Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Mahatma vs. Mohandas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think creating a redirect to here from the proposed names may not be a bad idea. --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this is the right place - he is most commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi.  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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:  (Autobiography) --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 08:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Newer discussion Dec'05-Jan'06

message: ::Is this still going on??? Please please archive and move on. *very good* arguments for the current name have been made. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been archived again.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: In this section, over the next week, I will provide evidence and sources to support that Mahatma Gandhi should be the title of this article. There have been a lot of good arguments against, but the point is that if Mahatma Gandhi is the most common name for this man than that is what the article should be called. And if it is the most common, as I will try to plainly show, than that trumps the fact that "Mahatma" is a qualifier or title, or that Gandhi himself did not like being called Mahatma Gandhi per the policy of Wikipedia.
My first of many proofs that Mahatma Gandhi is the most common and used name to refer to Gandhi is a simple search through Google Books.
These are my results:
a search for "Mahatma Gandhi" in books on Google resulted in 1780 books.
a search for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" resulted in 1425 books.
a search for "Mahatma Gandhi" in the title of books resulted in 1293 books.
a search for "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" in the title of books resulted in 20 books. That's twenty books. 
More proof to come shortly. Supporters please post your proof here if you have it. Research books, biographies, school books, etc. Through my own life experience I know English speakers refer to him as Mahatma Gandhi. I've never heard his full name spoken when referring to him, unless someone was asked "what's Mahatma Gandhi's full name" on Jeapordy or whatever. I look forward to the next few days as I compile the evidence, thank you for reading so far. Oh and this is only one piece of evidence, there will be more. Beam 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mans name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi can you prove that this is not his real name. Adam (talk) (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also one movie with "Mahatma" in its name (The Making of the Mahatma) but zero (you read it right, ZERO) movies with "Mohandas Karamchand" in the title! Gasp! This is conclusive proof; change teh article!! indopug (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be changed. Article titles are supposed to represent the commonly held name of the person, not the birth name. The specific name can be mentioned in the first sentence, but should not be the title of the article. For relevant examples see Vladimir Lenin real name = Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Leon Trotsky real name = Lev Davidovich Trotsky, Bob Dylan real name = Robert Allen Zimmerman, Che Guevara real name = Ernesto Guevara, Mother Teresa real name = Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Marilyn Monroe real name = Norma Jeane Mortenson ... there are thousands etc etc etc.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 11:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your examples is that none of those people were known by their given names during the significant parts of their lives. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was known as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. (c.f. "The Story of My Experiments with Truth" by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. As opposed to, for example, Blonde on Blonde by ..., or Gentlemen prefer Blondes starring ...., etc. etc.) The only reasons for moving away from the name of a person should be (1) if the person was not known by the given name (all of your examples) or (2) it is necessary for NPOV reasons (Alexander the Great) or (3) it is necessary for disambiguation (Akbar the Great). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: "Mahatma" was never part of his name, although people generally refer to him as "Mahatma Gandhi".  It's not even a title in a formal sense; but it's more like a title such as "Lord Byron" (whose birth name was George Gordon Byron), or "President Bush" (whose name is George Walker Bush).   Best to stick with his actual name, which is what he used in his writings.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If as you say he was most commonly referred as Mahatma Gandhi, that's the title of our article. Beam 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he'd been knighted, he would have been "Sir Mohandas Gandhi", not "Sir Mahatma Gandhi".  (But I suppose some would have referred to him as "Mahatma Sir Mohandas Gandhi".)--  JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... but that wouldn't matter unless he was most commonly referenced as Sir Mahatma Gandhi. If that was the case, than yes that would be the article's title. Beam 00:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're getting into the realm of speculation here, but anyone who called him "Sir Mahatma" would have been wrong, because Mahatma was not his name but an informal appellation of respect, meaning something like "great soul".  It would be a little like referring to General Sir Richard Dannatt as "Sir General".  No matter how many people call Bob Geldof "Sir Bob Geldof" (and millions mistakenly do), he's not "Sir" anything and hence out article is just "Bob Geldof".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I dont' know if you understand it but on Wikipedia the article's name should be the most common name of the person/place in English. It doesn't matter what that reference is. If everyone called him Poopy Pants McGee that's what this article is called. Beam 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that, as I've said before, "Mahatma" was not part of his name.  It has much the relationship to Gandhi as "President" has to "President Bush", although the two cases are only roughly comparable.  It's probably only an accident of history that he didn't come to be known as "Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi", cf. "President George Bush". This seems to be an unusual case that our naming guidelines don't explicitly cover.  I've made my views known now, so I won't go on.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what his name is, it's what he's commonly called. Thank you. Beam 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to come back from the dead and say that your approach is a little simplistic.  George W Bush is commonly called "President Bush", but we don't call his article "President Bush".  It has nothing to do with disambiguating him from his father; we don't have an article on "President Clinton" either.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any discussion on how his methods might have been valid at the time, but would be considered terrorism today? That would make an interesting section. At the time his methods might have been valid, but these days standing up to the west earns one the label of terrorist. Perhaps we need to rethink Ghandi's legacy. Mwahcysl (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Since it is stated explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes, this article should be moved back immediately to Mahatma Gandhi, just like Father Damien.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second user:Wilhelm meis's suggestion that we merge this thread into the archive and drop this conversation for at least 30 days.  The RM was closed on June 10, 2008 by an admin as a result of no consensus for the proposed move.  The next step, in any case, would be a request for mediation.  So, why don't we all take a break, fine hone our skills in argumentation, bone up on the literature etc, and request mediation after 30 days?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I third this suggestion. As Gandhi himself might have suggested, "meditation before mediation!" --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree whole heartedly. I never had a chance to participate in any prior action. I, and others, are actually providing evidence and sources for what I see as obvious. I adamantly urge no one to touch this section in any attempt at subverting the name change. I also don't appreciate what seems like a backhanded way at avoiding this renaming of the article. Please let us provide more evidence, even though it really shouldn't be needed. The way certain editors are defending the current name is strange to say the least. Beam 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beam, you are way out of line.  All you do is say the same one-note thing over and over and have a lot of people disagree with you and a number of people agree with you while nothing actually changes.  Request mediation to get a final "official" ruling on the matter or drop it. Indrian (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: And that is why Mahatma Gandhi redirects to the article, so there is really no problem there.  Also, if you do not know Gandhi's real name, you should not boast about your level of familiarity with the subject. Indrian (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google image searches: "Mahatma" = 630,000 ------ "Mahatma Ghandi" = 560,000 ------ "Mahatma Gandhi" = 502,000 ------ "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" = 21,600   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I see it clearly now.  This article should be named Mahatma Ghandi.  His last name is not spelled that way, but since that is what users are looking for most often, we should give it to them.  That's some mighty fine research there. Indrian (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the point was to show that even his mispelled name is 30 times more likely to be searched than what you want to name the article. Hell Gandhi spelled "Gonedee" is probably more likely to be used in a search than "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi".   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue at hand is only wikipedia policy, and that policy states that titles are not generally used in naming articles (just look at the intro to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) if you do not believe me).  Wikipedia is contradictory on this point, but no one has yet to provide a reason why this article should be an exception to the rule.  The fact that Mahatma is most recognizable in English is not enough on its own because numerous examples have already been brought up here in which the title is removed even if more common (Saint Francis of Assisi, Queen Victoria, and President Clinton for example).  No one is disputing which is more common, so you are wasting your time proving a point over and over again that no one disagrees with.  Show us some wikipedia policy reasons to create an excetion not google searches that do nothing to help illuminate the actual issue at hand. Indrian (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first (non-wiki) website that comes up in a search for Gandhi is mkgandhi.org run by Gandhian Organizations in India ... and guess what it says at the very top of the page ... ???   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am done talking with you until you figure out what this debate is actually about.  If all that was needed was evidence on which name were more common in English, than I would have taken your side a long time ago. Indrian (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Look, this is the sentence at issue, straight from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation"  This is presented as a specific quideline that serves to modify the general rule that you like to focus on, to wit "The name that is most generally recognisable"  If you can give me a policy reason why the text I quoted above does not apply, then I will be in 100% agreement with you, but you have yet to do this. Indrian (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful! That's your answer. "Mahatma" is the simplest way to deal with disambiguation because there is more than one Gandhi. If he was the only Gandhi, than the name of the article would be "Gandhi." Because I'd say "Gandhi" is even more common than Mahatma Gandhi. But we need the "Mahatma" because of disambiguation. I appreciate your 100% agreement, it's good to find people who are willing to go along with policy even if they don't like it. Beam 22:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you if his name were, in fact, just Gandhi, but that is not true.  He has a first name, Mohandas.  Now I do not really care whether this article is called Mohandas Gandhi or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi because I think that is really splitting hairs, but whether the middle name is used or not, there is no need to disambiguate because wikipedia has only one Mohandas Gandhi.  Why do you think disambiguation should be based on only part of his name? Indrian (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're not in 100% agreement even though the policy does apply....right. 90% of the English speaking world, the common man, the user of Wikipedia does not know that Mohandas is his first name. They think Mahatma is his first name! And following policy, which you supposedly would 100% agree with, our article should be called the most common name which would be simply Gandhi, except for disambiguation. From there, following policy, the most common name for Gandhi would be Mahatma Gandhi. And there's the title of our article.  Beam 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The average American also thinks that Iraq shares a border with Afghanistan. Should we amend these articles to reflect the common wisdom? This conversation is now entirely unproductive. Please, let's archive and come back in 30 days. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say anything about Americans. I was discussing WP Policy, and the abundant evidence combined with policy is obvious. I'm  perplexed as to why there is such a back lash. But enjoy insulting Americans. I'm awaiting Indrian's reply as he said he'd agree 100%... Beam 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I am being baited here, but what the heck.  I thought my point was clear enough last time, but you chose not to respond to said point, so I will raise it again.  If the subject's name were Gandhi and other people shared that one word name, disambiguation would certainly be necessary and Mahatma in the title would make perfect sense.  Your argument ignores the fact that he already has a first name, Mohandas, that is unique.  Why do you feel it is necessary to disambiguate when he already has a name that is unique on wikipedia?  If you can give me a good reason for that rooted in policy, than we truly would be in agreement. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir, I already have but I'll do it again. As you wrote policy dictates that an honorific shouldn't be used unless it is to avoid disambiguation. Which it does in this case. Gandhi is the most common reference, with Mahatma Gandhi an obvious second. Because Gandhi alone would cause disambiguation issues than Mahatma Gandhi is the logical choice. That is rooted in policy. Are we in agreement yet? Beam 15:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This just brings us back to an earlier point I made.  Victoria of the United Kingdom is most commonly referred to in English as Queen Victoria.  Whether she is called Victoria or Queen Victoria, disambiguation is needed, so "of the United Kingdom" is added.  "Queen" is not part of the article name, however, because titles should be avoided.  According to your logic, however, the article should be "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom."  Why should we call this article "Mahatma Gandhi" and not call the other article "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom."  Do you see the contradiction here? Indrian (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: My last comment on this issue: Truth be told I will sleep just fine tonight, regardless of what this article is entitled. This situation is only a few steps from becoming A Lame Edit War and to me offers a clear example of the suspension of "common sense" in deference to abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit. I am confident that when 90 % of English wikipedia users (yes even those ‘goober’ Americans who Wilhelm quips stink at Geography) think of Gandhi they think of the name "Mahatma Gandhi" ... not just the highly educated or the Gandhian devotees. Nonetheless this issue is not important enough for me to continue arguing about it and if a decision is made to name it Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (a name I would bet 95 % of English users have never heard in their life) then fine. I will "take my ball" and head home, content that apparently there is differing opinion on the issue and that apparently some editors wish to name articles by a persons birth name (when in reality they are more commonly known by another name). So feel free to insert a witty retort or vague insult ... or feel victorious at my "surrender", I no longer care. I would rather spend my time on other matters and best of luck to those editors who stay and continue to "battle it out" over the articles name. :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know his name was Mohandas but I was well aware of M.K. Gandhi (and had always incorrectly assumed the M. stood for Mahatma). I think the article should move to Mohandas Gandhi, with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi... as the first words of the first paragraph. This is consistent with other biographies. As redirects point from Mahatma Gandhi and others I don't think this will be a problem. At the end of the day the key principle should be correctness - and that was his name. Orderinchaos 11:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence that the title of this article should be "Mahatma Gandhi" 

message: I cba to read all the above discussion at the moment, but Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens says that if someone has a nickname (which Mahatma clearly is, I am well aware that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the guy's official name), and this nickname is more common (which in this case, I'm fairly sure it is), then we use the nickname, and not the official name. Therefore, the article should be called Mahatma Gandhi, and I was surprised this article is at the wrong place. Deamon138 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo Beam, I actually found this discussion off your userpage, which I came to from all the Burmyanmar hubbubbaloo! Deamon138 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: To user:Deamon138.  "Mahatma," as its own page suggests, is an honorific or courtesy title like "Saint," not a nickname.  Please see the argument here and here.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that, whatever this rule is on common name versus titles, it is inconsistently used in our articles. For example, we have Saint Peter, but Luke the Evangelist. We have Alfred the Great, but Catherine II of Russia and Ivan IV of Russia. Looking through the other articles, though, it seems like "Saint" is used more often than not except for cases of disambiguation (e.g. Paul of Tarsus). I don't really like this convention, myself. I also notice that we have Mao Zedong instead of Chairman Mao, though I could find more people who would recognize the latter. It looks like Wikipedia conventions are in support of the common name even if it has a title (you can argue whether "Mahatma Gandhi" is the common name from this point), while the counterexamples I listed are from articles dominated by people who like me don't always agree with such conventions. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware of that, and in fact given the same examples elsewhere (at least the Russian examples).  Some of those anomalies are the result of pre-existing anomalies found in older print encyclopedias.  The bottom line, for me, is, the overwhelming consensus in other encyclopedias:  See list here.  Wikipedia might not be beholden to other encyclopedias, but there is no Wikipedia page name (in the searches that I have conducted) that goes completely counter to the convention in the other encyclopedias—both general and specialty—than "Mahatma Gandhi" would, if it were the page name.  In other words, I'd like readers to find me another name, where there is near universal agreement in other encyclopedias, but for which Wikipedia's page name is different.  Note the link I have provided doesn't just have one or two encyclopedias, but 21. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: A general rule of thumb is 'avoid honorifics unless it is necessary.' Necessary usually means that either the name cannot be disambiguated (Saint Peter for Saint Peter but Francis of Assisi for Saint Francis of Assisi) or if the name is unrecognizable without the honorific (Duke Ellington rather than Edward Kennedy Ellington). Wrt your examples, Luke, Alfred don't work without the honorific, and most saints have only one name. If Gandhi had only one name, the situation would be different. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, but Luke the Evangelist is being used without the honorific. Similarly, the article for "Saint Peter" could very easily be called "Peter the Apostle". If the rule is to avoid honorifics unless it is necessary... and the other rule is to use nicknames even if they have honorifics... ::shrug::. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How dull life would be without the occasional delightful exception! Still, and this is strictly IMHO, it is better not to use honorifics because one man's Alexander the Great is quite easily the Alexander the Blight of another. Best not to go down that road. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What RegentsPark was saying is this:  Luke is his name; but, as the link shows, it requires disambiguation in some form: this can take the form Saint Luke or Luke the Evangelist; however, Wikipedia naming convention would discourage St. Luke the Evangelist, since the double qualification would be considered redundant (even though some encyclopedias have just that name).  But, the main point is that, disambiguation is needed because his name Luke is ambiguous.  In Gandhi's case, his name, be it: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or M. K. Gandhi, Mohandas Gandhi, or Mohandas K. Gandhi is not ambiguous, so no disambiguation is needed, be it: Gandhi of Porbander, Gandhi, Apostle of Nonviolence, or Mahatma Gandhi.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name rules over official 

message: ::The reason why you don't search for the exact expression, "the name of Mahatma," is because in the English language you don't say, "he was given the name of Mahatma."  A search for the "name of Mahatma" will turn up only sentences like "... and the Devi commanded her followers to take vows in the name of Mahatma Gandhi"  or "... the name of Mahatma Gandhi will always remain a part of the History of India's struggle against British rule ...," but never something like "Gandhi was given the name of Mahatma in 1915."  Here are all 43 links in the Google scholar search for the exact expression "the name of Mahatma.  Not a single one refers to the "name of Mahatma" being given to Gandhi or Gandhi being called by the "name of Mahatma."  
::*As for whether "Mahatma" is a nickname or epithet, scholarly opinion is even more decisive: a Google Scholar search for exact expression "the nickname Mahatma" OR "the nickname of Mahatma" turns up   just 1 link, the book, Jackie Robinson: First Black in Professional Baseball, which on page 51 says, "Branch Rickey's well-planned anti-discriminatory efforts earned him the nickname, "Mahatma," after the visionary Indian leader Mohandas K. Gandhi." A Google Search for exact expression "the epithet, Mahatma," OR "the epithet of Mahatma" turns up just one citation, but no link.  Don't know which one does better "nickname" or "epithet," but neither has a ringing endorsement on Google Scholar.
::Dictionaries consider "Mahatma" to be a title as well:  
::*Complete Oxford English Dictionary, on-line edition, 2008 (requires subscription): "2. Mahatma. In South Asia: (the title of) a revered person regarded with love and respect. Freq. applied to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948).  Examples of usage: 1931 Manch. Guardian 11 Aug. 8/2 The great soul in the insignificant-looking body is the distinguishing mark of the Mahatma. 1948 C. LESLIE Goat to Kali v. 203 His casual mention of great names convinced her that he was an intimate friend of them all: of the Mahatma, of Nehru, of Subhas Bose. 1949 H. N. BRAILSFORD in H. S. L. Polak et al. Mahatma Gandhi viii. 96 On 9 January, 1915,..Gandhi landed in Bombay... Soon after..in a published letter, the poet Rabindranath Tagore conferred on him the title of ‘Mahatma’, of which the literal meaning is ‘great soul’."
::*The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, 2006, says, "2. Mahatma:  (Hinduism) Used as a title of respect for a person renowned for spirituality and high-mindedness."
::*Encarta Dictionary: Mahatma (noun). Definition: (South Asia) esteemed one: a title given to somebody who is deeply revered for wisdom and virtue.  [Late 19th century. From Sanskrit mahātman, from mahā "great" + ātman "soul"]
 
::*Online Etymology Dictionary: Mahatma: 1884, lit. "great-souled," from Skt. mahatman, from maha "great" (see maharajah) + atman "breath, soul, principle of life."   In esoteric Buddhism, "a person of supernatural powers." In common use, as a title, a mark of love and respect.  Said to have been applied to Gandhi (1869-1948) in 1915 by poet Rabrindranath Tagore."
::*The Collaborative International Dictionary of English: "Mahatma, n. [Skr. mah[=a]tman, lit., great-souled, wise.] (Theosophy).  One of a class of sages, or "adepts," reputed to have knowledge and powers of a higher order than those of ordinary men.  Note: The title was popularly applied to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in tribute to his wisdom, though not implying any supernatural powers."
::*The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, 2007 says, "Mahatma: [Sanskrit,=great-souled], honorific title used in India among Hindus for a person of superior holiness.  Mohandas Gandhi is the best-known figure to whom the title was applied."
::*Here are 14 more dictionaries including A Dictionary of South African History, Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism, An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies, Webster's Biographical Dictionary, Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, and more that consider "Mahatma" a title.
::*And 15 more encyclopedias including Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Encyclopaedia of Political Parties, Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature, Propaganda and Mass Persuation: A Historical Encyclopedia, Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of World Peace and more that also consider "Mahatma" a title.
::*And 550 books including An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth by M. K. Gandhi (1920), The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer (1959), Mahatma Gandhi: Essays and Reflections by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (2000), The Lonely Pilgrim: Gandhiji's Noakhali Pilgrimage by Manuben Gandhi (1964), Mahatma Gandhi: A Selected Bibliography by April Carter (1995), Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope by Judith May Brown (1989), Gandhi's Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light by Uma Majumdar and Rajmohan Gandhi (2005), Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life by Kathryn Tidrick (2007), Gandhi by David Arnold (2001), Mohandas Gandhi by Christopher Martin (2000), The Wisdom of Gandhi by Trudy Settel (2001), The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi by Robert Payne (1969), The Historical Trial of Mahatma Gandhi by Mulk Raj Anand (1987), Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics, 1915–1922 by Judith Brown, and more that all describe "Mahatma" as a title.
::*One of the few times, I get to quote from my first edition of Jawaharlal Nehru, Discovery of India, 1946. Page 17, editor's note: "The suffix in the form Gandhiji is sometimes mistaken by American and English readers to be an affectionate diminutive.  On the contrary, it is the simplest of numerous terms of respect used in the Hindustani language and is preferred by Gandhi over the title Mahatma.  It amounts to calling him Mr. Gandhi."
::*Finally, even The Brittanica Children's Encyclopaedia says in the third sentence of its lead: "His efforts on behalf of Indians earned him the title of mahatma, meaning “great soul.”
::Let's just stick to the question first of whether "Mahatma" is a title (according to OED, American Heritage Dictionary, and other dictionaries, Columbia Encyclopedia, Google Scholar, and Gandhi himself) or whether it is a nickname (according to you).  So far the evidence is overwhelmingly against your formulation, but perhaps you have some other evidence?  Perhaps you can find some dictionaries and encyclopedias that consider "Mahatma" a nickname? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title or nickname?