Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Request to change name to just “Gandhi” Sept 11th 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a move request open above and that's where comments on the title should be made.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Gandhi is almost always addressed by just his last name w/out the MK or Mahatma and he himself disliked the Mahatma title. If you are going by what he is most famously called the answer is simply his last name. Yes, there are other famous people with the last name Gandhi but when you say Gandhi everyone knows immediately that you are referring to him. If you are referring to a different Gandhi you need to clarify that cause just Gandhi alone will make people think you mean the most famous one, this one. Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Oppose - I hope you are aware of what you are saying. Appu (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Strong oppose Please stop wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC) please stick to objective facts people instead of personal attacks, assumptions & insults Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

i am very aware of what i am saying, i have studied Gandhi, read his autobiography & i articulated my reasons so if you disagree please articulate your reason’s based off of facts instead of assumptions with no facts stated & insults. I have noticed assumptions with no facts stated to refute & insults are common among senior edits. On this topic i articulated my reasons & all the people who oppose did was state no reasons and resort to assumptions, disrespectful tone of anger against me. All i did was state objective facts so why the desire to be mean to me for no reason? Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There was no insult. It is an objective fact that a WP:SNOW opposition to a proposal is a waste of time. And it also not appropriate to have multiple move requests going on simultaneously. Wait until the one above closes. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not an objective fact at all, it is a perfect time to address it while it is on people’s minds & a good idea to give it it’s own section. i articulated my reasons very well and comments like “do you know what u are saying” and “stop wasting the communities time” when i accurately articulated pertinent information are derogatory and insults. Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Still, as User:Anachronist wrote above, it is inappropriate for the same article to undergo multiple move requests at the same time. Wait until the first move request has finished. JIP | Talk 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ok, it is no big deal, people are already suggesting the same thing as me in the current move page, i have no problem with deleting it or even MK but what i do take offense to is senior editors feeling it appropriate to bully, insult, speak in a condescending tone to a new editor who articulate his honest view and then another senior editor claiming the insults are objective facts Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

saying “stop wasting the communities time” is a mean non objective repremand. It is mean, i did nothing intentionally mean so why do senior editors feel the need to be disrespectful? I did nothing disrespectful and i am new so if i accidentially didn’t follow wikipedia tradition please very politely issue construction criticism & don’t be mean & disrespectful Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved Sceptre (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Mahatma Gandhi → Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – word "mahatma" is a honorific title, and using this in article's title violates WP:NPOV, WP:TITLESINTITLES and also MOS:HONORIFICs Uttarpradeshi (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Even better would be Mohandas K. Gandhi, the name he used as the author of his autobiography. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions and The Oxford Companion to British History both give "Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand." 99to99 (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Snow oppose : WP:COMMONNAME lists this very article as an example of how to use a name that is recognizable rather than 'official': Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). As for the honorific title, MOS:HONORIFIC says that where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. This is obviously also the case here. What would be a viable option within policy is to rename the article to simply Gandhi, though I would personally oppose that too. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder what the nominator was thinking, since WP:TITLESINTITLES also specifically lists Mahatma Gandhi as an exception... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I believe the nom got it from Talk:Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)#Requested move 7 September 2021 which discusses the title in title. — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Apaugasma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I tried my darndest to save the name "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" for a long time, but one time when I was away from WP, the Mahatma-ists had their way. Having said this, the name "Mahatma Gandhi" has remained (mostly) unopposed, even unquestioned, for upward of ten years. "Mahatma" is what pretty much everyone calls him even the Times of London ("The man who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi has had a library dedicated to him in the latest attempt by right-wing Hindu groups to rehabilitate ...") Speaking of "right-wing Hindu groups," making the name longer, "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi," could also reduce Gandhi's presence on the internet (which those same Hindu groups would welcome) as most people who search for him know him only as "Mahatma." (This though is not my main point, just a passing thought.) I note that Britannica has changed the phrasing of the original signed article on Gandhi by B. R. Nanda which began with "MKG ..." to "Mahatma Gandhi, byname of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, ..." Long story short: I have a good feeling that the proposal will not pass. It is entirely in good faith but comes too late. On the other hand, if people want to change the name of the page to Gandhi (which redirects to it), in the manner of Churchill, I will support the move (despite Indira Gandhi and her notable progeny). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

PS It would have help had I checked before I opened my big mouth. Churchill, Darwin, Freud, Newton aren't the page names, but redirect to them. So, now I'm not sure about moving it to Gandhi, especially in light of RegentsParks comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the examples you mentioned (Winston Churchill, Charles Darwin, etc.) are the way they are because of the following clause in WP:CONCISE: neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for conciseness. Gandhi is a bit of a special case though, being commonly known by his title rather than by his given name. But per RegentsPark, there are too many other notable people with that name, and I personally think it's a bad idea anyway to have a WP:SINGLENAME in any case where a somewhat fuller name is also common (though there are many WP pages that do have a single name in such a case: Jesus rather than Jesus of Nazareth, Ali rather than Ali ibn Abi Talib, etc.). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicely explained @Apaugasma:. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

PPS I note also that the United Nations in its resolution of June 2007 to make Gandhi's birthday the International Day of Non-Violence, called him "Mahatma Gandhi" (here) even if they copied a little from us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I vehemently opposed the move to Mahatma Gandhi (just reread that request!) but, with time, I've concluded I was wrong. Gandhi is not a good enough title since we have so many of the unrelated Gandhi family and Mahatma is definitely the most common usage. Fowler, above, has reasoned through this much better than I can so definitely oppose. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. (I would, however, be open to moving the page to Gandhi, which already redirects here anyway.) -- Calidum 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:HONOURIFICS, WP:TITLESINTITLES; and F&fs and RPs comments — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mahatma Gandhi has been the established common name for decades. It is much better known worldwide than his real name. JIP | Talk 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Mohandas Gandhi asked people not to call him Mahatma. Thanks to the nominator for supporting Gandhi's request. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That does not change the fact that Mahatma Gandhi is the common name. The subject of an article has no authority over the article. That Gandhi has been dead for over seventy years has no bearing on this matter. JIP | Talk 03:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • JIP I was reading everyone's comments about the issue, but dont want to interfere because i have already cleared my opinion in this matter above, but still i have to come and type something, because i feel it is very much necessary. so i just read the comment of JIP, i respect his opinion i dont want to counter his opinion, but he said "That gandhi has been dead", "that gandhi" particularly is kind of disrespectful for a great man like Mahatma gandhi, i know i dont support this name, but that is because of wikipedia's policy violation, otherwise i support "mahatma" word, becuase he was a "Mahatma" (Great soul). so i request JIP to be a little respectful towards "Father of Our Nation" "Mahatma Gandhi" Uttarpradeshi (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • and ya let me clear this, in the above comment, its totally about user JIP's comment, it has nothing to do with the user at personal level. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I did not call Mahatma Gandhi "that Gandhi". The word "that" was a conjunction. The sentence meant "Gandhi has been dead for over seventy years, but this has no bearing on this matter". JIP | Talk 07:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. I think it is because of my english.LOL. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Don't worry - it's an uncommon, formal sentence structure that you may not have ever seen before! The more common way to say it is "The fact that ...." instead of just "That ...". However, they are equivalent in meaning, so I can definitely affirm that JIP meant no harm!
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies here. She He is better known as "Mahatma Gandhi" worldwide and the nominator doesn't much know about horrific title, which mainly using Dr, Prof, Datuk, etc. 36.77.95.164 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "She"? Mahatma Gandhi was a man. JIP | Talk 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Oops sorry. I think mahatma was women. 36.77.95.164 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • He was biologically a man no doubt, but many associates thought his nurturing abilities transcended gender and that psychosocially he was part-woman. (See Bapu, My Mother by Manubehn Gandhi.) He had overcome, in other words, some of the common vanities of gender. He had also overcome the common vanities of class and status. Going through the last 30 years of his life dressed uncompromisingly in a loincloth and sandals, even on the steps of Buckingham Palace, alone will do that. Faults he might have had aplenty, but in the degree to which he went to neutralize narcissism, and perhaps to transform it, he is unique among the major political leaders of the modern era. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Moving the page to his official name makes no sense as the Mahatma title is unknown to the world as an honorific, instead it is believed to be his real name, albeit falsely. With respect to WP:COMMONNAME and for all practical reasons, I frown upon this move. In fact, this action seems more of a political move than a constructive one. (Appu)
• Strong oppose: What was the nominator thinking. "Mahatma Gandhi" himself is mentioned in WP:TITLESINTITLES as an example for exceptions where you CAN USE titles since they are widely known by that name (WP:COMMONNAME).--2409:4073:4E81:E4D:94CB:3DC6:FBC2:64F4 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For someone who is an IP, you sure seem to know your WP rules a lot better than I. And I have been shunting words on the page for 15 years. In any case, the nominator's proposal seems to be in good faith. There is nothing wrong with having a person's full name (after all this page was titled MKG for ten years), but if everyone was allowed their full name we'd have to change to Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill a gentleman who bowed stiffly to the mother of Charles Philip Arthur George and his sister Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise when she alighted dressed in black at the London airport having been pulled away from the Treetops Hotel in Kenya, where she and her husband were being instructed by Edward James Corbett formerly of Naini Tal. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The better comparison would be to Mehmet Oz and Phil McGraw, who are by far better known as "Dr. Oz" and "Dr. Phil", respectively. Mother Teresa is also a fair comparison, but I think Gandhi is best known as simply that. Yet, there is opposition to moving to that title on the basis that it's ambiguous, which is quite reasonable, but it just serves to remind us that WP:COMMONNAME, like all guidelines that rely on editors' interpretations of the criteria, is exactly that. WP Ludicer (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per APPU. Everyone known his by his current title. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi title is unknown to the majority of people. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Gandhi is best known and almost always addressed just by his last name. He, himself disliked the Mahatma title. Even though it is true there are other famous people with that last name he is clearly the most famous and when u say “Gandhi” everyone knows who are you are refering it. Tonyjohnsonhere (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Gandhi already redirects to this article. Gandhi himself may have disliked being called Mahatma, but that is irrelevant. Mahatma Gandhi is the common name, it's the name he's best known by throughout the world. There are probably many people who don't even know his real name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. JIP | Talk 10:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Apaugasma. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose No rationale provided to override the WP:COMMONNAME, which is allowed per WP:TITLESINTITLES. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On this day ... a hundred years of Gandhi and the loincloth

On 21 September 1921 in Madurai, India, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, aged 51, adopted the short dhoti (or loin-cloth) for the first time as a symbol of his identification with India's poor. He is shown here a few days later with Dr. Annie Besant en route to a meeting in Madras.

Next Tuesday (21st September), but possibly also Wednesday (22nd September), even Thursday (23rd) in some sources, is the 100th anniversary of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's adoption of the short dhoti (sometimes translated as the loincloth) as a mark of his identification with India's poor. Although pooh-poohed today in the shining India of starched-white tunics, trousers, and silk vests of the professional politicians—and enabled by the universal airconditioning in their world—it was a pivotal moment in both Indian nationalism and universal anti-colonialism. I was thinking about proposing a blurb and a picture, for "On this day" on the main page, but don't really know how, feeling too lazy to find out, and also unsure if the dates are available. Could someone nominate this for me? I would prefer his full name as "Mahatma" was then less widely used for him. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A DYK would also be good? Wish I could help with On this day, but I'm unaware of those nominations. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It might require more work than I have the stamina for now. Let me mull it over. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

Gandhi was a leader of the non-violent Indian Freedom Struggle and is also known as Father of the Nation. I think his introduction as a lawyer marginalizes his leadership and achievement. Would Wiki admin please look into this? Dionek (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dionek: Thanks for your very pertinent question on this special day. Please note in my thread above, this year is also the 100 anniversary of Gandhi adopting the short dhoti ("loin cloth") as a outward display of his identification with India's poor.

Please note that "Indian lawyer" is well-sourced not just in B. R. Nanda's Britannica article cited in the lead, but also in numerous sources published by academic publishers. Gandhi was a lawyer during his 21 years in South Africa; that is where the foundations of his notability were laid (nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience a la Ruskin, Thoreau, and Tolstoy (see Pietermaritzburg railway station, Tolstoy Farm). In a sense, he arrived fully formed in India at age 45.

He remains a figure of international notability, not just Indian. Please compare others of similar greatness: Abraham Lincoln (... was an American lawyer and statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.)

The article begins with, "was an Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British rule and in turn inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world." It acknowledges Gandhi's importance both to India and the world (the latter not just in the American civil rights movement or the anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa in the 1980s and early 90s, but also in myriad others such as Cesar Chavez and the farm workers in California, and Benigno Aquino Jr.'s fateful return to the Philippines).

As for "Father of the Nation," it begs the response: Which India, the one created in 1947, or the one it has become today? His role in one created in 1947 is already acknowledged in the first sentence. Whether a latter-day India—in which religious majoritarianism, high military expenditure, and low per capita income live side by side—is any longer an inheritor of the Gandhian legacy, is not something that is easy to decide (in the view of scholars). As for the expression "Father of the Nation," it is acknowledged in the last paragraph of the lead. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not write nonsense

QUOTE: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi[19] was born on 2 October 1869[20] into a Gujarati Hindu Modh[21]Bania family[22] in Porbandar (also known as Sudamapuri), a coastal town on the Kathiawar Peninsula and then part of the small princely state of Porbandar in the Kathiawar Agency of the Indian Empire END OF QUOTE

Porbandar was a kingdom and not part of any Indian Empire. MK Gandhi was a son of the prime minister of Porbundar kingdom. MK Gandhi was not a citizen of British India. He was a subject of Porbundar kingdom. Do not write wrong history. This page on Gandhi is a typical example of what William Logan mentioned about the fraudulent history writing in this subcontinent

QUOTE William Logan's words: ... and even in genuinely ancient deeds it is frequently found that the facts to be gathered from them are unreliable owing to the deeds themselves having been forged at periods long subsequent to the facts which they pretend to state. END OF QUOTE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.8.45 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The British Raj, or the British Indian Empire, consisted of British India which the British directly administered and the nominally self-governing princely states whose suzerain they (the British) were. Porbandar was a small princely state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Article says "Gandhi came from a poor family" which is incorrect (pretty much the opposite!)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope I'm at the right place.

Under Three years in London - Student of law, article presents: "Gandhi came from a poor family, and he had dropped out of the cheapest college he could afford." Source [52] (that looks dead).

Any quick research says the opposite: His wealthy family was from one of the higher castes (Indian social classes). He was the fourth child of Karamchand Gandhi, prime minister to the raja (ruler) of three small city-states, and Purtlibai, his fourth wife. Source

Julvad (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The source used is Gandhi's autobiography. I don't think was either "poor" or "wealthy", but it was certainly facing hard times at this stage because Gandhi's father had died and the sons were not established enough. In any case, I have removed the "poor family" terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you could be right. Gandhi was definitely not poor. But he definitely was poor to the standards of England. His father although was prime minister had never accumulated wealth. His education was partly raised his brother Laxmidas. He had to cut down expenses to bare minimum in college days to survive the heat of the expensive London. And yes, he did enroll in a not-so-good college. Appu (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Gandhi the Social Reformer

Shouldn't Mahatma Gandhi in introduction be called as a social reformer, for obvious reasons? Appu (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

And the obvious reasons being? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That he moved resolutions against untouchability in Congress since very early. The Poona Pact, Harijan Sevak Sangh or that his massive efforts to restore peace among religious communities in the early hours of independence and throughout his public life in general. Appu (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Anything related to the Indian National Congress (i.e. the increased participation of women of all castes and religions, or of Dalits) is subsumed under "political ethicist," as are his hunger strikes to stem religious violence before and after the partition of India. Outside of the INC, his attempts to integrate Dalits into the religious life of Hinduism, the reasons he offered for them, his rationales, for example, for the remarriage of Hindu child widows (i.e. that otherwise, their unneutralized libido could cause a disruption in the social fabric), his use of "Harijan" for Dalits, and so forth have all proved controversial, and people such as B. R. Ambedkar have roundly criticized him. As you will see in the Economic and society section of Dominion of India the condition of women and Dalits was low in 1947 despite Gandhi's attempts to integrate them in his civil disobedience movement of the 1930s. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

Pankaj7808 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

BOOKS BY MAHATMA GANDHI

1. An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth

2. The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas 0394714660 Book Cover

3. Peace: The Words and Inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi (Me-We) 1598422421 Book Cover

4. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings

5. Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings

6.Selected Political Writings

7. The Words of Gandhi

8. The Bhagavad Gita According to Gandhi

9. On Non-Violence

10. Non-Violent Resistance

11. The Way to God

12.All Men are Brothers

13. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule

14. Gandhi on Christianity

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

native pronunciation missing !

It's very embarrassing and colonialist to only have the English pronunciation of Gandhi's name. My addition of the native pronunciation in IPA was deleted with a silly reference to MOS:INDICSCRIPTS, which clearly talks only of avoiding Indic scripts and clearly encourages the addition of IPA pronunciation. --Espoo (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As you will see, you are not the first to bring this up: Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_14#Gujarati_pronunciation_and_spelling. Very likely there were others even earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in MOS:INDICSCRIPTS does it say to provide only the English pronunciation of the name of a person whose mother tongue is not English? --Espoo (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's exactly the same arguments from that archived past discussion that F&f linked. Should it be Gujarat pertaining to be a native of, or Hindi being a national leader and Hindi being the widely used language at that time, or all recognised Indian regional languages as he's recognised all over the country as a leader. — DaxServer (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Espoo: It is not the mother tongue that we generally reference; it is the national language. Thus Freud, Sartre, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Julius Caesar, have German, French, Spanish, and Latin respectively, although Sartre's mother, if you read Les Mots, (The Words), was Alsatian. But nationalism came late to India. You may know that during the drafting of the Constitution of India, the Constituent Assembly could not agree that India had a "national language" The Munshi-Ayyangar formula, a compromise, could come up with only the Official Language of the Federal Government, which now seem to be both Hindi and English in perpetuity. But if you can locate Gandhi pronouncing his full name in English in an audio clip, we could use it. We do so on the Subhas Chandra Bose and Kamala Harris pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Ping. I you don't have such a clip (reliably sourced), then we should close this thread. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

Can this template GAHN-THEE be added to the article's lead? Appu (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The correct pronunciation of "Gandhi" is not available in Respell. If you going to use "th," it would not be the voiceless one as in "thigh," which I've never heard anyone use, but the voiced as in "this," which is dh in Respell. But I've never really heard people use that either. It is probably best to stick to good old "d." The stress is on the first syllable. So it would be GAHN-dee. The final ee is not the very long one. Another possibility would be GAHN-dih Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the first one seems more promising. I shall add it. Revert it if anybody comes up with a better one. Appu (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Putlibai Gandhi into Mahatma Gandhi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

---

The subject does not appear independently notable. The only claim to notability is... being Mahatma Gandhi's mother, which however goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Of course she is notable, described as she was at great length not only in Gandhi's autobiography but in numerous sources. Please also note the general systemic bias against females of notability on WP, widely documented and discussed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose article appears well sourced and therefore notable enough for its own article Eopsid (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Follows WP:NOTE as article is significant enough per the references. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, Mahatma Gandhi's mother should be mentioned, but if you want to research her specifically, just make her a page if she doesn't have on already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.62.50 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Mahatma Gandhi is a figure of such world shattering importance (like Jesus or Stalin) that notability is inherited here in violation of the general rule. Surely there is plenty of research interest into his parents as individuals. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per 力 and everyone else.--NØ 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Putlibai Gandhi is a notable person. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Question: @Kashmiri: It will be a month tomorrow and thus far there is little support for the merge. If you think it is time to close, please ask an uninvolved editor to do so. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, @Kashmiri: As you have not asked an uninvolved editor to close this discussion, I am requesting one myself: @RegentsPark: or @SpacemanSpiff: may I importune you for this? Thanks. Pinging also @APPU: who created the page. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Though this doesn't require much thought, I don't think I should be closing discussions on this article. @Doug Weller: is probably clearly neutral but, like I said, there doesn't seem much grayness here. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bibliography tweak

Source 30 (“Ghandi: The Traditional Roots of Charisma”) links to a Google Books page that shows the correct page of the correct book, but, when you click out of the preview, you’re on the page for “Conversations with Picasso”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.2.109 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have corrected it. Thanks for bringing that into attention. Appu (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Remove citation

I propose this citation be removed. Mahatma Gandhi#cite note-4. It is obvious that Gandhi was a lawyer and there is ample space and citations dedicated to that in the body. Maybe as per WP:LEADCITE. Appu (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, LEADCITE is sometimes disregarded on many South Asia-related pages as a means of keeping disruption at bay. If you remove that citation, someone or another will soon appear with a gripe and a red pencil. There have already been some objections. That's my perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Was Ghandhi an expatriate

I am wondering if Ghandhi should be in Category:Indian expatriates in the United Kingdom and Category:Indian expatriates in South Africa? Another editor has told me that "Ghandhi was not an expatriate" because an expatiriate is someone who has taken up residence in another country. Some of this comes down to disagreeing if students are residents or not. I can see it going either way, still I think students from country X who go to country Y often become significant figures in cultural spread, so I see good reason to categorize by such. In the case of South Africa, I do not really see any way to argue that Ghandhi had not taken up residence in South Africa. I am thinking Ghandhi is in too many categories, but I do not see any easy way to reduce the number of categories he is in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It might help if you use the spelling of his name that is up there on the top of this page. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There do seem to be a lot of categories, to whit: 19th-century male writers, 20th-century male writers, 20th-century writers, ...

The word "expatriate," in my understanding of its meaning, implies some form of domicile. You don't have to renounce your native country, but your medium- to long-term principal home needs to be in the country in which you are an expatriate. So, Gandhi would not have been an expatriate in the UK where he was a student for three years, but very much so in South Africa. He lived there for 22 years, raised a family there, and I suspect had his civil rights movement there not taken off, and his goals thereby set on the prize of India, he might never have returned. But both the formative three years in England where he absorbed many influences (e.g. Ruskin's Unto this last which also Attlee did some years later) and the 22 in South Africa where he found his calling, are crucial to his biography whether or not he was an expatriate. There are after all many expatriates, the arc of whose lives do no justice to the spirit of expatriation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

PS @Johnpacklambert:, I meant "expatriation" in its reflexive meaning, i.e. withdrawing oneself from one's country. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I still think his 3 years in Britain are important enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Autocorrect fail

Just wanted to make clear that in the summary of my last edit to the article, the word I was looking for was "honorific" and not "horrific"....! MFlet1 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox geo

About my edit here, there were glaring errors in listing of the places themselves. New Delhi was never a part of East Punjab for e.g., someone has recently erroneously added that. As for the agency (also recently added in drive-by edits), we have never added them to infoboxes as they are agent residencies and not admin divs (also the policy to limit to 3-tier places being there). I will retain Dominion of India considering the context (we have otherwise just put unlinked countries in post-colonial/independence cases) but will pipelink British India as per precedent for mentioning places/territory not governments/administrations.

I understand this is a highly trafficked page but we should be following WP MOS. Coming from handling multiple edits where users are adding former tehsils, districts, agencies and everything in between along with "present-day" and other OL bloat, this article should definitely be following standardizations. Gotitbro (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Delhi was a chief commissionership in the Dominion constitution, see Dominion of India (which I think cites the Statesman's Yearbook 1948), so you are entirely correct about Delhi not being in East Punjab (which was a separate province). (The editor who added it might have been confused because in the Raj, Delhi was a part of the Punjab; there was a Delhi division, which even included Simla; a Delhi territory, and Delhi city, each a part of the previous.)

Agencies were very much a part of the Raj, but obviously not a part of British India (the regions of direct British rule), i.e. they were indirectly ruled. I'm not seeing why the agencies would not be included in a biography page. The correct description for Gandhi's infobox would be Porbandar, Kathiawar Agency, British Indian Empire (or British Raj). We don't need to say, Porbandar state, as the state was not much bigger than the city, but we can't change British Raj to British India. Similarly for Ambedkar it should be Mhow, Central India, British Raj (or British Indian Empire). (You don't really need to add the full Central India Agency, as the expression "Central India" was widely used to mean the agency, but you do need to pipe to it; here too, you can't say Mhow, British India, (even though it was a British garrison town or cantonment.). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Well, East Punjab should clearly be removed from here in any case. I am not seeing the significance of including agencies as opposed to princely states but I will leave that discretion to you (the ultimate purpose being to limit the param to 3 places); not mentioning the states and "agency" (pipelink) in that case looks fine as in Porbandar, Kathiawar, British Indian Empire. Lastly, British Indian Empire seems alright. Gotitbro (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I did remove East Punjab per your earlier mention. As for the rest, the princely states did not have independent sovereignty; they existed under the paramountcy of the British, i.e. they could manage only their internal affairs under the strict watch of a British resident or political agent, but their suzerain, the Government of British India, managed defense, communications, and external affairs. Just as the provinces or presidencies were the first-order units of direct rule, the agencies were the first-order units of indirect rule, in the Raj = direct rule + indirect rule. For the large princely units, Kashmir, Mysore, Hyderabad, ..., the state was the agency. For the smaller princely units, the princely state was a subunit of the agency. If you examine the Imperial Gazetteer of India, the official record of naming, geography, and administration, you will see that the descriptions are: town, district or princely state, province or agency. Why does the parameter need to be restricted to three places? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

3 (and other MOS) per the standard template documentation at {{Infobox person}}. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The Template:Infobox person#Parameters is most useful, especially, "For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text." So, we don't need to add, "present-day this or that." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

what is gandhi's most significant contribution to the world

what is gandhi's most significant contribution to the world 103.98.63.72 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please correct

Correct "The peasants was forced to grow" to "The peasants WERE forced to grow".

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.231.61 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks IP . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

I would like to edit this to provide more useful information on the subject. This is more informative to society and anyone browsing the site. More detailed relevant information on the subject will be included in the edit along with family history and personal character. Sources: written transcripts from close family members, that were recently discovered in South Africa. They provide more personal insure on the subject and are hand written. Iampabii (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Granted Iampabii (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Declined. You must become an autoconfirmed editor first, which has an extremeley low threshold of qualification. After that, you can edit the article. Otherwise, you must propose specific changes that you want to make, for more experienced editors to evaluate. Also, your sources must be published somewhere, to comply with the WP:Verifiability policy. In addition, we as editors are not permitted to introduce our own analysis of the sources, or synthesize any conclusions from them, or parrot the sources in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not the full name?

Like any other personality, why not list his full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? 106.193.231.142 (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This was answered literally one screen up from your own question. I actually disagree with the COMMON NAME policy, but it is apparently consensus. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It had been his full name for years on Wikipedia. I had fought off the Mahatma-ists; then once I was away from WP, and they had their day. What are you going to do? By that time a new generations of youthful internet surfers had begun to populate the world, raised on Facebook, who thought Mahatma was his name. They had not read his autobiography, would not have known the name Mahadev Desai who had translated it from Gujarati to English, or Vincent Sheehan or Louis Fisher. There is also a new generation of fake Gandhi idolators who care nothing about his radical philosophy, only care about putting down their political enemies with false claims to his legacy and who prefer to sprinkle fake reverence in the guise of many honorifics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi was a Barrister from Middle Inn Sean Dhiraj (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There is the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. Gandhi trained at the Inner Temple as the article states. Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Mahatma Honorific

Referring to Mohandas Gandhi by the honorific "Mahatma" rather than using his first name seems sloppy to me for an encyclopedia article and it has always rubbed me the wrong way that Western audiences often mistake the honorific for his real name. I know this has been discussed before, but the counter argument I saw in the archived talk page was to just remove the honorific and use only his surname in the title. I agree that using only his surname would be too vague. What's wrong with using his real first and last name "Mohandas Gandhi"? I've never edited a talk page and I'm not sure if naming conventions are the same in India as here in North America. My apologies for any unintended infractions of ignorance or etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolence one (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME CheeseInTea (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mohandas Gandhi" was never used (unless by some in the West). It was always Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or M. K. Gandhi. The latter version is how he signed his name in English. The page name used to be Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (as it was in Britannica). Now both have changed to Mahatma Gandhi. (See my reply in a section below.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

It is India and not Britain India Except Wikipedia there are enough proof that he's not British Raj and pure India It is because India was not colonised by Britain and he changed his identity SatyaAdityaPadala (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022 (2)

M K Gandhi was not famous as an Indian Lawyer but as a Indian Freedom Fighter. He should be Addressed as an Indian Freedom Fighter. 2402:E280:3E0F:4BB:481A:2CDD:7D24:E7A7 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

According to Indian constitution no one can be given any titles except military (article 18). This title was not given to him officially 223.233.73.116 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Game changing the Globe

Mahatma Gandhi has a positive world wide reputation. Much of the third world has a sanitation problem affecting billions of people.

The Prime Minister of India, Modi chose Gandhi's birthday to announce a game-changing program to build toilets to improve sanitation. The program is reported by youtube and in Great Toilet Battle.

The GTB logo consists of a pair of round glasses that Gandhi wore.

See

• YT Great Toilet Battle - World Toilet Organization - Mahatma Gandhi's glasses - Logo
  YT Great Toilet Battle - World Toilet Organization - Mahatma Gandhi's glasses - Logo
• Sign is in three languages, Picture, Hindi and English
  Sign is in three languages, Picture, Hindi and English

MountVic127 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

grammar/clarity?

In section 1.3 (Civil rights activist in South Africa) there is this sentence: "According to Anthony Parel, Gandhi was also influenced by the Tamil moral text Tirukkuṛaḷ after Leo Tolstoy mentioned it in their correspondence that began with "A Letter to a Hindu"."

To me this reads as talking about correspondence between Leo Tolstoy and Gandhi because the word "their" mentioning their correspondence seems to refer to Gandhi and Tolstoy. If thats the proper meaning of what is written there, then this sentence is wrong. (It might be the case that i misunderstood it because im no native English speaker, but even then i suggest to change the wording to make the intended meaning clearer.)

Suggestion(option1): "According to Anthony Parel, Gandhi was also influenced by the Tamil moral text Tirukkuṛaḷ after Leo Tolstoy mentioned it in their correspondence with ...(name of tha guy)... that began with "A Letter to a Hindu"."

option 2: ""According to Anthony Parel, Gandhi was also influenced by the Tamil moral text Tirukkuṛaḷ after Leo Tolstoy mentioned it in his correspondence ...with (name of the guy)... that began with "A Letter to a Hindu".""

-"name of the guy": ""A Letter to a Hindu" was a letter written by Leo Tolstoy to Tarak Nath Das on 14 December 1908."(from: wikipedia: A_Letter_to_a_Hindu ) 92.221.117.18 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

change 'political ethicist' to 'politician' Jeffmagnum2 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no any reliability. RealAspects (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Famous Line

Mahatma Gandhi is known as the "FATHER OF THE NATION". 2401:4900:314B:87DB:0:6B:E9E6:CD01 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you cite RS's? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

New edits

@Fowler&fowler: What are your objections that you made this revert? My edits were described in edit summaries I used, and I made only 1 edit on lead which concerned the title "father of the nation" which is obviously not "formal" in many countries, so there is no need to mention "though not formally".

Rest of my edits were correction and expansion with reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Capitals00: For starters, how is this remarkable edit an "update?" Please explain.

You state "I made only 1 edit on lead" How do you mean? The preposition "on" typically does not modify "lead" with or without a definite article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I have edited this article for many years and it was during 2017 when this article was largely overhauled. When I described the edit summary "update", it meant "update section with a newer source" since this source post-dates the writing of the section.

In general, the edits related to lead can be controversial especially on a GA like this one but I don't think this was the case. Capitals00 (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Are you fine with the edits before I restore? Capitals00 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Vaclav Havel

please change ((Vaclav Havel)) to ((Václav Havel)) 2601:541:4580:8500:61ED:508A:2EB2:9A05 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done per the source cited and per the target page Václav Havel, [1] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Hello guys, I added some Criticism of Gandhi currently it doesn't contain that much hopefully you guys can improve it Samuraiiscool (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Samuraiiscool: Your half-baked criticism is unsourced and you have missed the section on Mahatma Gandhi#Civil rights activist in South Africa (1893–1914). Don't presenting half-baked story as "Criticism". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel yes i know its small thats why i wrote in the talk page, about how you guys could help and add more to it rather then removing it entirely Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel you can also add your stuff somwhere above, but there also needs to be a section of criticism Samuraiiscool (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to write about something which has been already covered with better sources. See WP:NOCRIT and WP:NPOV. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Samuraiiscool: Uncontextualized criticism is not a good idea and much of what you write is already covered in the article. Also, please read WP:BRD. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I read the the article again and found that although Gandhi was already criticized in the article, not most of what I said appeared in the article, in fact I had completely new criticism which wasn't mentioned in the article Samuraiiscool (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Samuraiiscool: You might want to list specific things that you see are missing and consider adding them in the body of the article. Generally, a section entitled "Criticism" misses out on the context of the criticism. For example, Ramachandra Guha's views could possibly go in the section "Europeans, Indians, and Africans" along with his contextualization of Gandhi's evolution as a person. Merely compiling all this in a section titled "Criticism" is a disservice to our readers. I suggest adding pieces of text in the body, preferably with a light hand, and seeing if it sticks. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that there should be a direct way to go to criticism without having to read the entire article, for example if someone just wanted to look at the criticism they wouldn't have to read through the entire article Samuraiiscool (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That precisely what we don't want to do. Uncontextualized criticism is meaningless. Your reader would go away with the impression that Gandhi was a racist with no knowledge whatsoever of the arc of his remarkable life. That would be akin to misinformation. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I have performed revision deletion on the reverted edits as they were largely copied from sources such as [2] and [3]. Please ping me if anyone would like more details about the contents. DanCherek (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023

Teri Mahatma Gandhi is not the father of nation you said in the Indian constitution that the person can only be the father of nation who is link with education or the army AVANISH.C (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Altname

User:Fowler&fowler, what's up with your removal of the MOS:BOLDALTNAME from the lead? Where the content is longstanding (rummaging through the history, I come across versions dating back to 2012, when the article became a GA, admitting of the altname), you ought especially provide a legitimate rationale for removing stuff. Your passing the buck was not in good taste. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Every other article like Swami Vivekananda, Mother Teresa includes it as well. We are obviously not supposed to create a new rule for this article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning. Who has written the lead that has stood in this article for many years? You? The others champing at the bit to have their unsupported unencyclopedic two cents in this thread? No. It is was me. The change was made by a drive-by in December in an edit whose evidence I shall soon provide. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Where were you upholding the putative standards in the face of this doozy of no edit summary? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN this article. Can you state what is your issue with the basic standard that is being maintained here? I could understand if this article was named "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" but thats not the case here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Please read WP:OWN carefully, especially: " In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. "

Someone such as I who has sought to counter the ragtag collection of poor sources listed by you which includes something called "Rediff," hearkening to the Rediffusion sets of old, with modern scholarly sources authored by some of the major historians of South Asia and Pulitzer prize winners and together garnering 4,000 Google scholar citations (to barely 250 for yours), is hardly not taking your concerns seriously, however, unfounded they might be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise; what matters in Wikipedia is what you do, not who you are.

Your justification for your page ownership is frankly baseless, just like your claim that a particular misleading claim needs to be assessed by how much a large book has been cited than the credibility of the claim itself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning: I apologize. I did not realize that someone had changed the boldface Mahatma to the italicized. I have now reinstated it. This version had existed in the article in 2022, 2021, 2020, ... and in my previous version of the lead in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 (as edited by admins SpacemanSpiff, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, and historian Rjensen) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mahatma" was not wikilinked in most of these versions. Can you remove wikilink from it for now? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Legacy road

Hello @Dwaipayanc: Did you forget Darjeeling? See the map: File:Map of Darjeeling Municipality, Darjeeling District, West Bengal India.jpg Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This was just a fun edit! Basically, was trying to see which MG Roads had its own article, and just added those :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess almost all cities in India have an MG road. I think Devon Street in Chicago can be mentioned which is both an MG Road and Jinnah Road!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

:) Oh, I see. I've been there, i.e. Devon St. I think it is a small stretch of Devon which is Gandhi, and probably another that is Jinnah. It used to be a Ukrainian neighborhood, and it might still be away from the South Asian stores ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

First sentence seems to be too long

The first sentence at the time of this writing[4] seems to be too long. I tried to shorten it[5], but User:Fowler&fowler reverted[6] with the rationale that it has been like that for years. I have been long enough in Wikipedia to know that there are articles without references or citations for years. It doesn't mean that's how it should be. Although of course many articles have been fine for years. Each case is different.

The general advice for writing is to use short sentences. According to the Harvard Library Writing Guide, "Ideal sentence length is around 15 to 20 words."

Although we are not bound to that guide, we can infer from MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions". "Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it."

After this, we can go to a more specific guideline, MOS:FIRST. It states, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

According to the GA criteria, a good article "complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections". It is an open question as to whether this article does regarding the first sentence. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Minor copyedit 1 May 2023

I agree. The first sentence compared to the GA version is actually long today. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced the lead sentence. All lead sentences were mine, before the GA or after. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Length

At over 19k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. It would benefit from being made more concise. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The length seems fine. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias contain some topics which are too important to limit because of a guideline about someone being comfortable. Gandhi seems like such a topic (as are many others you've put this tag on recently). Navigation does not seem difficult. If you have a problem with the table of contents then please address that, but saying the page isn't comfortable to navigate doesn't ring true. As for being too long to read comfortably, that's an opinion and a generalization about the ability of Wikipedia's readers to choose to read as much or as little as they want, in one sitting or a half dozen. The vast majority of Wikipedia readers only read the first paragraph of the lead or, if lucky, the entire lead. After that come those who really want to get into the topic, and these people are more likely to be comfortable with full encyclopedic content than without. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:DETAIL, we serve different readers by providing a lead for a quick summary, a full article for moderate detail, and separate subarticles for "those who really want to get into" a topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

There are already dozens of sub-articles about the topic. See {{Mahatma Gandhi}} for the navigation map. Or see category:Mahatma Gandhi. Please make some actual suggestions and not just count words, place a tag, and leave. In other words, please describe the problem that you found here - what needs to be fixed? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

More of the details need to be decanted to those subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gandhi did quite a lot of work, so it is rather obvious his article would a bit long. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's considerably more than "a bit long", at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Should a biography really have "biography" as a subhead? Isn't everything under that just the core of the biography that should already be level-2 headers/visible in the contents? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I agree that the article is too long. 19,000+ words is 10,000 more than it should have. The "Principles, ..." section alone has 9,000+ words. I recommend that the article be whittled down to between 9,000 and 10,000 words, with the biography taking up no more than 7,000 words and the Principles no more than 2,000. A major world figure such as Gandhi needs high quality precis writing.

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but please read the lead which I wrote years ago and then the meandering later sections that have mushroomed in size and you'll see the difference. There should be two spin-off pages Biography of Mahatma Gandhi (which currently redirects to Mahatma Gandhi, i.e. it will need to be freed) and Principles, practices and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi, and these two should be drastically reduced here, especially the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Reducing it as you would like would harm the page, especially if information on Gandhi's use and development of nonviolence is removed (which you've already tried to do in the lead, not understanding that nonviolence and nonviolent resistance are two different things and calling the difference between them a "needless distraction"). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And now FF has reverted again and seemingly wants to create a time-sink of arguing that nonviolence is the same as nonviolent resistance. Please explain how they are the same (and if you can't, please put the wording and link back in the lead) Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Please open a new thread and attempt to achieve a consensus for this sort of hairsplitting in the lead. A new thread not a perfunctory jargon-ridden run-on sentence. A new consensus takes time, at least a week, if not longer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging some @Abecedare, RegentsPark, El C, Vanamonde93, and Nikkimaria: admins. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hairsplitting"? FF, you seem to have no or maybe little understanding of the difference between nonviolence and nonviolent resistance, which indicates that maybe you should consider not working on this page or anything to do with nonviolence or the people who have refined and analyzed it and then used it successfully to change the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

FF, why do you want to call in a group of admins? Let's ping Tamzin, who may not want to miss this. Please note, everyone, that the conflict here was the addition of two words "nonviolence and" in the lead (and by adding two words, nonviolence, linked, and "and", not linked in the lead, the suggested lead paragraph opens up an entire study and lifestyle to the readers and to the understanding of Gandhi and those who came after him). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think a whole new Practices and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi should be created and the whole Mahatma Gandhi#Principles, practices, and beliefs can be moved there. This move will significantly address the whole issue since this section is alone taking more than 103k bytes. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a huge section and a very viable, self-contained, good split candidate. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I created the article as agreed above. @Nikkimaria: Are you fine with removing the tag now? Thanks Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The tag, obviously, cannot be removed unless the Mahatma Gandhi page—whose dereliction by the prolixity I am sad witness to—is whittled down to 9K words, or at the most, 10K. I mean look at my tight lead, and compare it to the garbage that has been scattered in the rest of the article during the last six or seven years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Have brought back the sections on Gandhi's thoughts on nonviolence, which defined his life and his legacy. There is certainly no talk page agreement to move this section out of this article. To hide Gandhi's thoughts and creation of the use of nonviolence to remedy societal legalized inequity between people in a one-sentence link degrades this page and Gandhi's importance. Maybe some trimming, but total removal not agreed to in a quick one-day discussion between a few editors does not reverse many years of work and accurate encyclopedic effectiveness of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course there is and you are in a miniscule minority. In an RfC you and your POV will be blown out of the water. You are that much in the fringe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay... (slowly backs into the foliage, Homer Simpson style). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a problem edit war here, Fowler keeps removing the returned section on nonviolence, has returned a no longer applicable "too long" tag, and seems to insist on owning this page past all realistic comprehension. I have never gone to ANI first on a topic but this is too important to the Gandhi page to walk away. Please stop edit warring which can be described as vandalism at this point, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with WP:OWN. This page used to be a featured article. It is still a good article. It is also a WP:VITAL article. It cannot be populated with highly detailed and eccentric POV. As I've already stated, the sections you have added are not only excessively verbose, not only are written in a term paper style (according to this author, but according to that ...), but they also over-emphasize the Hindu (or Vedantic) contribution to Gandhi's thinking on nonviolence, completely ignoring the aspects that are more commonly emphasized in his standard biographies (by Rajmohan Gandhi or Joseph Lelyveld) and which give great credit to the very fact of his sojourns in England and South Africa, to Henry David Thoreau, John Ruskin, Leo Tolstoy, Hermann Kallenbach, and C. F. Andrews among others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Then let's stop throwing stones at each other and edit that valued section until it shines. The influences are important and accurate, and then Gandhi refined nonviolence both in philosophy and in active use throughout the rest of his life. I've wondered how much Alice Paul's work in the 1910s influenced Gandhi if at all, but Paul was practicing its use with dramatic effect in America. And of course the words "nonviolence and nonviolent resistance" should appear in the lead as a unit - which you keep reverting - they are two different things (one a philosophy and way of public life and the other its actual use to attempt to make good faith change in a societal condition). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is better that the section be polished first in the Practices and beliefs article. Then a distilled precis can be included in the Gandhi article. I have left the "long" tag in because the long-windedness afflicts the biography section as well. People have suddenly stepped in and removed long-winded, unencyclopedic, prose from this article and moved it to some other article. Capital00 did that in the Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi article. I know it does not matter in WP, but had I made 0.4% contribution in an article, I would not have been able to muster the gumption of making this prose dump without a post on the talk page first. The inability to summarize in a competent fashion, to write adequate precis, is WP's bane. It is especially the case in South Asia related articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That last part is certainly true. Everything here is essay length. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the way to do this is to first whittle down the biography section to 7,500 words, and then bring back distilled Assassination and Principles and Practices sections of no more than 1,500 words. The total word count of the article should not be more than 9,000 words. Re-adding either Assassination or P&P now, even if they have been distilled is highly inadvisable, as their inclusion will hamper the summarizing that needs to be undertaken in the Biography section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Setting hard word limits is quite inadvisable. The page should not be whittled down at the cost of accurately depicting the material. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: I must respectfully disagree. Thinking in terms of word-limits and allocation is a very good and universally advised approach in planning one's writing both on and off wikipedia since it instantly focuses ones attention on article/section/para/sentence-level structure and to what content may or may not be due when discussing a subject at a particular length and for a particular audience. And the tradeoff is not between length and accuracy. It is between length and resolution/details. See Summary Style for more. Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Breaking it up into sub articles (Biography/Principles sounds good to me) is a good idea (thanks Abhishek0831996 - for taking the lead on that). The nonviolence section does partly seem to be WP:SYNTH with multiple sources strung together to make each point (Borman says, Carr says, Watson says, Richards says). Might make more sense to organize it around a few established texts. Finally, if I may F&f, best not to get hung up on keeping a tag if there are objections to it. Abhishek0831996's removal has, after all, dropped the length by a third. RegentsPark (comment) 19:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @RegentsPark: for your wisdom. I'm happy to remove the tag from the top of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)