Talk:Father Mathew

Untitled

Every time I pass this statue, I chuckle at how many times it must have been urinated on by drunkards from the many (many, many, many) nearby drinking establishments on O'Connell St and nearby Parnell St. 109.76.6.81 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Father" as a priest title is unacceptable in Wikipedia articles

In Wikipedia articles, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:

Father

Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.

(Source: Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you invest such authority in Religion Stylebook, an "independent supplement to The Associated Press Stylebook". At any rate, it is not true to say that the style is unacceptable on Wikipedia. I found ten articles using the style on a very limited search. The most well-known of those are Father Damien and Georgy Gapon. What those two have in common with this article is that they are historical figures, commonly known as Father Damien, Father Gapon and Father Mathew. Common usage is what we go by on Wikipedia, not some style guide not intended for encyclopaedias. Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style on biography called "Honorific prefixes", which states that, "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article." It does note an exception for cases in which the honorific prefix is so commonly used that it becomes part of the name - one example given is "Mother Teresa". But I think that 99.9% of people have never heard of Theobald Mathew by either his name or by "Father Mathew", so I'd say that "Father Mathew" does not qualify under that exception.

We can indeed find many Wikipedia articles whose contents don't conform to Wikipedia policies, but that fact doesn't justify departure from Wikipedia policies. Mksword (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what percentage of people worldwide have heard of Father Mathew, but 99% of Irish people know of him, and plenty of Americans as well, and 100% of those who know of him know him as Father Mathew, not Theobald Mathew or Mathew. MOSBIO doesn't say anywhere that a name is commonly used only if x% of people have heard it. Googling "Father Mathew" gives me 164,000 hits; googling "Theobald Mathew" gives me 16,500 hits (one tenth), of which most have "Father" in the title and/or the text. That means that the honorific prefix is so commonly used in this case that it becomes part of the name, as with Father Damien, Father Gapon or Father Coughlin.

Why is it of such concern to you anyway that a short article on a (to you) obscure topic does not conform to your idea of correct writing style? Why does it merit phrases like "unacceptable in Wikipedia articles" and "doesn't justify departure from Wikipedia policies"? MOSBIO is not a policy. WP:Consensus is. There is a consensus among the 139 different users that have edited this article since 2002 that "Father Mathew" is an appropriate appellation. Why not just leave well enough alone? Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Re this, it is particularly inappropriate to change "Father Mathew monument" in image captions when the images clearly show that "Father Mathew" is what is inscribed on the monuments. Scolaire (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of "Father Coughlin", consider the Charles Coughlin ("Father Coughlin") Wikipedia article. In it, there are 15 occurrences of "Father Coughlin". The first occurrence is in the introductory paragraph ("Commonly known as Father Coughlin, he was ..."). Every one of the other 14 occurrences is in a quotation or in a book title or an article title. But how many occurrences of "Coughlin" are in the article, altogether? More than 100.

Now, back to the Theobald Mathew (temperance reformer) article. Concerning the word "Father" being visible in the photographs of Mathew statues, I just now looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Father_Mathew_Statue_O%27Connell_Street.JPG and zoomed in but I don't see the word "Father" there at all. In the other photo of a Mathew statue, I am barely able to make out the word "Father" if I zoom in quite a bit. For that photo, I wouldn't have a problem with the words "Father Mathew" (in quotes) being part of the caption because doing so would quote words that are indeed in the photo. Mksword (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And yet Father Coughlin is one of the two examples given in the MOSBIO section that you linked to as an example of where the honorific can be added. I can see why it wasn't in this instance: Coughlin was a controversial figure, and using the honorific might be seen as biasing the article in his favour. That doesn't change the principle that if its used so commonly as to be part of the name it is appropriate. There's no such POV issue with Father Mathew. His name isn't used for dubious political purposes. But Father Mathew is used. His monuments (the inscription on the O'Connell Street one is in this image which I've just removed from the article as being excessive) and any of the Google hits (for either search term) I've linked to above, show that this is the most common way of referring to him. It's also used in the image at the top of the article. Although I can't make out the rest of the caption, the words "Father Mathew" are definitely in it. Seeing that you made four changes in your last edit, and three of them were to images that had "Father Mathew" in them, I'll take out the "Father" in the last. Will that do you? Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Scolaire. Go raibh maith agat. Mksword (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)