Jump to content

Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Mahatma Gandhi

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 4 January 2022 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Mahatma Gandhi) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

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

Note that the OP is a new editor and was unaware that they could suggest alternate titles in an existing RM. WP:AGF!--RegentsPark (comment) 22:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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.[1] 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)
  1. ^ Trivedi, Harish (2011), "Literary and visual portrayals of Gandhi", in Judith M. Brown, Anthony J. Parel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–218, 211, After launching, in August 1921, a campaign for the boycott and burning of foreign cloth, Gandhi begins, on 21 September, to dress like one of the poor masses of India, with the torso bare and a dhoti going down not to the ankles (as it normally does) but only to the knees, and often he wears only a langoti, a loincloth - the bare minimum ... that onc could wear in public. He never alters or compromises this dress beyond wrapping the upper half of his body in cold weather in a white woollen chadar or shawl, and this is how he turns up at Buckingham Palace in 1931 at a tea party for the Round Table Conference delegates.

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_15&oldid=1063613704"