers to the google thing where 205,000 results are returned for "Mahatma Gandhi" as opposed to 30,700 for "Mohandas Gandhi". Now with the Mahatma-to-Mohandas rechristening a lesser number of people than before will really find what they're looking for.
--Jay 23:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The grammatically correct term is "fewer" since people can be counted. --Jiang
Thanks Jiang for that piece of info. Whats the antonym of fewer ?
--Jay 22:54, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Google ranks its results based on links, not on what people are searching for. Interestingly wikipedia links for, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mohandas+Gandhi%22&start=7 7th, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Mahatma+Gandhi%22&start=59 59th.
--- Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z
You're right about Google. Google ranks a page based on the number of hyperlinks that exist on the internet that link to it. Regarding the search results you mentioned, what did u want to say?
--Jay 08:42, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Mahatma as POV nickname

Be that as it may, "Mahatma" is a nickname and is POV. Not everyone need agree that Gandhi was a mahatma.
--Graft 13:47, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That makes sense ... Jay 19:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Or that spirits/souls exist.
-- Jeandré, 2003-09-04t19:38z
The Reserve Bank of India calls him Mahatma Gandhi on all the currency notes it produces. Mahatma Gandhi has become more his name than a title, in India. This is reflected ALL over India. Indian text books, magazines, news papers, TV Channels, people, leaders refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi, or even as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and almost never as Mohandas Gandhi. (Further, an average Indian is inclined to think that Mohandas Gandhi is perhaps the name of Mahatma's grand son !! So popular is the name Mahatma, and strange, the name Mohandas Gandhi) So, i guess it is NOT POV. Or atleast this is a special case where the POV rules have to be obviated.
--Kesava 05:08, 10 Sep 2003. (UTC)

[edit] What naming conventions of wp says

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

  1. "Use the most common name of a person or thing ..." (from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
  2. (from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names))
"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? "
"We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in other search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia"
"...search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often.."

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

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

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

On the other hand, "Peter the Great" is titled "Peter I of Russia"; similarly "Ivan the Terrible"; 'place-it-at-the-most-commonly-known' is a convention, not a hard-and-fast rule. Personally I won't be terribly offended if Gandhi lives at Mahatma, but:
  1. Placing the article at "Mohandas" emphasizes that "Mahatma" is not his real name, something that isn't well-known.
  2. Placing it at "Mahatma" creates a bad precedent for other POV titles.
The redirect suffices to take care of those who come looking for Mahatma Gandhi.
--Graft 23:18, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The names you have mentioned come under a different context. They follow the convention for Royal and Monarchical Titles Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) and in case of Pseudonyms check Wikipedia:Redirect, Section: What do we use redirects for?
For the issue of POV titles, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect
--Jay 18:07, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)
By Graft's logic 'Mother Teresa' page' title should be changed to 'Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu'.
--Astavakra Nov 18, 2003
Well, no need to get snippy, as I said I wouldn't (and am not going to) make a big deal if it got moved... but anyway, the difference is that "Mahatma" is a clear word of praise, e.g. the Indian government likes to pass it around as propaganda, to build up the "Father of the Country" mythos, whereas Mother Teresa is not so obviously laudatory. But whatever.
--Graft 16:37, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Peter the Great is an exceptional case because royal names are such a pain that WP chose to standardize them.
Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are exceptional cases where the honorific version of the name is universally recognized as unambiguous as to the person intended; when you want to remove an honorific from other names, the best argument is "they're no Gandhi or Mother Teresa" (in terms of recognizability of alternatives). Whether they deserve the honorific is a PoV question; it is not PoV to admit the facts about its role in recognizability. If you use "Mohandas Gandhi", you confuse the reader more than if you just said "Gandhi": most people know there are relatively minor Gandhis, even if they don't know their given names, and are less likely to follow the link and find the truth. Use [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]] to link, and make sure that both names continue to be mentioned in the lead 'graph, as now (preferably, IMO, as now, mentioning Mohandas first so that the clueless won't skip reading the lead 'graph & getting educated).
BTW, an honorific is not a nickname (as i think someone says in the lost section that i moved above), nor much like one in most cases, but where the nickname or pseudonym is the best known, we use it in titles, e.g. Bill Clinton off the top of my head.
--Jerzy(t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

[edit] origin of 'mahatma' title

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

This is valuable info; enough so that both accounts can be mentioned. But in any case, there is much more urgent info than "why Mahatma?" that belongs in the lead 'graph. I'm moving the current language abt that to a short section further down in the article.
The same section would also be a good place to discuss controversy (outside WP!) about the title, e.g., i'll bet the Pakistani gov't (ungratefully) and maybe Hindu fundamentalist/separatists (like his assassin) never use it.
--Jerzy(t) 21:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

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

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

No. I still agree with you. Graft 06:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to word your concern here. I personally agree that it should be moved. To be 100% clear, the two reasons I reverted your move were:
  1. Page moves of this kind are often controversial, and therefore consensus should always first be sought on the talk page. In this case there was moreover an existing discussion.
  2. Pages should be renamed using the "move" function instead of cutting and pasting text, to preserve edit histories.
    --Fredrik | talk 16:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Newer discussion Dec'05-Jan'06

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

I appreciate the idea and the concept behind it, but I honestly, most sincerely don't think it is necessary. The article and most users editing it have already taken great pains to liberate it from fancruft, but I think this sin is a necessary evil. Jai Sri Rama!
--Rama's Arrow 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think creating a redirect to here from the proposed names may not be a bad idea.
--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Such re-directs already exist and some of the reasons as to why this is named Mahatma Gandhi are mentioned on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar.--Gurubrahma 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes Gurubrahma, I stand corrected. The possibilities (Mohandas Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, M. K. Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi, Gandhiji) are directed to the same page (here). Thanks.
--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this is the right place - he is most commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi. Regards,
Ben Aveling 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it may be of consideration though that Gandhiji himself has written as follows regarding the title of Mahatma: ... For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less ... Ref: [1] (Autobiography)
--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Miljoshi, you are right. :-) But Gandhiji wasn't able to stop people calling him "Mahatma" during his life, and he certainly won't be able to stop them now. "Mahatma Gandhi" is by far the most common term. (I'm sure many people know him by no other name.)
--Writtenonsand 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)