# Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

"Mahātmā" is an honorific (great soul) like Bāpū (father) and Rāṣṭrapitā (father of the nation). The latter two are included in his sidebar under "Other Names". Both of these are arguably as valid an article title as Mahātmā but none are his actual name.
Shouldn't the main redirect be to Mohandas_Gandhi instead of Mahatma_Gandhi?
67.80.1.181 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No, because Mahatma Gandhi is the common name in English by a large margin (see Ngrams). Yue🌙 02:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
This discussion was wrapped years ago (see Archives), so let's not get into this again. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
At the very least the lead should say 'commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi' or something to that effect Traumnovelle (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I think this is a valid demand. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The most recent changes ([1]) made by @GOLDIEM J: state the title 'Mahatma' was given to Gandhi in 1909.
Firstly, the source listed for this is an Opinion piece in The Print India ( [2]) web news portal. My first question is: Should an Opinion article be considered a valid source?
Secondly, within the article it says that Gandhi's friend Pranjivan Mehta called him a 'Mahatma' in a letter addressed to Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Even if this were true, is it enough to consider that the title 'Mahatma' was applied to Gandhi in 1909, given the private nature of this conversation?
I have a feeling that this change is not fully valid for an encyclopedic page, and should be reverted. Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The article for the honorific itself uses the citation to date the application to Mehta's letter. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if that is enough reason. And even in that case, it talks about the word used.
A private letter is not the same as 'applying' the title of Mahatma to Gandhi.
I can see @ZDRX has reverted the edit anyways. Kingsacrificer (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

He was peace maker for muslim and christian. If this two suffer it will hurt him so much and if thousand hindu dies it will be nothing for him. 2409:40C2:4024:E79D:2575:BA83:B8FA:2D70 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2025 (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. jolielover♥talk 12:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

In Gandhi's early life writings he compared Black people to animals

Although Gandhi's nonviolence made him an icon to the American civil-rights movement, Mr. Lelyveld shows how ­implacably racist he was toward the blacks of South Africa. "We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs," Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of ­Indians settled there. "We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the ­Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.
Source: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/SB10001424052748703529004576160371482469358
I checked the archives but this particular quote does not seem to be discussed anywhere.
I think this quote can be included in the article, it is more objectionable than the included line "...degrading the Indian to the level of a raw Kaffir." Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)