Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Archive 4

Honorific prefixes

The section on "honorific prefixes" should be removed and replaced with a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). It's a massive oversimplification of WP policy, and confuses people into thinking that there's a cut-and-dry policy on titles in article names when there isn't. Proteus (Talk) 23:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Joestynes 02:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Except that the naming conventions are about the titles of articles, and the manual of style is about the content of articles. I'm restoring it. Gentgeen 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! jguk 19:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is there that is wrong is talking about article titles. There are numerous articles with "Sir" in the title - it is often a useful disambiguator, and it is absurd for this to say straight out never to use it. john k 17:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I also agree with you that it is somewhat foolish of this section to try to summarise what the Naming Convention policy is. I've tried to make it clear (as briefly as possible) that this page does not discuss article titles, jguk 18:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with this policy. Many Muslims consistently insert PBUH after the name of Muhammad. Should we allow that if they also argue that this is "Honorific postfix"?? How about the use of the word "Prophet Muhammad"? I suggest we should remove this whole section because it would lead to many more controversies OneGuy 21:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er..."postfix"? john k 21:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opposite of "prefix," I guess OneGuy 21:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, "suffix"? john k 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

dictionary.com has postfix too OneGuy 03:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Almost all people who follow the Islamic faith are perfectly reasonable and acknowledge that it's inappropriate to put a "PBUH" suffix after Muhammed on an English-language online encyclopaedia. I don't see a particular problem here, nor a need to mention it as part of this style guide, jguk 22:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And why would PBUH be inappropriate if His Holiness is appropriate? Wikipedia should have the same standard for all religious figures OneGuy 22:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone meeting the pope, Catholic or not, is expected to refer to him as "His Holiness". Do Muslims expect non-Muslims to use the PBUH? One might also note that "His Holiness" is a style in use for a living person, while PBUH is a posthumous honorific. The question of saints and PBUH seems more analogous. john k 00:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the phrase PBUH was used during the life of Muhammad. Do Catholics expect that Protestants and atheists refer to the Pope as "His Holiness"? That's a news to me OneGuy 04:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If a protestant or anyone else is actually meeting the Pope, I would assume they would be expected to address him as "your holiness". I am not certain of this. john k 06:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I don't like the use of Honorific prefixes. It's clearly not NPOV. I just noticed some edited the Muhammad article with PBHU. See [1]. If you remove it there but keep it for the Pope, someone can argue that that's a double standard. OneGuy 06:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'd suggest that the appropriate comparison with PBUH is to the use of "Saint". I'm not sure what to think of it. I'm certainly not going to remove the PBUH, though. john k 07:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"If the person has any honorifics, these should be used in the initial reference, and elsewhere in the article where appropriate." What does "where appropriate" mean? Of the examples listed:

• Tony Blair, Elton John, Saint Stephen, Pope John Paul II have honorific only in the intro;
• Al Sharpton, Ramakrishna Paramhansa in intro and picture caption
• Caitanya Mahaprabhu has 10 times with and 10 without (the opening ref is without; includes "Sri Caitanya was born...").
• John the Apostle has no saint in intro, one later (while he was still alive).
• Francis of Assisi has Saint in intro and after death
• Mahathir bin Mohamad mostly just plain Mahathir

Are these just inadequate examples for the policy or is there any policy? Joestynes 07:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As to specifics,

• "Sri" is an honorific, i think of a relgious natuare
• "bin Mohamad" is not a style, but a qualifier, with "bin" having the force of "son of" and "Mohamad" referring not to the prophet but to Mahathir's literal father, who evidently was named after the prophet.

But as to citing specifics, they are no real help in this area because there are usually more PoV admirers of the figure determined enough to put the style back than there are responsible editors determined to keep the style out.

--Jerzy (t) 00:40, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

The specific exclusion of American honorifics from the list of examples is quite deceptive. This exclusion is the work of a couple determined editors (I think largely to support the style usage indirectly). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Popes, etc.

Note that jguk edited that list, adding several names (including John Paul II) so as to back up his arguments elsewhere. I would say it was an edit done in bad faith and am changing it back to its previous list. 129.59.26.23 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Originally, it was of the form it is as of now; jguk some time ago altered it in order to support his push for including "His Holiness" at the beginning of the Pope John Paul II article. I have changed it back to its original form, before he did that. Originally the only examples were "Sir", "Sri", "Saint", and "Reverend". "His Holiness" and "The Right Honorable" are NOT even nearly the same thing as those titles. Titanium Dragon 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, because the edit was reverted, and apparently the person did not look here, I'm going to talk about it. What I changed was in fact a change back to the ORIGINAL FORM of that section. Jguk altered it without discussion or consensus in order to support himself in a discussion on the Pope John Paul II article; he wanted to add "his holiness" to the beginning of the article, and many others did not like this. As such, he altered this so he could put in his POV, and claim it was official wikipedia policy.

The original set of examples are VERY different from "His Holiness" or "The Right Honorable". Sir is used by the media, and encylcopedias list people with "Sir" because it essentially becomes a part of their name. The other examples are the same; "Saint" becomes a part of the name and "Reverend" seems to, as I hear people refer to even dead people by that title. In fact, all of these are retained by the dead - people will still refer to you as such after your death. "President" fits in the same category - people refer to "President Clinton" even though he is no longer in office, and "President Reagan" even though he is dead.

I move that we strike all but the "Sir", "Sri", "Reverend", and "Saint" examples from the list, because they are not at all the same as those four. This was the original format of the policy, is a great deal more neutral, and makes a great deal more sense. People don't want to see "His holiness Pope Pius XIII (born Lucian Pulvermacher)", but according the the current style this would be the correct format. The Dalai Lama is officially styled "His holiness", but the style is absent in his article. People are using this policy to insert their POV. Sir, Sri, Saint, and Reverend are more titles than styles, really, and I think we should keep it that way. Titanium Dragon 22:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly Titanium here and elsewhere doesn't understand the difference between styles and titles. Secondly the changes were not to impose HH but to follow the agreed style which a few individuals have decided they won't tolerate. I did predict this would happen but wasn't listened to. But maybe it is time all those who pushed this policy began to defend it. To put it bluntly "I told you so". This was guaranteed to happen, but as that was decided people need to deal with the vandalism going on the pages containing styles. FearÉIREANN 23:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is, there is (apparently) no great consensus, and I have seen no vote on this page to change the policy. If there was such a vote, I was not aware of it and it is not apparently linked to on this page. I have seen many people argue both sides of the issue, and have cited other encylcopaedias, such as Columbia, Brittanica, and encyclopaedia.com as good examples of what should and should not be used. They use Sir and Saint, and maybe Sri. They do not use his holiness in articles on John Paul II. Maybe the issue wasn't settled as well as it could have been? It just doesn't seem neutral to me. If we must use styles, we need to use them uniformly, which is currently a major issue. Either way, it is going to require a great deal of pain and editing to get all the pages to comply one way or the other, as I have seen an enormous number of pages with honorifics and a great number which lack them. Titanium Dragon 23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is not a change of policy. It has been policy for quite a while.
• Who uses what is irrelevant. Wikipedia sets its policy and it did in this case. FearÉIREANN 23:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is what it looked like before jguk edited it. Notice a difference in the honorifics section? Note that this was something on the order of four months ago. This is a departure, because Sir is a very different thing than "His holiness". You are attempting to dismiss the complaint out of hand and claim it to be irrelevant, when I'm pointing out it has changed in a significant manner, and unless jguk discussed his changes somewhere which is not here, it apparently looks to be a unilateral one. Titanium Dragon 23:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FCOL All he was doing was applying the standard template for referring to cardinals and popes, as agreed and as has been done all over wikipedia, anywhere where someone wrote an article without knowing the standard style to use in such articles. You patiently obviously don't know what styles are, the rules we all follow, and the discussions that led to the decision to follow that format. Stop insisting that someone applying the agreed rules was in some way acting unilaterally. That is standard wikipedia practice and is done all over wikipedia on everything from use of language to use of styles and styles to the rules on the use on American English and British English. Choosing to ignore the rules agreed and to delete agreed formulae is unilateral. Applying the agreed rules is not. FearÉIREANN 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where were these rules agreed to? Where was the vote? What it looks like to me is that there were rules, and jguk altered them. Sir is an honorific. His holiness is a style. There is a difference between the two, and it seems to me that people have confused them. Yes, Wikipedia policy is that we include honorifics before the name. However, it is not (as far as I can tell in this entry) that we should include styles before the name. Adding "his holiness" to the list is to change it, because "his holiness" is NOT an honorific. See honorific and style (manner of address) respectively. Titanium Dragon 00:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to call for a fresh vote on the subject. What is the proper procedure for doing so? Whig 03:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon. Maurreen 06:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We use styles such as "Right Honourable" and "His Holiness" because they are used in the real world. It is useful, interesting information that people are styled in such way, and as such wholly appropriate that we should make reference to these styles.

It can't be overstressed that the only reason we use them is because they are used in the real world. This dispenses of all POV arguments - we make no comment on whether styles should be used, we just report that they are used. The only statement our usage of them makes is the demonstrably correct assertion that they are used in real life. By having this as the deciding criterion in article after article, we easily avoid accusations of bias.

Conversely, a ban on reporting certain pieces of information from being reported, or a ban on linguistic styles that are commonly used in real life by many people, would itself be POV. That is, if we have a policy of going against what real life usage is, we are then necessarily making a statement that real life usage is wrong. (Incidentally, over-using styles in a way which is unrealistic in real life should also be avoided, because such over-use would also be POV.)

However, this shouldn't really be a big deal. We mention a biographical subject's formal name and style at the start of an article - it's wholly unreasonable to suggest that we should edit or alter that name or style to suit some WPians political beliefs. Styles and honorifics are well-established and have been around since time immemorial - they exist in real life - what's the problem with using them? jguk 07:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with reporting the information. Some of us disagree with Wikipedia prefacing names or replacing names with "His Holiness", "Her Majesty", etc. Maurreen 08:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. We are not trying to "ban" them from Wikipedia, we are trying to move them elsewhere in the entry other than the beginning. A style is used much more rarely than an honorific; news sources, for instance, won't use a style, and all the encyclopedias I have looked at do not use styles. Generally, people won't use an honorific unless it is a formal situation and are actually meeting with the person. Titanium Dragon 08:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having them at the start makes the smallest fuss about them. It's much easier to start an article "His Majesty King....." than have a somewhat incongruous sentence along the lines of "As he is the king he is formally style His Majesty". The former option makes no big deal about them, the second suggests there is more to it, jguk 08:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that jguk's point that prefixing the article with the style makes less of a fuss about it is precisely the point, presenting a style as if it were NPOV and no big deal conceals the POV. Now if I wanted to address Queen Elizabeth II without calling her by her style, she might not want to talk to me, but those outside the commonwealth do not refer to her as Her Majesty, it is not done. Likewise most people do not refer to the Pope as His Holiness unless they are Roman Catholics or are directly addressing him and desire a response because he would expect the style to be used in the form of direct address. Likewise, George W. Bush would expect to be called Mr. President, but we don't prefix his article, and the Dalai Lama would expect to be called His Holiness but we don't prefix his (unless changes have been made to the entries since my last review of the situation). To me, the clearest and least controversial way to avoid questions of NPOV is to have the heading of the article follow the title.

With all of that having been said, we can go back and forth on this until the cows come home and certain people will always disagree. I'm saying we should vote this issue, and if it has been voted before then it should be freshly reconsidered in light of the obvious inconsistency and controversy caused by the present state of affairs. How do we get this to a vote? Whig 14:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles are NPOV and no big deal. It means absolutely nothing to say that Elizabeth II is "her majesty" and Benedict XVI is "his holiness," Albert II is "his serene highness," Tony Blair is "the right honourable," and so forth. They are simply styles which are used. There's no reason not to simply give someone's formal style which they derive simply from their office. I suppose one can deny that Elizabeth II is majestic, that Benedict XVI is holy, that Albert II is serenly high, and that Mr. Blair is right honourable, but one cannot deny that a queen has the style of majesty, a pope that of holiness, a sovereign prince that of serene highness, and a British privy councillor that of right honourable, nor can one deny that Elizabeth II is a queen, Benedict XVI a pope, Albert II a sovereign prince, and Blair a PC. Let me add that "Mr. President" is inappropriate, because it's a different kind of style, which doesn't go wwith his whole name. George Bush is "George W. Bush, President of the United States," and is addressed as "Mr. President." Benedict XVI is "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, &c." and is addressed as "Your Holiness." I do think that "His Holiness" should be added to the article on the Dalai Lama. john k 14:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it "means absolutely nothing to say" something then it shouldn't be said, but clearly this is absurd, therefore it *does* mean something, it is an expression of respect for the office and/or the office-holder which can be contextually included in the article without being prefixed *as if* it were NPOV. Whig 14:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a style pertaining to the office, and by which the person is addressed in (often very) formal settings. That is all. john k 16:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then apply it to Muqtada al-Sadr too. Whig 18:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are discussing styles of address. Wikipedia is not addressing the pope or any royalty, etc. So a style of address need only be included as information, not before or in place of the name.

To the best of my knowledge, these styles are not used in place of a name or before a name by other encycopedias or general-interest publications. Maurreen 19:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is suggesting that we use styles/honorifics in place of the name? I agree with you that we should not do this. john k 20:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently jguk and FearÉIREANN are supportying the styles. Maurreen 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl certainly doesn't support using the styles instead of the names. I have no idea if jguk does, but I don't see him saying that here. john k 20:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood Jtdirl, my apologies. But Jguk has reverted my change to the style guide. Maybe Whig is right about a vote and we should have a straw poll. Maurreen 20:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Maurreen completely, and I do not actually believe that the style should be prefixed to Muqtada al-Sadr, however, not doing so in his case violates the NPOV if we do so in other cases as a matter of Wikipedia policy. I believe this policy should be overturned unless uniformly applied, and it is inconsistently applied at present. I vote to overturn it. Whig 20:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is Sadr's style supposed to be? john k 20:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, Hojatoleslam would clearly be inapproriate, since he is apparently not actually at that level. Sheik would also seem inappropriate, since it is an informal title. I don't know about Sayyid. At any rate, any clearly established styles which are simply functions of an office held or a genealogical position clearly established would be appropriate. Informal styles would not be. john k 20:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the styles of address from the style guide and added this: "There is apparently no consensus either way concerning styles of address (such as "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty"), but they are at least not typically used by other encyclopedias or general-interest publications. See the talk page." Maurreen 20:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, there is an agreed approach. If you wish to change it, propose it. But it is illogical that because a handful of people unilaterally change an agreed formula that people who have been involved in a debate have been implementing after a decision, you then unilaterally change the MoS to claim there is no consensus. There are quite a few people who don't want to call the Queen of the United Kingdom by that title and want to use 'Queen of England', the wrong title. Do you propose then to delete the agreed format there and replace it with 'there is no consensus'? Or because a lot of Americans ignore wikipedia policy on using British English in British-related articles and change spellings and grammar to American English, to you propose to delete the consensus that was agreed and write in 'there is no consensus'. Follow that and wikipedia would dissolve into a mess overnight.

Secondly, each encyclopaedia decides on its own house style. Wikipedia is perfectly entitled to opt to use styles. It isn't "wrong", just a different method of dealing with the issue. (I personally opposed it but was in a minority.)

Thirdly, I never have advocated the use of styles in articles. But they are necessary because they factually exist and so should be covered. I would prefer if we included them in the text as an explanation rather than start with them. But there is nothing wrong factually in using them in the way they are used here. I am however utterly opposed to using them in text, eg., Her Royal Highness decided that . . . That is unencyclopaedia and unprofessional in an encyclopaedia. No-one ever proposed that and I have ruthlessly removed all such references on sight. FearÉIREANN 21:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If my edit was any less unilateral than the original addition of styles, please point me to the relevant discussion. Maurreen 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue of styles, their usage and form was debated firstly in the naming conventions, then on the wikilist over a year ago, then here. The debate ran between 2003 and 2005. There was clear agreement in each. The original format was discussed in the naming conventions page (covering both usage in titles and in articles). The decisions were then posted on the wikilist for further comment by me, after pulling together a formulation of words based on the debate and the agreement reached. I expected some controversy to result. There was 1 negative comment in total there. Other users turned the agreement into a form of words here. A total at the time indicated that over 78% either endorsed, agreed or were neutral about, the proposals. 22% disagreed either strongly or moderately. FearÉIREANN 22:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the historical perspective regarding past debate. From what it sounds like to me, there was a package of proposals that was adopted, most of which made good sense, and some of which have led to the controversy you expected at the time. If the choice was between adopting the package of mostly-good practices including one or two bad choices, versus having no consensus, it was probably the best thing at the time to adopt the package. However, time has passed and perhaps where you were unsuccessful in arguing against the use of style-prefixed honorary titles at the time, it is worth revisiting now. I have asked several times what the procedure is for making such an amendment, and nobody has as yet responded to my inquiry. Can you please advise where and how such a proposal may formally be made, discussed and ultimately voted on. Whig 23:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Current surveys. Gentgeen 23:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Maurreen 23:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in Biographies

Thanks to Gentgeen and Maurreen for pointing me to the relevant links for proposing a survey on this subject. In order to frame the survey, I understand that a consensus should first be reached on the following questions:

* What questions should be asked?
* What will the possible answers be?
* Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
* When is the deadline?
* How will the survey be totalled?
* Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey.

Let me start with some suggested wording and hopefully people will help refine the question to be resolved.

Question: Should biographical entries in the Wikipedia begin with a prefixed style of formal address (such as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)?

• Answer 1: Yes, this is preferable for all biographical entries where a formal style is known.
• Answer 2: Yes, but with exceptions for certain cases (please state allowable exceptions).
• Answer 3: No, we should follow the same naming conventions as we do with article titles.
• Answer 4: No, we should follow some other convention (please state the convention you support).

I would propose to allow people to select more than one answer with ranking of their choices (first, second, third, fourth). We should allow one month for votes to be made after the survey is posted, and in counting the votes, we should use the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method to establish a consensus.

I would hope that each of these positions can not only be given a good summary by the advocates of that position, but that discussion will take place in the explanatory comments accompanying the votes to help inform participants of the reasons others may have for their preferences.

The ultimate objective here is not to force a solution on anyone, but to have an open and fair exploration of the alternatives and the advantages or disadvantages of the current situation versus a new convention.

Please sign your comments. Whig 04:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would vote for what might be called "Answer 1.5"--though maybe Answer 4 covers it in a vague way. Specifically, I believe the information that a style is used is relevant; however, I also believe that a style should be mentioned with its context of use. Basically, Wikipedia should mention rather than use styles (in the sense philosophers of language often distinguish use/mention.

Concretely, I believe that an appropriate format is "Title Name, (in manner) addressed as Style is such-and-such. The manner might be "widely" or "formally" in generally acknowledged cases, or it might be "among his followers" in more heterodox cases. For example:

Pope Benedict XVI, formally addressed as His Holiness, was born...

vs.

Pope Pius XIII, addressed among members of the True Catholic Church as His Holiness, was born Earl Lucian Pulvermacher on...

It's consistent, NPOV, and allows contextual description of the style. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Option 3 is really bad. That would mean that our first reference to Tony Blair would have to be Tony Blair, rather than his full name. The best known name as article title/full name as first name given in text rule has served wikipedia well, and I don't think a dispute about styles should be allowed to disrupt it. Shouldn't we just have "No, styles should be mentioned in the text of the article, not before the name" as an option? That would be the obvious "no styles" option, wouldn't it? john k 05:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like your wording, "No, styles should be mentioned in the text of the article, not before the name." This can be either one of the options or a replacement for Option 3. As I said, I'm not trying to dictate the questions or proposed answers here, I'm trying to get a sense of consensus on how the question should be framed. Your comments are helpful. Whig 08:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that there is nothing in my proposal that precludes using the official title without style, that is, the first reference to Tony Blair can and should be as "Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain", but if option 1 and 2 are defeated then it would not be prefixed by The Right Honourable. The distinction here is important, designating Tony Blair right off the top as Prime Minister gives his positional office which serves to disambiguate him from other people who might share his name but not his elected office, the style serves no similar purpose except to convey the mode of formal address he might prefer, and which can still be provided in the text of the article. Whig 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This whole re-opening the debate by asking loads and loads of questions approach is ridiculous. It is also highly disruptive - I'm sure most of us would rather spend our time improving the Wikipedia rather than having yet another round of style wars.

At most we are talking about 3 words at the start of certain articles - what's the big problem with that? We have, quite rightly, a natural bias towards including information - and how someone is styled is useful information, particularly in an international encyclopaedia where readers cannot be assumed to have a natural awareness of how to style certain people. The current approach provides that information in the quickest way that draws the least attention to it. I really don't understand what people have against styles unless it is to promote certain socialist political views, jguk 05:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You oppose the reopening of the debate because you are advocating the status quo which I believe is unsustainable. In any case, you don't have to participate in the framing of the questions/proposed answers/framework of the survey unless you wish to do so, therefore you need not let it disrupt your other activities or take any of your time at all. I want to include information, I want it to be presented NPOV, and I want to get a sense of the Wikipedia community on whether the present prefixed-style approach achieves these objectives, Other than taking a survey, we can go back and forth and reach no consensus, therefore I have proposed this approach. Be as constructive as you like, or don't participate for the time being if you choose not to do so. In the meantime the standing rule remains in effect until and unless changed. Whig 08:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whig, I appreciate the thought you've put into a possible survey. But I wonder if it could be simplified (especially concerning the length of time and the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping).

I'd like to suggest a vote for just a week and just three choices: yes, no and other (meaning maybe, neutral or unsure).

I'd also suggest wording the question a little more broadly, such as "Should Wikipedia articles use styles of address before a name or in place of a name?"

Also, if we're going to do a publicized survey, we should probably at least give a couple of examples. Maurreen 08:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, I am not trying to force a rush to judgment here, and even if a month is too long, a week is too short to publicize the existence of the survey for those who might want to participate in the process. Limiting the answers to Yes, No and Other would likely result in no new consensus, and likewise the use of Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping avoids the situation where a plurality of people might vote for one option but be strongly opposed by everyone else. If you read that article, I think you will understand that the purpose of such a counting method is to arrive at a consensus that everyone is least offended by. Giving other examples is certainly a good idea. Whig 08:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you feel about broadening the scope, so that we address style in all articles, not just biographies? Maurreen 18:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with broadening the scope unnecessarily, and as far as I am aware, style is not prefixed to titles in articles other than biographical entries according to present Wikipedia policy. Please advise me if I am mistaken, but I do not think we say, "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" in the body of articles where she is otherwise referred to, or where this may be done it should be reverted. Whig 20:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not use simply a single example, such as the Pope. Why? Because many people may vote on the basis of "Oh, we should call the Pope "His holiness"" because they are Catholic (or because he is not controversial). I would include several examples, ranging from the Pope to the Dalai Lama to Lucian Pulvermacher (who, technically, would also require the style "His holiness" - he IS the pope of a religious group who give him that title). The problem is, the way you phrase the question changes the answer, which is a well-known phenomenon. I would advise adding in a range, because I don't want people complaining if they advocate the use of styles when I add it to Lucian Pulvermacher's (among other controversial people's) biographies. Doesn't the leader of North Korea have a style of some sort? He might make a good example. Its pretty much incontrovertible that a large number of people (most of his country) addresses him by it (Beloved Leader or something, is it not?) but most people in the rest of the world would not. People should be well aware of the scope of what they are deciding, and that people they may not like will get the styles as well. Titanium Dragon 21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out, and as is explicitly made clear in the relevant article, though Titanium seems incapable of grasping it, Lucian Pulvermacher is not the pope of a religious group. He claims to be pope of the Roman Catholic Church. A miniscule of sedevacantist supporters in Montana of his accept him as the successor to Pope Pius XII. (Only 28 people turned out for his 'inauguration' in a Montana hotel ballroom and he couldn't even afford a couple of dollars to make even a plastic papal tiara to be crowned with!) So in no way would Father Pulvermacher ever be qualified to be called His Holiness. If he had set up his own church, then maybe as pope of his own church he could lay claim to it, but as he clearly is not Roman Catholic pope he can't be treated as such on wikipedia and so can't be given the style of a Roman Catholic pope. So the equal dillusions of Fr. Pulvacher and Titanium Dragon on this point can be ignored from this debate. They are utterly irrelevant. FearÉIREANN 03:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Dear leader Kim Jong-il. I think we should list him, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Queen of England, and someone else (dunno who, some elected political figure maybe. Tony Blair maybe?) as examples of who these styles would go onto. Possibly we should include a judge as well (His honor? That sounds really awkward). I would also put a link to style (manner of address), and mention that we already include honorifics such as Sir. I'm not really sure how to word it though.
• I would also simply give the options "Yes" and "No". Exceptions are a bad idea because they won't be NPOV. Denying Kim Jong-il his style would not be terribly NPOV, nor would it be so to deny it to Lucian Pulvermacher or any other antipope. Then there are cult leaders... some of whom lead cults with thousands, in some cases millions of members. Shouldn't they have their styles too, if they have a few thousand followers? Titanium Dragon 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should just ask the generic question "Do you support the suppression of information because the inclusion of that information does not accord to some Wikipedians' political beliefs?"

Or in short, WP is an encyclopaedia. It is a repository of knowledge - we do not choose to exclude encyclopaedic knowledge because some people like to use WP for politicking, jguk 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you are deliberately misrepresenting what we are trying to do. We are NOT trying to "suppress" information; I would support including styles in the form "Blah de blah is officially styled "His Holiness" in honor of his position" or whatever. Of course, we already have an entry on style (manner of address). How exactly is information being repressed here? His holiness is quite encylcopaedic to include. It simply is not encylcopaedic to refer to Pope Benedict XVI as "his holiness" before his name, as much as it is not to call Pope Pius XIII "his holiness" before his name. Styled his holiness by his followers is factually accurate, whereas prefacing his name with it seems to say "he is so" because it does not indicate it is stylistic.

Moreover, if we include the most offensive examples possible (Lucian, Benedict XVI, Kim Jong-il, various cult leaders, controversial politicians, judges, ect.) it means that people will realize what they are voting on. If you have a problem with people who you hate having honorifics before their names, then perhaps you should consider why. Is it because it is not NPOV? Perhaps so! And if people are still okay with the universal application of styles, that is fine too, and Kim Jong-il will be Dear leader Kim Jong-il, Pope Benedict XVI will be His holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XIII will be His holiness Pope Pius XIII, ect.

By including the most egreious and examples of people who get styles, we will circumvent a great number of edit wars by being able to point to the vote and say "Look, you knew what you were voting on (or people knew what they were voting on) and chose X." Do you think I'm going to enjoy appending "Dear leader" to Kim Jong-il's name? I won't! But if we decide to go with styles, I'm going to probably have to be the one to do it. Titanium Dragon 00:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon suggests we keep the possible answers to Yes or No, but it seems to me that this tries to force the issue one way or the other. While I agree that having a style for certain people and not for others (i.e., for Pope Benedict XVI but not Kim Jong-Il) is an undesirable inconsistency which violates NPOV, the purpose in having the survey is not to dictate what you or I might consider NPOV, but to let the Wikipedians consider the options carefully and decide whether, in the case the status quo is preferred for Pope Benedict XVI, an exception should be allowable in certain instances (and with discussion of what those exceptions should be and why, etc.) If this option is not allowed as one of the possible answers, then we limit the possibility to form a consensus which you or I might happen to *personally* disagree with.

Jguk, you *are* misrepresenting the question and none of the proposed answers seeks to suppress information whatsoever. Whig 01:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does force the issue one way or the other, but that is rather the idea. Status quo preserves a great deal of bias, which will disappear once everyone with titles currently dies in 140 years. Its not really consistant to just preserve the status quo. Titanium Dragon 09:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Titanium Dragon here. While it would certainly be tricky, I think it is certainly feasible to come up with a system that allows use of styles in some cases but not in others, on a rational and relatively NPOV basis. Titanium Dragon wants to say "either we have to call everybody by any half-cocked style they may happen to call themselves by, or else we can't use any styles at all." But those of us who think styles should be given generally do not think that. Therefore, he wants to force us either to abandon styles altogether, or to vote for something we don't really believe. For instance, he suggests we shouldn't just give non-controversial people like the Pope or Elizabeth II, because people might vote for it, suggesting that "it's not controversial." But one might argue (and I think I will argue here), that the very fact of its being non-controversial is what allows us to put it. Nobody serious disputes the right of Benedict XVI to the style of "His Holiness," or the right of Elizabeth II to the style of "His Majesty." On the other hand, almost everybody would dispute the right of Lucian Pulvermacher to the style of "His Holiness." Nobody but his own followers accords him this style, while many non-Catholics accord this style to the actual pope. I could declare myself King Ragnar VII of Courland, and perhaps find a few followers who are willing to call me that. But it would not be appropriate to start the article on me "His Majesty Ragnar VII (b. August 24, 1980), King of Courland," not because styles are inappropriate, but because my style is a joke. At any rate, I don't think that opponents of styles should get the right, a priori, to decide that the only options are either that we use all possible styles or none. john k 02:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with John K that this should not be an All or None question, however I do not think it is so easy to carve out the exceptions as he supposes. While it is easy enough to say that exceptions can be made for non-serious styles, what we do with Kim Jong-Il seems a very excellent example of the difficulties that can arise. I'd be very interested to hear precisely how this line should be drawn; should styles be mandatory in some biographical articles, optional in some cases, strictly improper in others? This is why in the way I proposed Answer 2, I asked that those favoring this solution state their allowable exceptions. I'm going to give this discussion a little more time to settle and try to redraft the proposal in light of the valuable input from participants thus far, and then we can go around the issue again, rinse and repeat as necessary. Whig 03:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, thing is... exceptions are almost certainly not going to be NPOV. Excepting the Pope, for instance, while not excepting Kim Jong-il would be certainly biased. As for saying no one would deny the Pope the style of "his holiness"... no. A TON of Americans would deny him that title. There are many protestants who believe that, in fact, the Pope is the Antichrist, or at least a minion of Satan. The Pope is a highly controversial figure. Many Protestants hate him, many atheists see him negatively, and many American Catholics believe he is living about 8 centuries too late. I would not say he is not a controversial figure. And public approval should NOT be a criteron. We do not call the Nazis evil, or Adolf Hitler so, or Kim Jong-il such, even though many would agree, because it is not NPOV to make value judgements. Controversy is no reason to give someone more or less accord. Titanium Dragon 09:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whig, I would not disagree that it can be quite difficult to carve out exceptions in a consistent way. I think "Pope Pius XIII" is an obvious person we don't have to use a style for. Someone like Kim Jong-Il is rather more difficult, I agree, and I'd like some time to think over how to frame possible exceptions in an NPOV way, if possible. BTW, Whig, I think you're doing a good job so far in trying to organize this vote. john k 04:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes are evil. Let's go for common sense instead. Grace Note 06:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh and "we should use the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method to establish a consensus". Unless that is egghead code for "talking it over", then no, it will do no such thing. It will make someone a winner and someone a loser. In a consensus, no one loses (hey, usually no one wins either but that's the way it is!).Grace Note 06:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace, I hope you will take the time to actually read the article on Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping rather than lobbing grenades at it as "egghead code." The fact is, disagreements exist sometimes, and consensus methods exist to find the least objectionable solution. This is not the same thing as a plurality rule. Whig 08:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whig, thanks for the work you're putting into this. Here's some food for thought.

1. I thought I had seen styles used in articles that aren't biographies, but I can't find any examples. It just seems to me that it would be a good idea to take care of it all at once.
2. Your current suggested question is just about the start of the article. So an article could be started as "John Doe, king of the asdfasd ..." and then later say, "His Royal Highness John Doe ..."
3. The rationale behind my idea of suggesting the choices be yes, no, or other is essentially that it would allow for contingencies, choices or results we hadn't thought of. Maurreen 06:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, your point #2 is well taken, but we do want people to be able to say that "John Doe is formally styled (or addressed) as His Royal Highness King of the asdfasd." I think it is otherwise covered under your point #1. And returning to my understanding of the style guidelines for articles in general, we do not use them other than at the start of biographical articles presently. Please tell me if I am actually mistaken here. I think that common sense will dictate that if we decide we should not head biographical articles with the style, then using the style later on other than by mention is inappropriate, but I will consider rephrasing the question to cover this. As for your point #3, it's too open-ended to be useful as a possible answer to the immediate question. Whig 08:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled now, particularly as you're claiming not to be suppressing information.

Are you suggesting that we ban an article starting:

His Holiness Benedict XVI.....

In favour of:

Benedict XVI, styled His Holiness Benedict XVI....?

I really don't see how the latter is better than the former, which conveys exactly the same information with fewer words and with less fuss, jguk 19:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The distinction between the two forms Jguk provides above is overwhelmingly clear to me. It's exactly the distinction needed for NPOV (even if it does require an extra word or two). But then, I guess a Ph.D. in philosophy sort of spoiled me on being able to think fuzzily.

What's essential here (as I've written repeatedly, though w/o the link) is the Use-mention_distinction. In general, the use of an honorific advocates the propriety of the use, while the mention of it merely indicates the fact of use. The first is POV (Catholic specifically, though many non-Catholics don't much care about the formal gesture), the second is NPOV. Could not be more clear! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I guess those that don't want to disappear up their own arses in convoluted hypothetical claptrap will see your argument for the nonsense it is. You're proposing we should add a new prohibition to Wikipedia based on a theoretical philosophical argument. I, and most WPians, I trust, live in the read world - not a Sophoklean cloud-cuckoo-land, jguk 21:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not help persuade people. Jonathunder 23:19, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Jguk, putting aside your personal vitriol, the purpose of the proposed survey is precisely to determine what "most WPians" think is the best way to address the issue of style. Consensus does not require that every single individual agree, and I am quite confident you oppose any change of the status quo on this issue, but rather, that we collectively find the usage which is least offensive to everyone, i.e., the best compromise which the Wikipedia community can consent to and accept. Whig 22:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand Lulu's point here. We may as well say that it is POV to refer to him as "Benedict XVI" - after all, his real name is Joseph Ratzinger, and we're accepting a Catholic POV to call him by his papal name, right? john k 21:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that we can accept the fact that people change their names under certain circumstances. For instance, my wife took my last name when she married me, and it would be incorrect to refer to her by her maiden name. The fact that Benedict XVI used to be known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and originally Joseph Alois Ratzinger, is relevant and should be included, but we can accept as NPOV that his name has been changed, without adopting any particular POV. Whig 22:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vitriol is because I can't see the point of it - and David Mertz has quite clearly not suggested a better alternative from the status quo. And, assuming the idea is not to suppress information, I doubt a more straightforward (and less prescriptive) alternative will be found, jguk 22:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not David Mertz, and hopefully we *can* put forward a straightforward set of alternatives that people can agree at least to decide between. Whig 23:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revised proposal for comment

Important note: This is not the survey itself, this is a proposal for a survey to be held once a consensus is reached
on the framing of the questions, possible answers, and other parameters of the form and structure are worked out. Some 
people seem to be voting now, but they should be treated as only comments and not as formal votes in the survey itself,
since the final wording may (and probably will) be changed as discussion continues here.
Whig 04:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Dear Leader Kim Jong-il

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

The alternatives listed below can be ranked according to preference. You are encouraged to respond under each alternative with your signature and timestamp (please use four tildes: ~~~~) giving your order of preference for that alternative, for example:

Alternative 1:

First choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 2:

Third choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 3:

Second choice, comments ~~~~

You do not have to rank more than one choice. If you wish to vote for only one or two, for instance, just respond under those headings with your ranking of those alternatives. Alternatives which you do not rank will automatically be given a lower ranking than those you ranked explicitly. If you do respond under multiple alternatives, and have no preference between two or more, you may rank them with the same preference. Unsigned votes will not be counted.

After this survey has been posted for two weeks, voting will be closed and the results counted using the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method to establish a consensus. If you do not understand what this means, please refer to the article itself and the more general article on Condorcet methods of vote counting. In a nutshell, these approaches seek to find the solution which has the least opposition, rather than the strongest plurality, therefore being the most acceptable alternative to the largest majority of the community by common consent.

Question

Should biographical entries in the Wikipedia begin with a prefixed style of formal address?

Alternative 1

Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article. For instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II...

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI...

Dear Leader Kim Jong-il...

• Fifth choice Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Alternative 2

Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided, for instance:

Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader...

If you choose this alternative, please specify the rule or convention by which you believe exceptions should be carved out; should formal styles be mandatorily prefixed in some biographical articles, optionally in some cases, improperly in others?

• Fourth choice Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Alternative 3

No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. For instance:

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty...

Pope Benedict XVI, formally addressed as His Holiness...

Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader...

• First choice Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
• First choice FWIW --Habap 19:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternative 4

No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3. Please specify the convention you prefer and explain why you think it is preferable.

• Second choice, style described later in body of article, where relevant, but not in initial introductory sentence. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

I don't think that Alternative 3 *requires* that the style be used in the initial introductory sentence, but I think it is preferable to do so in most cases. Whig 04:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have modified Alternative 3 to provide that the style should be provided in the opening paragraph, rather than leaving an implication that it must be referred to in the introductory sentence. Whig 14:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As in alternative 3, except to use the term "styled", when appropriate, linking to style (manner of address). For example: "Queen Elizabeth II...styled Her Majesty... FIRST choice of Jonathunder 15:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Alternative 5

None of the above. You may rank this choice first or after any alternatives that you find acceptable. If this alternative wins over all others, the survey results should be set aside and the question should be given further discussion or ultimately archived.

• Third choice Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Revision History

Whig 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Jonathunder 01:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 04:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 04:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 08:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 14:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revised Whig 11:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

To be honest, I think that we have to clarify some questions.

• Should wikipedia include styles? IMHO they have to be in because they exist, so we have to cover them.

Agreed. Whig 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Titanium Dragon 06:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Agreed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:38, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone uses them, who are we to deprive them of it?--ghost 05:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When a style exists and is used for a notable person, that is a fact, and should be mentioned. That does not mean the syle should be used' to describe the person directly. DES 21:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Should everyone who has a style have it used, or should it be limited? I think applying it to everyone is unworkable. Would that mean that Adolf Hitler's style should be used, for example? Should everyone who was once a president have their style used in perpetuity? I think that is unworkable. The solution should be simple. Where a person holds a lifelong style (ie, where it has been received and cannot be lost except in unforseeable circumstances) it should be included automatically. So that would mean by definition monarchs, popes, cardinals, members of the Privy Council, etc. Where it is specific to a term-limited personage, it should be featured with reference to their office, not the person. That would cover presidents in office for a time-limited period. That covers the fact that while styles are automatically used with monarchies and church offices, they are less used, or indeed rarely used except in the most theoretical sense, with elected office-holders. So while next to no-one writes Her Excellency, Mary McAleese, President of Ireland, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is overwhelmingly used (The BBC still occasionally says "Her Majesty the Queen" in news bulletins. Similarly people say His Holiness the Pope but not "His Excellency, President Bush.

Just for reference, note that His Excellency is not an official style of the US President. Slac speak up! 01:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct, see below.--ghost 05:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that it is normal usage to refer to former holders of most elected ofices by the style assocaited with that office. A former mayor, for example is "the Honorable" in formal address. I think that the styles of most of the figures mentioned above, incuding Hitler's formal style as Chancellor, should be mentiopned in the appriopriate articels. It is a fact that such styules are or were used to address such persons unde particular circumstances (by their followers, or in formal address, for example.

I think styles should be referred to (but not per se used) in all cases where we have knowledge of them. For instance, Adolf Hitler's entry should contain words to the effect, "Adolf Hitler was formally addressed as Mein Fuhrer ("My Leader") by the German people when he was in power..." Whig 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: I'm not really sure. Dead people usually aren't referred to by styles, but then again it is factual information and it is reasonably important, so I see no reason to exclude it from dead people - but no real reason to include it either, as it doesn't seem terribly pertinant. I think that in the case of dead people, they should only have their style metioned if it was an unusual one for their position - Emperor Norton, Adolf Hitler, ect. Dead Popes, Bishops, Kings, Queen, ect. use standardized styles, so I don't think it is really necessary to include them because they can be found under Style (manner of address) and are not terribly important. Titanium Dragon 06:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Should it be used up front or contextualised in text? I was in favour of putting it in the text, but I now favour using it up front. My preference would be to wikify the style either to the Style (manner of address) or to a specific page on that style. I have seen it done with His Holiness and I think it worked brilliantly. That format opened up a range of new possibilities about allowing styles to be explained. I think burying it in a sea of links in the article would be a waste of the potential.

I really do think it is best contextualized, but that is precisely the question being posed. Whig 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be contextualized as well, but as Whig pointed out this is why this survey is going to be done. Titanium Dragon 06:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the key question to be addressed by the survey, IMO. I tend to favor it being contextualized, as my be clear from comments above. DES 21:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I applaud all the effort Whig has put into proposing the questions but I think the format is too complicated for most people to follow.

The simple questions are

• styles - use or not use?
• Apply universally or to those who have a lifelong usage of them?
• Use upfront in all cases, in those cases where they are used regularly and identified with the person, with office-specific ones used with reference to the office, or in no cases?

My votes would be yes to use, apply to those with lifelong usage, upfront where it is an almost certain lifelong usage, against the office in the case of term-limited short usage. FearÉIREANN 01:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You leave out the option "do not use, but do mention where significant. DES 21:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that asking one question with multiple possible alternative answers is better than having to ask three separate questions. Whig 05:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your "votes" to the questions you proposed indicate a preference for Alternative 2 in the survey I've proposed. I would like to see the advocates of this position suggest a very clear-cut policy for where and when styles should and should not be prefixed. Do you advocate that Kim Jong-il have his style prefixed? Whig 08:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Side note: In the USA, the U.S. president is just "Mr. President" (at least so far). Maurreen 05:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. The spoken style is Mr. President, just as the Pope's is "Your Holiness". But the diplomatic third party version is "His Excellency" though it is rarely used these days. It was generally used throughout the 19th century and for part of the 20th. FearÉIREANN 03:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "His Excellency" is the proper style of formal address, however casually it may be discarded in most circumstances. In fact, the last time I checked, George W. Bush didn't even have his office prefixed, which should at least probably be fixed. Whig 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, only because the U.S. President is an exception. The prefix of "His/Her Excellency" is only appropriate when used by non-Americans. For Americans it is officially inappropriate, although some ignore this and do it anyway. This is due to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution's, Article I, Section IX. In fact, the usage in the title of the recent book His Excellency: George Washington is deliberate, and means to set Washington apart from other U.S. Presidents.--ghost 16:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the wording of the proposed survey. Please read the Important Note at the top. Whig 04:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think choice two is a bad idea to include. Why? Because pretty much EVERYONE can be controversial, and construed as such. Pope Benedict XVI is controversial, even among Catholics. No one disputes that Kim Jong-il runs North Korea. So why would Kim Jong-il be more controversial? The Dalai Lama is controversial to the Chinese at the least, so that's at least one billion people. I'm fairly certain that almost anyone could be construed as controversial unless they are quite unknown - in which case, likely, they wouldn't have an article at all. The only people who would have styles prefacing their names would be obscure members of royal families. I would consider Pope Benedict XVI to be controversial, some may disagree with me, but I can site dozens of people who will say the same thing and are doing so to the media. This would deny him the prefaced style, and I can already see the edit war in my head. Titanium Dragon 06:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Moreover, I can't think of a way to fix it. Undisputed in their position? This would save the queen, but Kim Jong-il would be safe too. The Pope, on the other hand, has at least two anti-popes on his hands and there is a rather large movement (numbering in the thousands) of Catholics who don't believe he is rightfully Pope. Thus, again he would not get his style, and there would be an endless edit war.
• I do not think there is a neutral way to arbitrate number 2, which is a bad thing for a policy, especially as we are trying to prevent edit wars and clarify policy. Titanium Dragon 06:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titanium, it's been made pretty clear by the comments here that some people think they can propose a NPOV way to make Alternative 2 work. While I think it would be very difficult, it needs to be one of the options. Whig 08:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The response that follows the question should be made to 'pop' to make it more easily recognized from it's explanation. This could be done by using bold or color. For example:

Alternative 2

Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy,...

--ghost 16:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your suggestion. Whig 11:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also made the Alternative 2 above not a heading. Whig 11:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like the changes and would like to see the survey done. Should we also include questions about appellations, which were discussed on the Village Pump? The current policy is vague, but this may be for the best.--ghost 05:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not expand this proposed survey to include additional questions. The discussion here seems to have already more or less settled down, and if there aren't any major objections to the current wording, I'd like to go forward with the actual survey in the next 24 hours or so. Whig 06:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current approach has developed over a long time, and does not seem to be broken. There's a lot of chat above, but none of it is likely to lead to a revised approach that is acceptable community-wide - and trying to enforce a new approach will lead to lots of acrimony from those who haven't seen, or can't follow, what has gone above. It's about time this discussion was finally kicked into touch and archived away, jguk 08:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you appear to be the only person opposed to a vote. Unless you have a crystal ball or ESP, you don't know any more than the rest of us about how this will turn out. I can't imagine any good reason for you to oppose finding out what the community thinks. Maurreen 08:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't need a crystal ball - I have already seen that the styles always come back when people remove them. Occasionally, as is the case now, there is a small move by a few to ban them, and sometimes they have some successes. But as referring to styles is perfectly natural and something that happens on a regular basis in real life, they will always come back. This is hardly surprising - people edit articles based on what they see around them, banning them from doing this just doesn't work! jguk 08:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've followed this discussion and I didn't see anyone argue that styles should not be referenced at all. Rather, it is a question of how it should be done. (My own views on that have been changing as I've watched the proposals develop, read the arguments, and looked at how things are done in other works.) And no one is talking about "banning" anything. The MOS doesn't do that. What it does is gives a guideline for copyedits to "gently" come to some consistancy. This is better than edit wars, isn't it? Jonathunder 14:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Formal survey has been posted

Please go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles to express your preference(s).

Announcement has been posted to Wikipedia:Current surveys and due to the potential impact on a large number of biographical articles, also to Wikipedia:Announcements. Whig 08:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Formal styles of address have been prefixed to the following biographical entries, while the current policy remains in force. The associated talk pages have been updated to inform the editors of the policy and the current survey regarding its continuation or modification.

• Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
• Kim Jong-il
• Sun Myung Moon
• George W. Bush
• Hillary Rodham Clinton

While it may be counterproductive to engage in wholesale enforcement throughout the Wikipedia at this time, especially as a new consensus may be formed in the future, it is imperative that we do use or mention styles in a NPOV fashion in all cases unless a rule of exception can be carved out, and no such exceptions are currently provided for in policy. Whig 05:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A useful reference to Forms of Address. Whig 05:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand the current approach. Kim Jong-il, George Bush and Hillary Clinton do not enjoy styles in the same way as the Queen and the Pope do. They are not covered by the current guideline, jguk 07:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to expostulate on why and how a sitting US member of congress is not entitled to be styled "The Honorable" although this is the practice in the US and you do favor styling a member of British parliament as "The Right Honourable"? Would you care to expound on how a US judge would not be entitled to the style of "The Honorable", when in this case, you would even be held in contempt of court for declining to address the judge in court as "Your Honor"? Whig 07:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A member of the British parliament is not entitled to be styled "The Right Honourable". It is only people who have been appointed to the Privy Council by the Queen who are styled "The Right Honourable". The appointment is for life and the style "The Right Honourable" is used frequently in both formal and less formal situations. Members of the House of Commons who are not Privy Councillors or Queen's Counsel are referred to in the House as "The Honourable Member for...." or "My Honourable Friend the Member for..." (if in the same Party as you). But this style is purely restricted to within Parliament and not used at all (except humorously) outside of it.

Returning to your point, I would not suggest that an article on a Member of the British House of Commons who is not a Privy Counsellor should start with "The Honourable..." or "The Learned and Honourable..." (as applicable). It is this position which corresponds to that of sitting US Senators.

On the point of addressing judges, they will be addressed as "Your Honour" when in Court performing their official roles. They won't generally be so styled outside of Court (except by a brown-nosing minority, and when they are invited to an event solely because of their job). Another thing is that the title goes with the job. Once they are retired, it will be lost - and certainly the style would not be used after death. This is different from someone who is styled "Reverend" or "Doctor" - who hold their roles because of their professional qualifications, not because of their jobs

In short, there is a world of difference in the various usages - the styles we have been speaking about are generally given and then used forever (though there are extreme circumstances when they are lost - eg see Jonathan Aitken). Kind regards, jguk 11:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk does not know US law and custom, that is clear, and unfortunate. For one thing, Federal Judges and Justices of the US Supreme Court are typically appointed for life. They do not lose their offices, unless impeached and convicted of wrong behavior. Presidents, even though they serve for a limited number of years, keep their formal style of address for the rest of their lives. Bill Clinton is still called President Clinton, for instance. Likewise, former Senators and Governors and Ambassadors will keep their formal styles after their time in service ends. Whig 07:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a good point in Jguk's comments, however, insofar as applies to US Representatives, and members of most state legislatures. The Senate is more analogous to the UK House of Lords, however, without the nobility requirement. Whig 07:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Without intending to be excessively strict, attorneys in the US are titled Esquire. This is a de facto title of nobility which cannot be granted by the Congress but is granted instead by the state and federal Supreme Courts. In this case the Esquire does not precede the name, however, it would be used in the form, "Mr. So and So, Esq." Whig 07:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You are deliberately misapplying the guidance. No-one has ever interpreted the way you are now doing and it is not intended to be interpreted that way. Not only that, you yourself do not believe the edits you have made to articles such as Hillary Clinton should be made. This is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point - this is a big no-no.

By the way, this "Esquire" thing is getting silly (and I believe you know that too!). Take another example - before 1963 all English cricketers were classified as either amateurs or professionals. An amateur would be styled "Mr J. Smith" on scorecards and write-ups for matches. A professional would be styled "Smith, J.". However, it would be a palpable nonsense for us to recreate that in a modern-day encyclopaedia, jguk 11:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Every untitled man in the UK is styled "Esq." in formal situations, and it's no more a "title of nobility" than "Mr" (its less formal equivalent). (And "Esq." is not "granted" by anyone in the US - it's merely traditionally used.) Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't "enforce" the Manual of Style, because it's not policy - it's a style guide. Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, I have to come down with Proteus on this one. Although it is useful to have the MoS clarify a standard for any given guideline, they are and should always be guidelines. Not dogma. Therefore, if the editors of a given article debate & vote to style in a different manner, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do so, provided that this is not deliberately offensive to someone.

For example: Pretend the editors of the George W. Bush article wanted to add the honorific His Excellency prior to President Bush in the intro. (*cough*) If they conducted a survey and gained as much support as this policy did, then they should be allowed to do so.

Luckily, many people (such as me), would find this patently offensive.--ghost 21:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph question

What is the rationale for excluding the location of where someone was born in the opening paragraph (if there is actually such as rule)? The where of someone being born is related to the time, I don't believe we should needlessly decouple them into separate paragraphs. zen master T 19:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It may help clarify disputes of the nationality of the person in question. I believe there was an eariler debate on just this subject.--ghost 17:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The DoB and DoD belong in the lead bcz they almost always set crucial context. the places of birth and death almost never do, bcz

• nationality, often equally important as context, is almost always established definitively in one word, and when it is not, a few words like "German-born Jewish American" give a better picture than speciific places,
• the first sentence, and especially the few words before "was a" (where the dates) belong is prime real estate that can tolerate no inefficient words, and
• their role in settling disputes is served quite as well when they are placed, relatively out of the way, at the corresponding points in the chronology.

--Jerzy (t) 00:59, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

images

there is nothing written on this page about images. i feel the policy should be that the main image should be a portrait, and images that are of the person in action or with other people - those images should be secondary. is such a policy written down? can you help me locate it? Kingturtle 01:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Subsequent uses of pseudonyms

After the initial mention of an ordinary name, the person may be referred to by surname only. But what about pseudonyms, particularly where the pseudonym is in the nature of a phrase? Would it be ok to refer to Meat Loaf simply as Loaf (thankfully the article doesn't)? The articles on Taj Mahal (musician) and Elton John subsequently refer to them by just the first part of the pseudonym, which sits ok with me. Articles on Little Richard and Howlin' Wolf refer to them just by the second part of their pseudonyms, and that is consistent with common usage. I suggest the guideline to be follow common usage for shortening pseudonyms, which may be just the first part (eg Taj) or just the second part (eg Wolf) or sometimes neither (eg Meat Loaf). Nurg 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of styles survey result

A survey was conducted on the use and/or mention of styles within articles. The voting mechanism used ranked options with Condorcet tallying. The weak winner of the vote was to mention the use of styles after the initial title and name of a person in a biographical entry. The prior MoS recommendation to prefix styles was explicitly a minority position.

However, the "winning" alternative did not win with a WP "consensus" level of 75-80% support, but only with around 55%. A followup survey involving an up-or-down vote on the winning alternative will be conducted, but has not occurred yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

A ratification vote on the prevailing prescribed convention has been posted. Whig 06:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes

I have moved this comment from the project page. Whig 03:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a long-running on-going dispute about this section. There is a proposal to temporarily replace it with an interim policy. Please feel free to comment on its talk page.

Note, the proposed interim policy seeks to broaden the scope of the question that we have been discussing (regarding prefixed styles) into one that tries to incorporate all prefixed honorifics (perhaps even requiring redefinition of what an "honorific" is in order to exclude neutral titles of office like Queen, Pope, President, etc. Furthermore, the interim policy suggested explicitly has "no deadline" and is therefore hardly "interim" as no consensus is as yet apparently emerging on final status or even how we'll ever get there. Whig 03:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Err... did you actually read the proposal and comments I left elsewhere? First of all, there is an explicit deadline in the interim policy. There's no deadline for finishing Wikipedia, OTOH, so there's no urgent need to have the solution to this now or next year. Second, do you have a better idea? Zocky 05:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read the proposal. I've expressed my reservations numerous times, and have done so again above. I know it's your baby, and I respect the sincere effort you've put forward, but I don't see it as getting us to any resolution of the NPOV dispute. For one thing, you've expanded the scope of the question, for another, you propose a series of surveys, when a survey has already been completed, and if your surveys don't obtain a consensus for any alternative, you want us to just throw our hands up. This is a NPOV dispute. The reliance on consensus, so important to the Wikipedia in most other respects, does not pertain. A majority already disfavored the use of prefixed styles, but a steadfast minority refuses and will presumably continue to refuse to respect the NPOV rule, claiming variously that something isn't POV unless a consensus finds it so, and that they had some prior consensus (of which no evidence has ever been adduced) to put the prefixed styles in the MoS (bio) originally. I don't think more surveys will help, but please, if you continue to want to work to obtain consensus, I approve of your effort. If we don't have some progress that leads to resolution within some definite time frame (I don't care if it's a week, a month, or longer), and all we have is to leave prefixed styles in place or engage in page-by-page edit wars, then it will be appropriate to make RfAr when the current ratification vote expires. Whig 07:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Full names

A small and pretty lame dispute has broken out on Peter Singer over whether the lead para in a biography should include the subject's full name, including middle names not used in ordinary reference, or whether it should just be the style by which the subject is normally known (ie the same as the page title). I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be an American/British style clash going on here as all the encyclopaedias I have known have strictly used full names. I also distinctly remember a statement in a style guide that said full names should be used if known, but I can't find it now. Does anyone else have any views, and should the Manual of Style (biographies) be amended to state a position on this? David | Talk 1 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

I would say that, under the section pseudonyms, this text is applicable: Alternatively, the birth name can appear in apposition to the pseudonym:

• E. B. White (11 July 1899 – 1 October 1985), born Elwyn Brooks White, was an American author, essayist, and noted prose stylist...

This states the birth name should be given in the lead paragraph, and in the example of Peter Singer would give:

Peter Singer (born Peter Albert David Singer in 1946 in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

Does that work as a compromise based on that policy? Hiding 5 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

I don't think Peter Singer has changed his name. He simply doesn't use his middle names. Why bother to repeat his first name and surname? David | Talk 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Saying "born X Y Z" certainly implies "born X Y Z, but not that any longer", which for the vast majority of people is not the case, and so that format is misleading and should not be used (except of course for people like Elton John, who have legally changed their names). Proteus (Talk) 6 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Can it be removed? The discussion seemed to run out of steam in mid May with no seeming consensus. Hiding 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Maybe we could try again to get consensus. Does anyone know of any other style guide or reference on writing that supports use of "his holines", for example, in expository work? Maurreen 5 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Not explicitly. They only mention if it is used, to capitalise. Her Majesty, is to be used sparingly, if at all, according to The Times, who defer to Who's Who style, whatever that may be. Hiding 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest changing the section back to an earlier version, which apparently brought little disagreement. It is the version from [18:01, 24 Nov 2004]. Here is what I mean:

Honorific prefixes

Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. For example:

Sir Elton John

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa

St John the Apostle; St Francis of Assisi; St Stephen

Reverend Al Sharpton

Dato' Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad

Exceptions to this rule include cases where titles or honorifics have been transformed into universally known names, as with Genghis Khan, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa. Even the articles on Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin follow the general rule above.

Comments? Maurreen 9 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

It seems a little bland, in that I can see people arguing over what's appropriate. That said, people will argue whatever wording is used, and this seems the best starting position. I agree. Hiding 14:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed it and removed the tag. Maurreen 20:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Reluctant subjects

originally posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive I#Biography articles - reluctant subjects. Moved here for lasting relevance and further comment. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Two people who have Wikipedia biographies have recently appeared to censor some information out of the biographies. In both cases the individuals are active on the Internet and the information is essentially available on their own websites. One case is that of Romath, the pseudonym of a famous Usenet user. She does not want her real name posted. The other case is that of Chuck Munson, who does not want known his birthyear, the name of his blog, or his role in starting a couple of websites. Again, this is all information which is posted in the Internet, mostly by the subjects themselves. Both claim that harm will come to them if we publish the information while apparently believing that their own publication of it is without risk. My personal inclination is that people who have a high profile on the Internet and publish personal information should expect an encyclopedia biography to include that basic info. However, I don't see any guidance in the policies over whether biography subjects should have a veto over material in their biographies. On the other hand, we don't want to harm people. Any suggestions? Thanks -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:44 (UTC)

I believe very similar to this has come up before (sorry, I can't recall when), and the conclusion reached then was that if the information is public enough to be verifiable, then we can't do any additional harm by repeating it here, and if it's not, then it shouldn't be in the article anyway. HTH. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

As long as information is true (by which I mean verifiably true) and relevant and not illegal to reveal then it should be included. In the instances you've quoted, I'd have thought someone's real name or birthdate are always relevant to an article. A subject's blog, I would have thought, is always relevant for at least an external link. As far as what websites someone has started, it would depend on what they are noted for (ie it is a judgment call as to whether it's relevant). In all instances, I think it is irrelevant as to whether a subject wants something about him mentioned in article (after all, I imagine Gary Glitter would rather we didn't mention the paedophilia!). (There is a separate issue as to whether these people are notable enough for a WP article, but assuming they are, I think all the above holds true.) jguk 3 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Agree completely with jguk above, and suggest that if it isn't a guideline or Manual of Style entry, it should be. Hiding 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

• Yes, verifiable info should be included. And when this info is available elsewhere online, I don't see how WP articles telling the same could hurt these individuals. However, while for example, revealing J.K. Rowling's address may contain verifiable info, I'd be against posting that, simply for privacy reasons. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:42 (UTC)

• The address isn't notable information. It could, for instance if she lives at 10 Downing Street, or her own home was the major focus of some writing, or there is a permanent fan/cult encampment outside. SchmuckyTheCat 4 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

To summarise what I've read: There is a line between basic biographical information and private information. Verifiable name, place and date of birth, education, occupation (or relevant avocation), notable relevant achievements, city or province of residence: these are the basic stuff of biographies. Specific addresses, phone numbers, ID numbers, and such are private details (even if somehow verifiable) that should be omitted. Lovers, spouses, children, and other personal details to be included if relevant. The opinions of subject are to be given respectful hearings, but do not override normal encyclopedic considerations. And it would be helpful if this were better delineated in the policies. Thanks for everybody's contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 09:28 (UTC)

• • Yep, that's pretty much it. - 131.211.210.15 5 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

• If we augment policy to handle this, we should also consider covering magic tricks. See Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment. Bovlb 2005-07-05 13:38:07 (UTC)

• Reference to earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Divulging personal details. Please do not edit that page. David Remahl 10:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Inadequate

Currently, our directions have the following statement:

• The opening paragraph should give:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))

This seems deeply inadequate to me. The question of what to put in the first line of an article is different from the question of what the title of an article should be. I think this page needs more guidance on how the opening paragraph (and specifically, the is to be written in more complicated cases, since it currently provides almost none except a) linking to a naming conventions page that doesn't deal with this issue directly; and b) having guidelines for pseudonyms (of which one of the examples, E. B. White, no longer reflects the actual article, and is also not a pseudonym). Suggested issues to be dealt with would include:

1. Monarchs (Should it begin King Edward VII of the United Kingdom (dates) or Edward VII (dates), King of the United Kingdom or Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom (dates)? I'd prefer the second, but currently there's absolutely no guidelines for this
2. Peers - it has been standard practice that a peer who is not normally known by his peerage title (Harold Macmillan) or one known best by a lesser title or courtesy title (Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh) is to be referred to by their fullest title on the first reference. This is not, so far as I am aware, actually codified anywhere, except perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, which is not official policy. Beyond this, there's no guidelines.
   1. As a special issue we may note peers (and other aristocratic Britons) who change their surnames. How is this to be dealt with? Especially in instances where the surname change happens after the person becomes a peer, so that their surname is no longer normally used.
3. Other people who change their names. When someone changes their name, do we use the birth name or the later name first? Note that this is distinct from a pseudonym.
4. Married women - for married women who take their husband's name, do we give first their maiden name or their married name? (I think clearly the latter, unless they are much better known by their maiden name, as might be true in a few cases)
5. Peeresses by marriage - Again, birth name or married name? It should also be noted that often times, these ladies are known by a couple of things over the course of their marriage, since they might marry their husband before he inherits or is created his highest title.
6. Peeresses in their own right - Especially for ones who marry, what surname do we give them? Should it be Pamela Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma or Pamela Knatchbull, 2nd Countess Mountbatten of Burma?
7. Monarchical consorts - same question. This is actually what drew me to this in the first place, since I've been arguing with User:Jtdirl about the proper opening to the article on the last empress of Russia (the article is currently at Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, but will probably be moved somewhere else soon.)

Anyway, I don't think most of these issues should be terribly controversial, but I think it would be wise to have specific conventions. john k 15:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A case will probably help to figue out what the talk is about... The two alternatives at the monarchical example John mentioned are:

1. John champions: "Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia, born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice Prinzessin von Hessen und bei Rhein), 6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918), was Empress consort of Russia, the wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last Tsar....
2. Jtdirl champions: "Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (German: Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice Prinzessin von Hessen und bei Rhein), 6 June 1872 - 17 July 1918), under the title Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, was Empress consort of Russia. She was the wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last Tsar...."
   

I happen to prefer the first alternative. 217.140.193.123 20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, John, although I said I thought we would be best off posting the argument here, I realise, just from your quick résumé of the situation, that there are a lot more variations under the general heading of "biography" than can easily be controlled by standards. In particular, I think the question of whether to use the birth name or the changed name first (whether or not it is the result of marriage) very much depends on the individual case. Deb 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there can be no hard and fast rules. At the same time, I think there need to be some kind of specific guidelines for what to do. As it stands now, there are essentially no guidelines, meaning that very similar cases are treated in different ways. john k 21:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The latter is the correct form for three reasons:

• Alexandra Fyodorova was not an empress regnant but an empress consort. Except for reigning consorts who are known at this time in their life as consort, articles on deceased consorts should not use titles like Empress, Queen etc that would equate consorts with actual empresses regnant or queens regnant. Otherwise, for example, Britain would have articles on Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II, Queen Mary (wife of Charles II), Queen Mary (wife of George V), etc. It would also have Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth (the Henry VII one), Queen Elizabeth (the George VI one) etc. It would be an untidy confusing amateurish mess.

• It is the agreed biographical formula here and elsewhere to use maiden names/titles for deceased consorts. That is why history talks of Catherine of Aragon, not Queen Catherine of England, Catherine of Braganza not another Queen Catherine of England, Blanche of Castile not Queen Blanche of France, Marie-Françoise of Savoy, not Queen Marie-Françoise of Portugal.

• It makes logical sense linguistically to start an article on a consort by saying who they started off as, and then say who their later became, rather than start with the end title and then work backwards. Using the consort name/title as the primary title allows us to write an article on the person rather than on the holder of a particular title. Each consort will have had a life prior to marriage, and in most cases have been a member of another royal marriage and royal dynasty prior to marriage. It is standard historical naming to use the maiden name of a consort, not least because it allows the communication of details of consort marriages. Louis XII married a Castillian princess called Blanche. He didn't marry a queen called Blanche. Henry VIII did not marry a Queen Catherine, but an Aragonese princess called Catherine.

The use that comes from using non-marital name, not consort title, can be seen in the following sentence:

Blanche of Castile (1188-1252), wife of Louis VIII of France, was the third daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castile, and of Eleanor of England.

Compare that to

Queen Blanche, wife of Louis VIII of France, was the third daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castile, and Queen Eleanor.

Written that way, the link between Blanche and England would be lost, yet the fact that she was half-Castillian and half-English was important in facilitating the marriage, because it allowed the French king to have family links with two European royal families.

Equally, the following sentence would not contain the important contextual information if consort title rather than maiden name/title was used.

Born in Alcalá de Henares, Catherine of Aragon was the youngest surviving child of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile and, as a third-great-granddaughter of Edward III of England, a fourth cousin of both Henry VII and his wife Elizabeth of York.

The link with the House of York through Elizabeth of York was important. Call her Queen Elizabeth and that link is completely lost. That is why professional historians use maiden names/titles, not consort names. Wikipedia as an encyclopædia and should be following high professional standards, not amateurish standards. We need to work out a professional format to achieve those high standards. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtd - you are creating a straw man here. It is correct to say that "Catherine of Aragon" was Queen of England. It is highly odd to say that "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" was Queen of the UK. It is extraordinarily odd, and quite possibly incorrect, to say that "Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" was Empress of Russia. When the territorial designation is what the person was actually known as, that is quite different from when it isn't. Talking about Catherine of Aragon or Elizabeth of York is quite different from talking about Mary of Teck. You wouldn't say "Prince Michael of Kent is the Grandson of King George V and his wife Mary of Teck." Or that The Prince of Wales is "grandson of King George VI and his wife Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." You'd just say that they were the grandson of King George V and Queen Mary, and the grandson of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (or Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother), respectively. As to your examples, even if I was suggesting that those individuals not be initially called by their territorial designation (which I am not), this would certainly not affect any other references to them, so there's no reason to postulate that we have to call Henry VII's queen "Queen Elizabeth," which would just be absurd (and, as I said before, it's fine to call her Elizabeth of York in the first line, anyway). As to your constant claims about professional historians, I have no idea what you're talking about. Most professional historians simply call queen-consorts by their reigning name, unless they are talking about them before their marriage. To give an example, Orlando Figes in his A People's Tragedy just has index entries for Maria Fedorovna and Alexandra Fedorovna for the two empresses mentioned in that book. Most other encyclopedias do not use the "maiden name" first for many recent monarchs. Britannica, for instances, has Mary of Teck, but it also has:

1. Elizabeth for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
2. Alexandra for the last Russian Empress
3. Elizabeth for Sisi

And so forth. For Alexandra, it does exactly what I say should be done - it says Alexandra, Russian in full Aleksandra Fyodorovna (originally Alix Princess von Hesse-Darmstadt) [note the inaccuracy as to the Hessian title - but that is neither here nor there).

The Columbia encyclopedia uses even fewer miaden names - it simply calls articles things like "Charlotte, queen consort of George III of England," and so forth.

So, in short

1. I am not proposing that we never use the maiden name in the intro, just that we only use it when the person is normally called that way. For all British consorts up through Alexandra, I'd say that we should probably use the maiden name. For French consorts up to Marie Antoinette, it probably makes sense as well. And almost certainly for many others. But just because most articles should be this way doesn't mean that it's appropriate for every article to be this way, and there's no reason to present it as though it's all or nothing. I particularly think that in cases where, to make the "maiden name" make sense, we also have to give the "maiden title" for somebody whose married title was higher, we very much should avoid it. Thus "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria," "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon," "Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" - all bad.
2. No matter what happens, other than in the first line of their own article, anybody can be referred to however is most appropriate in the context of the reference.
3. Your claims for what "historians" do lack any basis in reality that I can see. Perhaps you are thinking of genealogists? john k 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, another issue - King-consorts. Not too many of these, but still warrant some sort of standard. john k 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My copy of Britannica has seven ELIZABETHs who were queen consorts of various nations and periods. You can look down the list and pick out the one you want. You can't do that with a wikipedia article - unless you prefer to go to the disambiguation page first, which I suppose some people might. That's one reason why we don't necessarily do things the same as a printed encyclopeaedia.

No. No. No. You must be purposefully misunderstanding me. We are not talking about article titles. That is why the discussion is here, and not at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). We are talking about the first line of the article. I'm fine with the article being at Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. But there is absolutely no need to disambiguate the first line of an article. john k 19:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Must have missed this. I can assure you I don't go round deliberately misunderstanding anyone. You may be confusing me with someone else. Deb 20:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, must add to this. You say, You wouldn't say "Prince Michael of Kent is the Grandson of King George V and his wife Mary of Teck." Or that The Prince of Wales is "grandson of King George VI and his wife Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon." Well, yes, I would say the first of those, but not the second. Why? I suppose it's something to do with things being within living memory. I'm quite confident that after the death of the present Queen, people will say "George VI and his wife Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon", in order to avoid confusing younger people. Deb 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would say that Prince Michael was the son of King George V and Queen Mary. I see no reason not to say that. The basic fact is that she is normally called "Queen Mary" and not "Mary of Teck." This is in contrast to, say, Catherine of Aragon, who is always called "Catherine of Aragon." A biography of Catherine of Aragon would say it was a biography of "Catherine of Aragon". The only biography that I know of of Queen Mary says it is a biography of "Queen Mary." john k

IMHO, King consorts can't really have a standard (I know we've been through this discussion before, but perhaps it's worth going over it again) because there are no rules of etiquette or style relating to their position. There have been six in the UK by my reckoning (Philip II of Spain, Lord Darnley, William III of England, Prince George of Denmark, Prince Albert and Prince Philip), and all have had a completely different range of titles to choose from -- plus, Parliament has chosen to give them a variety of titles. I don't see how you can generalise on this; or are you just talking about what order to put things in? Deb 16:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't mean "men who are the consort of reigning queens." I mean "King-Consorts" - men who are considered Kings by right of their wives. William III was not a King-Consort - he was king in his own right. Of the others, George, Albert, and Philip were not kings at all. It is unclear if Philip II can be considered a King-Consort of England. He was King, but his father made him King of Naples and Sicily just before his marriage, so he might just have been king of that. Darnley was certainly a King Consort. So was his predecessor, Francis II. Beyond that, this wasn't really done in Britain. But there is definitely a tradition of King-Consorts in Spain and Portugal. I do wonder about what order to put things in for Darnley. Should it be Henry Stuart, Duke of Albany (dates), commonly known as Lord Darnley, was King-Consort of Mary, Queen of Scots? john k

Oh, I see. I don't know much about Spanish and Portuguese history, so I'd better bow out of that one. On the other point, it's true there is a biography called "Queen Mary", but it was written in 1959, only seven years after she died when she was fresh in people's memory. (I'm not just using that to reinforce my point - I had to look it up.) But if you were to say "Queen Mary" to a British person in their twenties or thirties, for example, they would probably have no idea who you were talking about, and they'd be just as likely to think you meant Mary Tudor or Mary, Queen of Scots. And, to be honest, if you said "George VI and Queen Elizabeth", many people would have no idea who you meant, even though she only died a couple of years ago. Deb 20:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, without any context, it is unclear who "Queen Mary" is, and because of the fact that the late Queen Elizabeth's like-named daughter is the current Queen makes her name confusing. But in context, if you say "King George V and Queen Mary," it is pretty obvious which Queen Mary is being referred to. And the same "most people," who would be confused by a simple reference to "Queen Mary" would, at any rate, nothave any idea who Mary of Teck or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is, either. Furthermore, the basic fact is that, at the time they were queen, neither of them was either Mary of Teck or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The general standard for first lines of articles is to use the highest titles the person attained. In this case, it would just be "Mary" and "Elizabeth." Given that disambiguation is not a concern here, I don't see what would be wrong with "Mary (1867-1953), born Princess Mary of Teck, was Queen-consort to George V of the United Kingdom." Or similarly, "Elizabeth (1900-2002), born Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, was Queen-consort to George V of the United Kingdom." Now, it would be fine for other queens to use "Catherine of Aragon (1491-1536) was Queen-consort of England and the first wife of Henry VIII" or whatever. Because she is actually called Catherine of Aragon. The name "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is generally only used in genealogical contexts. john k 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A couple of corrections:

• Catherine of Aragon was not always called Catherine of Aragon, John. She was called Queen Catherine in her lifetime, and Princess of Wales, and Princess Dowager of Wales. She was known after her death as Catherine of Aragon. That is standard.

I have no real idea what she was known by at the time, but this is irrelevant. Writers now refer to her as Catherine of Aragon. I do know that any claim that your preferred way of doing things was the "standard" in the sixteenth century is highly dubious. In the 15th century, after all, it was still common to refer to English princes by their place of birth - "Edward of Westminster," "Edward of Middleham," and so forth. john k 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Similarly Mary of Teck was known as Queen Mary in her lifetime, but is not so know. If you say Queen Mary most people think of Bloody Mary, or Mary II, or Mary, Queen of Scots. Unless she is used in a sentence mentioning the King she was married to she is called Mary of Teck so people can tell which of the Marys is being talked about. Formally, writers to say "George V and Mary of Teck" when listing families in historical writing so that it is clear that George was married to a woman who was from Germany. (It is standard even in non-royal naming, when speaking of marriage, to say "John Smith married Mary Lynch", not John Smith married Mary Smith", which in fact would be interpreted as suggesting that he married someone with the same surname as him. Similarly it is normal to say that "Denis Thatcher married Margaret Kempston, then after his divorce Margaret Roberts", not "Denis Thatcher married Margaret Thatcher, then after his divorce Margaret Thatcher".)

In nearly all sentences discussing Queen Mary, it would be perfectly obvious which Queen Mary is under discussion without any mention of King George V. "Queen Mary died just before Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953." "Queen Mary saw England through the First World War." "Queen Mary was widely admired for ignoring a suffragette who managed to infiltrate Buckingham Palace in 1914." You would say "The Duke of York married Princess Mary of Teck" sure. But beyond this, I'm not sure in what contexts you would use her maiden name. Obviously, when disambiguation is needed, one refers to her as Mary of Teck (although calling her "a woman who was from Germany" seems extremely dubious to me - she was born in England, she grew up in England, and her mother was an English princess). But nearly all of the time, disambiguation is not needed. If one is referring to a monarch of England in the 20th century called "Queen Mary," it is pretty obvious who is being referred to. john k 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The only issue is how far in the future after their death a consort reverts from consort name or death name to historical name (known in the business as the "HN question"). Hardcopy publications usually follow a couple of principles:

• • Is there someone else who has suceeded to the title? (eg, constitutionally Diana Spencer is now longer Princess of Wales, first due to divorce, second due to death, and third due to the fact that Camilla now has the title.)
  • Are their children dead?
  • How contemporary were they?
  • Is there potential for confusion with the consort name?
  • Are there readers out there now who would not have had an awareness of the person in their lifetime?
  • How long are they dead?
  • How close before/after the last edition did they die?
  • If royalty, how long is it since they used their highest royal title? (eg, how long since Catherine of Aragon was queen, how long since Elizabeth of York was queen, how long since Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was queen, how long since Diana was Princess of Wales, how long since Eugénie de Montijo was Empress of France, etc)

If someone is dead more than 3-5 years it is standard to use the HN. If they died before the last edition was published, it would retain their last used name/title, then the next edition if more than 3 years later would move to HN.

What publications are you specifically referring to? Britannica has articles on Marie Antoinette, on Elizabeth (for Sisi), and so forth. john k 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Elizabeth-Bowes Lyon, many serious publications, as with Wikipedia, use either the HN or the highest royal title. Queen Mother is not the highest title. Queen is. So she should be in as either HN (Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon) or highest name (Queen Elizabeth). But she was not the latter for over half a century so using it would not be considered an option. In addition there would be potential confusion with the current reigning queen. Being dead three years, she would borderline in terms of moving (the usual timespan is 3-5 years) but given that QM is not the most senior royal name she had (using it would be like using the Duke of Windsor for Edward VIII) and the one she had has not been used for half a century, a move to EBL is standard. Mary of Teck, given that she is dead half a century, plus the fact that there has been one queen consort and two monarch's consorts since her death is a no-brainer. She is automatically moved. Indeed in the academic industry the first moves of her name occurred in a publication in 1956!

There is one important distinction. Most world sourcebooks use HN. American sourcebooks use deathname or consort name. That distinction has caused a lot of rows in academia, publishing, etc. If Wikipedia was just a US publication then it would be ok to follow consort name as a rule. But worldwide that is not the standard. Different theories have been put forward for why the US is the odd-one-out on this. One theory I have heard discussed (by drunk academics rowing on the issue at the conference!) is that US society is more "celebrity-orientated" and has no experience of monarchy. So it sees the "Queen Mother" as a celebrity and thinks it normal to call her that. In effect it treats title as a name, as if she was 'Mrs Queen Mother'. However Europeans think dynastically, and have their history littered with queen mothers, Queen Elizabeths, Queen Marys, etc. Most Americans may only think of one Queen Mary. For Europeans, the question is "which one?" (Britain had two reigning Marys, a couple of consorts, etc while France had 4 Queen Marys. Ditto with Queen Elizabeth. For Americans there is only one candidate for the name. For Europeans, with a history of monarchy, there are many; two English/British queens consort, 2 reigning Queens in Britain, the queen consort of King Philip IV of Spain, the queen consort of King Carol I of Romania, etc.

That is part of the central problem here. Americans, who read American sourcebooks and have limited experience of monarchy, think it normal to use consort names. Indeed they think simply of consorts as consorts. Europeans, who have as part of their culture a far more complicated set of royal names and dynasties, are used to using birth dynastic names to distinguish between partners of monarchs, and to follow the system use them even where there is no rival for the consort name. They also use the names to slot people into their dynastic background. Most Europeans, particularly those who have written about the topic, think it normal and elementary to write Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, Marie of Hesse and by Rhine, etc. Saying Alexandra Fyodorova to non-Russian ears is to divorce the consort from her past dynasty, when that is central. Similarly Queen Alexandra hides the important fact that a dynastic marriage had taken place between the British and Danish Royal Families. Americans who don't experience those names and simply see Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary, etc in their sourcebooks, regard it as some rather bizarre royalist ritual or something and needless complications. It is however part and parcel of how names are written and understood outside the US. Europeans in contrast see the idea of Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary etc unworkable, simplistic, and losing the key dynastic information. It is unfair, but that is how Europeans see it. (OK. I have gone off my point but that is my explanation for the disagreement.)

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtd - I wish that you could actually provide some examples of sources that actually operate as you claim. You keep on asserting this, but you are giving nothing but your own say so to back this up. Beyond this, I am not arguing about what the article title should be. I'm okay with leaving that convention (that we use the HN, or whatever it is) as it is. But that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is the first line. My feeling is that Queen- and Empress-consorts ought to by default be at "Consort Name (Dates), born Birth Name, was Queen-consort to King/Emperor Husband's Name of Country." So, for instance, "Mary (1867-1953), born Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes of Teck, was Queen-consort to King George V of the United Kingdom." Now, for cases where the historical name is better known than the Consort name - which is almost certainly a great number of cases, including Blanche of Castile, Anne of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Berengaria of Navarre, Anne of Denmark, Catherine of Braganza, and so forth, this can replace consort name, but only in the familiar form, so we get "Anne of Austria (1601-1666), born Doña Anna Mauritia de Austria, Infanta of Spain, was Queen-consort to King Louis XIII of France." Obviously, there would be fighting at the edges over which ones get which way of doing things, but this seems like a perfectly sensible way to arrange the introductions. It also gets around the fact that it is often entirely inconsistent what different consorts are known by. Why is it "Catherine of Braganza," but "Mary of Modena." In one case, the dynastic name is used, in the other case, the territorial dignity. This allows us to get around this with "Catherine of Braganza (1638-1701), born Doña Catarina de Bragança, later Infanta of Portugal, was Queen-consort to King Charles II of England" and "Mary of Modena (1658-1718), born Maria Beatrice Eleanor Anne Margaret d'Este, Princess of Modena, was Queen-consort to King James II of England." Once again I am not at all talking about article titles, just about the intros. john k 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Note, the formula I suggested works especially well for ladies who change their names. "Alexandra Fyodorovna (1872-1918), born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine (Full name Victoria Alix Helene Luise Beatrice [whew - she got the names of all of Victoria's daughters, in order...]), was Empress-consort to Emperor Nicholas II of Russia." "Maria Fyodorovna (1847-1928), born Princess Dagmar of Denmark (full name bla bla bla), was Empress-consort to Emperor Alexander III of Russia." But, essentially, it is a model which works well no matter what the lady in question was actually known as. john k 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, John. If, IMHO logically, one uses HN, the article, equally logically, should start with the HN. I think it would be a real dog's dinner to start it any other way. The article for a dead consort should follow chronology

See Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, Harold Macmillan, Frederick North, Lord North, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne, Frederick Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, etc. etc. etc. etc. Not to mention, say, Mark Twain, George Eliot, Voltaire, etc. etc. And that doesn't even get into the people who are called by nicknames or initials in their article title, but by their full name in the first line. And so on and so forth. I see no particular reason that article name and first name used have to be the same, especially in cases where it's awkward to do so. Of the examples you give below, "Marie of Edinburgh" is incredibly awkward - she was known as "Princess Marie of Edinburgh," but she was not a Princess of Edinburgh, nor was she from Edinburgh. "Marie of Edinburgh" (and "Maud of Wales") seems distinctly incorrect. If anything, those articles should be at "Marie of the United Kingdom" and "Maud of the United Kingdom." (especially the latter, who was the daughter of a reigning king, even if he only took the throne after her marriage). I've already explained why I think the Alix example is annoying - "Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" was not the Empress-consort of Nicholas II. Alexandra Fyodorovna was. A third example you got wrong - Sisi was by birth a Duchess in Bavaria. This incredibly awkward title is hard to convert into a so-called "historical name." To say that "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria" was Empress-consort of Austria is odd - using a territorial disambiguator like "Catherine of Aragon" is one thing, but using a subsidiary title is just weird. At any rate, until you address a large number of my points - for instance 1) the fact that you have yet to provide a single reference for your claims about how "everybody" does it - we learned for Empress Alexandra that, apparently, nobody has an article for her at "Alix of Hesse" or its equivalent. 2) the point that there are already a large number of biographical articles which do not work the way you suggest, I'm not sure we're getting anywhere.

Another point I'd like to reiterate - the "historical name" is a highly artificial construct. For people where we actually use the "historical name," it is never very clear what that historical name is going to be. Again, why do we have both "Catherine of Braganza" and "Mary of Modena"? Shouldn't that be either "Catherine of Portugal" and "Mary of Modena" or "Catherine of Braganza" and "Mary d'Este"? Isn't referring to the Spanish Infanta Anna as "Anne of Austria" deeply confusing? Especially since we don't normally call her niece and daughter-in-law, likewise a Spanish infanta who married the King of France, "Marie Therese [or Maria Theresa] of Austria"? We noted Mary of Modena, who is called as a princess of Modena, but whose family name was Este. The similarly Italian Medici princessses who became queens of France are always called "de' Medici" and not "of Tuscany" (or "of Florence," in Catherine's case). These names are utterly idiosyncratic. When they are in common use, we should obviously give them first (as I have repeatedly noted, so please don't talk again about how confusing it would be not to call Queen Blanche "Blanche of Castile" - I fully agree with you about her, about Catherine of Aragon, about Anne Boleyn, about Anne of Austria, etc. etc. etc.) But the reason to use them is because these people are commonly known by that name, not because they are less ambiguous, or more logical, or (God forbid) more professional. So there's no reason to use phony "historical names" in article text when the people are not normally referred to as such. I agree with you that there's no good way to have unambiguous article titles without sometimes doing this. But we don't need the first line of the article to be unambiguous. And it is highly problematic to act as though the "pre-marriage name and titles" is the same as the "historical name." As I noted before, Mary of Modena's actual pre-marriage name was not "Mary of Modena," but "Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena." Catherine of Braganza was "Doña Catarina de Bragança, Infanta of Portugal." Sisi was "Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria" (or "Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria?") Putting aside the issue of anglicization, these are simply not the same names. "Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine" is clearly more like "Doña Catarina de Bragança, Infanta of Portugal" than it is like "Catherine of Aragon." And to remove the "princess" is to imply that she was Empress Alix. Which she was not. My way avoids problems like this, since it doesn't pretend that your "historical name" is somehow the "real name," even when it wasn't used. john k 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, with regards to your English/American claim that it is only Americans who use consort name in reference sources, let me point you to the ODNB, which has the following article titles for its articles on British queen-consorts (going backwards):

1. the late queen mother doesn't yet have an article.
2. Mary
3. Alexandra
4. Adelaide
5. Caroline
6. Charlotte
7. Caroline
8. Mary
9. Catherine
10. Henrietta Maria
11. Anne
12. Katherine
13. Katherine
14. Anne
15. Jane
16. Anne
17. Katherine
18. Elizabeth
19. Anne
20. Elizabeth
21. Margaret

etc.etc.etc.

Similarly for Scottish consorts

1. Mary
2. Madeleine
3. Margaret
4. Margaret
5. Mary
6. Joan
7. Annabella
8. Euphemia
9. Joan
10. Elizabeth

and so on...

It does treat British princesses who became foreign queens and empresses differently. They're at "Princess Marie," "Princess Elizabeth" (hey, she's not at her "historical name," is she?), and so forth. But that's obviously even more unworkable. So I continue to ask - can you name a single source that does things the way you say they should be done? john k 08:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Example

<HN>, (dates) as <consort name> was the <title> of <reigning monarch>. So, it would be

Mary of Teck (???? - 1953), as known as Queen Mary, was the queen consort and wife of King George V of the United Kingdom.

Alix of Hesse and Rhine (dates), known as Tsaritsa Alexandra or Alexandra Fyodorovna was the empress consort and wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.

Marie of Edinburgh (1875-1938), known as Queen Marie, was the queen consort and wife of Ferdinand I of Romania.

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), known as Queen Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was the queen consort and wife of King George VI of the United Kingdom.

Elizabeth of Austria (dates), known as Empress Elisabeth (Austria), or Queen Elisabeth (Hungary and Bohemia), and nicknamed Sisi, was the empress-queen consort and wife of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary.

It would be dead easy to do. It would use the name of the article (which is logical) and would allow enough flexibility to cover complicated cases. I think starting with the highest title and then jumping between them would be clumsy and wrong if a different name was on the page. The only other issue is styles. As of now, they are supposed to be in, hence the Grand Ducal Highness on Alix's page. I wouldn't shed a tear if the damned things were axed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Using birth styles for ladies who became majesties by marriage is indefensibly confusing. Alexandra/Alix was not a "grand ducal highness." She was an "imperial majesty." That she got this title from her husband does not make it less real. Beyond this, I think I've addressed it above, but your way can be incredibly confusing, as well. Let me lay out some examples of how I think it should be done.

• Alexandra Fyodorovna (1872-1918), born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, was the Empress-consort of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia
• Elisabeth (1837-1898), born Elisabeth, Duchess in Bavaria and nicknamed Sisi, was the empress-consort of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria.
• Mary of Modena (1658-1718), born Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena, was the queen-consort of King James II of England.
• Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) was the queen-consort of King James VI and I of England and Scotland
• Elizabeth (1900-2002), born Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, was the queen-consort of King George VI of the United Kingdom
• Anne of Austria (1601-1666), born Doña Anna de Austria, Infanta of Spain, was the queen-consort of King Louis XIII of France.
• Marie (1875-1938), born Princess Marie of Edinburgh, was the queen-consort of King Ferdinand of Romania
• Maud (1869-1938), born Princess Maud of Wales, was the queen-consort of King Haakon VII of Norway
• Ingrid (1910-2000), born Princess Ingrid of Sweden, was the queen-consort of King Frederick IX of Denmark

Obviously, this requires some discretion, and would involve us in some arguments over which way of doing it is appropriate. As usual, placement of all the given names for the more recent ladies who have, like, twelve of them, is awkward. But that is bound to be awkward no matter what we do. I'd suggest simply relegating the full name to the second paragraph (or whichever paragraph begins the actual biography). But there's other ways this could be managed. At any rate, this has the advantage of flexibility - we can adapt the formula to deal with differences in how individual consorts are generally known. At the same time, it provides a reasonably consistent framework for how to build these openings. It seems to me to do what a convention should do - establish a workable framework for how to open these articles, based on Common names, while leaving aside precise interpretation to the individuals working on a given article. Obviously, there would be tricky cases that we could argue over (perhaps one would argue with some of the examples presented above), but the point is that this framework allows for either way of doing this, depending on which seems more appropriate to the individual article. I don't see why the first line, which does not need to be unique, must be held hostage to the fact that we have to create unique article titles. john k 08:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a mutual solution to this, something like: As the pre-marital namers won the contest for article headings (for quite good reasons, although some valid arguments were presented in favor of consort name, which usually is the most known), then the most known name, practically always the married name, would be the one to start the introduction in the article itself. Were such compromise to be made, it should be clearly spelled in MoS (biographies) and in NC (names and titles) policy pages, in order to avoid disruptions by people who want to change one of those two to be same as the other. 217.140.193.123 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry John, but I don't any logic whatsoever in your proposal. Normal biographical royal naming starts at the beginning, with who they originally were, and works forward chronologically. The proposals of some here are to start at the end without someone's last title, then go back to the begining, and jump around between them. Now you are proposing starting at neither the beginning nor the end, but at a made up form of name. To my mind

• Maud (1869-1938), born Princess Maud of Wales, was the queen-consort of King Haakon VII of Norway

is absurd. There was no one called Maud (or else millions called Maud, if you look at it that way). The woman in question was Maud von Wettin, to give her her actual first name and surname. Historians call her Maud of Wales, Princess Maud of Wales, in chapters on her marriage they call her Queen Maud. But they don't know her formally call her Maud except later in the text, having used her actual birthname and title first, anymore than they know Mary of Modena simply as Mary, Blanche of Castile as Blanche. If formally naming her, as is standard, they use her pre-marital name with title (if she had one, surname if she hadn't).

Maud von Wettin? Are you serious? That was not her name in any sense. Wettin was a pseudo-name, a back-creation dynastic name. It can only be considered a surname of royals if they actually used it as a surname, and the British royal family never did so. She was "Maud, Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha," and styled "Princess Maud of Wales" before her marriage. But her name certainly wasn't "von Wettin." And I am highly dubious of these "historians" who you speak of generically without giving any examples. Could you please give some example of somebody who names royal ladies as you claim everyone names then? Obviously, Mary of Modena and Blanche of Castile are known as that. But Maud is not known as "Maud of Wales." She is known as "Maud" or "Queen Maud." As to the absurdity of it, this is exactly how Britannica does its entries for Sisi and the Queen Mother. They just give the first name, and then provide the birth name afterwards. john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Writing

• Elizabeth (1900-2002), born Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, was the queen-consort of King George VI of the United Kingdom

would look like a joke entry. She was Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

She was born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. She ceased to be Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon at the time of her marriage to the Duke of York in 1920, just as any married woman loses her maiden name upon her marriage. This is why for married women, the standard way of giving their maiden name is "née Bowes-Lyon" or whatever. Again, my example is exactly how Britannica does it, so I'm a bit confused as to how this is a joke entry, unless you consider Britannica to be laughable. john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

By virtue of her marriage she became the Duchess of York (or also Elizabeth Windsor), then by virtue of her husband becoming king she became Queen Elizabeth, by virtue of her relationship with the new queen she became Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. But she was never simply Elizabeth. Standard naming of dead consorts involves in effect rewinding her identities back to the one she was born with, which was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, her own personal name, and using it as article title and reference. But Elizabeth on its own is IMHO ridiculous. I still have heard no convincing argument against using standard naming of dead consorts, which is to use their own name, the one that they were born with, rather than the one they married into or got later in life when they became a consort. If we write about Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, and use the same format in history books for other royal consorts in Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, etc etc why earth shouldn't we say, as historians do, Ingrid of Sweden, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Maud of Wales, etc in the opening lines of articles on Ingrid of Sweden, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Princess Maud of Wales? Furthermore all you would cause is endless reversions by historians who would look at Wikipedia articles on royalty, mutter "what the fuck . . .?" and promptly change it to the correct historical form, over and over again. It is bad enough that we have those goddamned styles starting articles (would the vote on ditching them ever come soon!!!) without what would be seen in academia as amateurish and wrong naming people in articles. (And I am deadly serious about that. I come from an academic background. Academics are sticklers for getting terminology right and can be bitchy and vicious about getting it wrong. People who think politics is rough should experience academics rowing over lax standards on things like formal titles, references, names, etc. It would be seen as dumbing down and Wikipedia as a pseudo-encyclopædia if it doesn't get these things right. And people would ask whether, if it can't get the names and titles right (the easy bit) how likely to get the analysis right. Oh and BTW the BBC a few days ago on Radio 4 had a discussion on "Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon" —their words— among historians. Already the BBC has begun to move her, as is standard, to maiden name rather than consort name or death title!) FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

More broadly, you have yet to provide any evidence besides frantic assertion that your "correct historical form" actually exists in anything beyond genealogical circles. I have noted that Britannica does not follow it. Historians, who will use the name that the person has at the time they are writing about them, certainly do not. I feel that I can claim a certain degree of knowledge of what academics do and do not do, since I'm a graduate student in history, and I'm fairly certain that most historians are completely unaware of this supposed "standard historical naming" of royal consorts. Obviously, some consorts are normally called things like "Catherine of Aragon" and "Anne Boleyn" and "Anne of Austria." But many others are not normally called such things at all. This is reflected in the way Britannica names its articles. I have noted a great number of problems with the supposed "historical name" which you continue to ignore, and you have yet to provide any evidence that this is actually a general rule. john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Born Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, I think we mean, anyway. Deb 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Should her article be titled as Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon ?? ;))) 217.140.193.123 21:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If you read the MoS and NC as opposed to preaching about them, you'd know that 'hon is not used in artucle titles. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he was joking. (At least I hope so.) Deb 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I was being completely tongue-in-cheek too. :p FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would never even dream of taking the preacher job from you, Jtdirl. 217.140.193.123 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Section Quotations

I'm sure this info is somewhere, but I can't find it - are there any guidelines for including a quotations section in Bio pages? There's a debate raging on Ann Coulter, seems to be somewhat inconsistent, she has quotes, so does Michael Moore and Paul Krugman, but e.g. Al Franken does not. Evidently excessive quotations should go on Wikiquotes, but how about 2-5 exemplary ones? Thanks - bastel 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles

A suggested solution to the thorny subject of the use of styles has been proposed. Please express your opinions on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution.

Now put on MoS page

Given the near unanimity on adopting this policy, and its current implementation, I have included an outline of the new policy as agreed on the page onto the MoS biographies page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Boilerplate for categories

I've wanted a template that would expand to the three lines frequently found at the end of a biography. This is prompted by having written a lot of bio stubs based off 1911 and Nuttall entries. I just want to save a bit of typing (or copy-pasting). Thus {{bio-cats|1552|1637|Italian poets|Chiabrera, Gabriello}} at the end of Gabriello Chiabrera would expand to the obvious three lines. Its disadvantage is that it only works for one occupation (although you could add others the old-fashined way).

BTW "bio" is a mnemonic for the order of arguments: Born-Interred-Occupation :-)

This seems such an obvious addition that I wonder if it already exists and I just haven't found it? David Brooks 22:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Queen Victoria" or "Victoria"

I have not seen any consensus as to whether to start an article like Victoria of the United Kingdom as Queen Victoria or Victoria. There are the British monarch articles, which opt for the latter, but the Pope articles opt for the former (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI). Can anyone direct me to any agreement on the subject that I've missed?

I don't know that this has ever been explicitly discussed. As you know, I favor just the name (and ordinal). john k 21:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think title name and ordinal is preferable. I think not using the title looks odd.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I almost agree with Jtdirl in this question. Arrigo 21:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There still seems to be dissent... think we should take it to a vote? --Matjlav^(talk) 22:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Biography guidelines for royalty and nobility

Wikipedia project on Naming Conventions has published already ages ago some directives that affect contents of biographies. I made an epitome of such:

Royalty and nobility NPOV:

Pretensions of monarchy should not be endorsed in the article - rather, explain their claims and position in a balanced way. Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical titles at least when narrating about their reign.

Other names and titles of the person, if any, should appear in the first paragraph of the article so they can be searched for.

The introductory paragraph should not use any family names for royalty except where English speakers normally use them (rather, surname questions can be explained at a portion of the article, not to push/endorse their use if the use is uncertain or nonexistent). Nicknames go in the first line of the article or where appropriate. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames to the name of their Royal House. But don't automatically presume that a name of a Royal Family is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not. For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} {full name (+ surname if used [but never for monarchs])}" with the full name unformatted and the rest in bold (3 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)". Using this format displays the most important information clearly without an unattractive excess of formatting. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate, usually in chronological order (except royal consorts whose most important position should begin the introduction).

Past Royal Consorts have articles under their pre-marital name or pre-marital title (due to specific convention), and therefore it is important to introduce them by their consort name (most important title) in the article.

Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should be clarified in the article itself, the full title in the introductory paragraph, and if there is a longer story, also by explaining it later NPOV. Place for honorary titles and the appropriate post-nominal letters (such as KBE, GCB) or explanation is in the article. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare.

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet.

People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname (see Spanish names). The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother in Spanish tradition; Portuguese tradition puts them contrariwise. In the introductory paragraph, use the full name.

Of course these ideas were accepted there, and as far as I understand should be followed. Also here. Quite useless to have guidelines on biography contents fragmented in several places, so these should be also here. Expecting your supprt. 217.140.193.123 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles in the introductory paragraph

What about styles. According to the current consensus styles should be put into a separate infobox, nevertheless especially in the case of British royals some users think they are important information having to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph (e.g. The Duchess of Cornwall (.....), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (...) is a member of the British Royal family). I think with the introduction of the infobox this is not necessary anymore. If there is any relevant information it can be moved under the separate section "Titles and style". What do you think? Gugganij 17:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

French given names

As explained in French names, many French people have a number of given names, but only the first one is used for every purpose except official, formal documentation. The current policy is to list all the names, which is unnatural and somehow conveys misleading information to those who do not know about French customs (that is, they may believe that the person is called this way in practice, or that they have to copy all given names). As an example, the article on Jacques Chirac calls him Jacques René Chirac, whereas you'll hardly ever see such form being used in France (if only because when a document lists given many names, it may often do so as follows: Chirac (Jacques, René)).

I thus propose the following: Jacques Chirac (given names: Jacques, René). It's precise, does not lose information, and does not mislead non-French people. David.Monniaux 15:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That's the case for the vast majority of countries. No one thinks Anthony Charles Lynton Blair uses all his first names just because his article starts with them. Proteus (Talk) 16:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen several occasions where Americans cited French people with two first names using both, which of course makes sense for Americans like George Walker Bush (because of the middle initial), but not for countries where middle initials are not used. David.Monniaux 16:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Then correct them. It should be perfectly obvious that Jacques Chirac is known as "Jacques Chirac" and not "Jacques René Chirac", because that's what his article is called (just as it's obvious that the person whose article is called Tony Blair is known as "Tony Blair"). Proteus (Talk) 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Icelandic name convention

Icelanders refer to others by their first name. For example if you were to ask someone about Guðmundsson who played for Arsenal, you'd get surprised looks, "what Guðmundsson?".

If you however referred to Albert, who played for Arsenal you'd get "ah yes, Albert Guðmundsson".

I don't think it would add clarity nor neutrality to any article on Icelanders by referring to them by their last name, just as referring to the french by their full names would draw surprised looks from a french audience. --Stalfur 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Honours, etc.

I'm involved in a (civilised) disagreement at Bryan Adams. My interlocutor wants to start the article: "Bryan Adams, O.C., O.B.C.", while I want to omit the letters (and certainly not have them bolded in any event). Linked details of the awards are already given in the articles' summary, by the way. I can find no guidance on this; is it out there somewhere in the googleplex-bytes of policies and guidelines, or is it left open? If the latter, should it be? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Normally they are included, but linked and not bolded (Bryan Adams, OC, OBC (born...). Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this done occasionally, but is it normal? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You just need to look at some British politicians to see that — Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, for instance. Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am the interlocutor previously mentioned. I agree with proteus. I bolded the orders because i thought that the only problem mel etitis had with them was the redundant links. I think that the postnominal letters should be included.--Alhutch 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If they're included, then they might as well be linked, and the explanation two or three lines below removed; it was mainly the duplication that worried me (though I'd prefer the explanation in the text to stay). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason why they both can't be there. Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the reason is that it's surely bad style to repeat information, especially within a couple of lines. it looked rather desperate to me — like someone calling herself "Dr Smith, Ph.D.", or when you're introduced repeating that he has an O.B.E. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

We're having a bit of a go-round about how to characterize Alfred Hitchcock's nationality. Same issue would arise for Angela Lansbury. User:Cheechie Chung favors "British-American"; to me that suggests an American of British ancestry, not someone originally British. I would favor "British, later American" or something like "originally British, he became a naturalized American citizen". Another possiblity is "British-born American" (but to me that suggests someone born in Britain bu raised in the U.S.). Anyway, I was wondering if there is any clear prevailing practice on this sort of thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree "British-American" is confusing and suggests mixed parentage or upbringing. Angela Lansbury should probably be described as "British-born", and Hitchcock just as "British", with an explanation of his later status, as he was well into middle-age before he became a U.S. citizen. Stanley Kubrick is described as "American", not "American-British", even though he became a British citizen. JW 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that any attempt to come up with a single terminology to characterise a multitude of different circumstances is futile. There are:

• people who lived virtually all their lives in country A but were always citizens of country B
• people who moved from country A to country B and took up citizenship of country B; of them:
  • some did so relatively early in their lives and became associated in the public's mind with country B, but
  • some did so quite late in their lives and remained associated in the public's mind with country A
• people who moved from country A to country B but remained citizens of country A
• people who moved from country A to country B, then later went back to country A
• people who were associated with countries A, B, C .....
• people who were citizens of country A, became residents of country B (and may or may not have become citizens of country B), but did most of the work for which they became famous in country C, or A, or ...
• people who are known by their ethnicity (eg. Jewish) as well as their nationality/citizenship
• people with dual/multiple nationalities
• lots of other different cases, and
• all manner of combinations of the above.

So we have at least 4 different concepts: connection by birth, connection by citizenship, connection by ethnic background, connection by association. In each biography, we need to come up with the words that accurately and unambiguously describe their particular circumstances, and this often needs more than a 2-word adjective. The Stanley Kubrick example cited by Jeff is a good case: we all know he spent the majority of his adult life in London, but nobody ever calls him "American-British"; is Igor Stravinsky considered a "Russian-French-American" composer just because he was a citizen of each country in turn?; was John Huston an American-Irish film director? Also, the terminology may well differ depending on your perspective: in order to make gazillions of $$, Rupert Murdoch was prepared to adopt US citizenship and drop Australian, but Australians still generally consider him an Australian, whereas in the US he's probably called an American. Cheers JackofOz 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Murdoch is a good example of someone becoming a citizen of another country for economic reasons, and I suppose in many cases its more convenient to become a citizen of the country you live in. For a lot of people in the film business, like Hitch or Lansbury, that's particularly likely to be the U.S. But whether that makes them American or not is debatable. It seems strange to me to see a WP biography of a German actor who moved to the US in his 50s and became a US citizen at 60 and it says "such and such was an American actor". Was he? Or a Nazi scientist who went to the US after the war and became a US citizen; "Werner von Braun was an American scientist". No he wasn't! Are citizenship and nationality actually the same thing anyway? Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on citizenship, as this is something that can always be changed and often is. JW 11:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What a Nationality Is; Names

As some of you may have read, I have stood by my firm words of what a nationality is, and how to approach this in the introductions of biographies. This has been a problem to some when the subject is of mixed origin(s) to the country that they were born. For example, the actress Jennifer Aniston was born in the USA to a Greek father and a mother of Scottish, English, and Italian descent.

In the Wikipædia manual of style (biographies), it is stated that the nationality of the subject should be written in the introduction of the article. It has been compromised to explain ethnic backgrounds in more detail after the introduction. So, based on the fact that the term 'nationality' means 'the status of a person belonging to a particular country or nation by origin, birth, or naturalization', I decided that to call Jennifer Aniston 'an American actress' seemed pretty dubious, and it didn't fully (although partly) fit with the manual of style, and meaning of 'nationality'. So, baring in mind that I should not go into detail about her full ethnic background, I changed the phrase from 'an American actress' to 'a multiethnic American-born' actress. I continued to do this with other articles in which the subject's origins were not that of the country of birth, upbringing, or current residence.

After a kind of mini feud with other Wikipædians as to whether 'an American actress' or 'a multiethnic American-born actress', I think it is time to finally settle everything, so I came here on the point of direction by an administrator.

Just to get my point across, it is definitely not correct just to define Jennifer Aniston as 'an American actress'. My theories are much more specific (after all, Wikipædia is about editing to make articles better and with more information, yes?), they separate Aniston from the category of being just American (you can't call her just American with such mixed parentage), and by using 'multiethnic' (which isn't that important I suppose) it states that she is of mixed ethnicity without going on to explain it too in-depth in the introduction (her parents' descent is explain later on in the article).

The main point is, the rules say that nationality should be included in the first paragraph (introduction), and 'American' is only partially correct (as it would be if I called her 'an English-Greek-Scottish-Italian actress'), whereupon I chose 'multiethnic American-born actress' to agree with the meaning of 'nationality' and the Wikipedia rules.

I accept that maybe 'American-born' isn't the best term (after all, the only thing it does say is that Aniston was born in America), so maybe 'born' could be replaced by something more suitable like 'raised'. I'll leave you to make suggestions.

On another note, in my opinion, I believe that if the subject was born or raised from a young age (such as five or below perhaps) in a country different to that of their parents, they themselves should have their nationality/ies separated by a hyphen, for example, Kirk Douglas was born in the USA to Belarusian parents, so I suggest he is called a Belarusian-American. What do you say?

To conclude this topic, I just want to say that it is pointless and unfair to fit only part of a word's meaning when it is part of the rules, when there is a perfectly good way of getting the whole meaning that is constantly changed. The problem is that I think Wikipædia needs to cease to always put people under one too broad category.

______________

Now, as regards to my 'dilemma' with names, Wikipædia allows this as well as various other ways. I believe that the subject should initially be called by their legal name, and then their professional or 'better-known' name in parantheses along with their birth (and ,if applicable, death) date. So, I edited Christina Aguilera's (who is married to a Jordan Bratman) introduction to: "Christina Maria Bratman (internationally and professionally known by her maiden name of Christina Aguilera, as well as Xtina; born...".

Please note that I don't think the title of the article should be changed, just the initial referance of name.

Wikipædia does, however, allow this, along with another convention, saying that the most common name (in the above example's case, Christina Aguilera), but further on it says something about it being better or preferable to use the current legal name. By allowing to completely opposite convections, it can cause a mess (as I already know from personal experience), so I think that the rule should be changed to only allowing the current legal name to be initially used, and then the most common name directly after in the parentheses, separated from birth (and death) date by a semi colon.

In the case of where the subject's birth name was changed before the fame or stardom, then I propose it to be styled as follows (based on singer Elton John: "Sir Elton Hercules John (born Reginald Kenneth Dwight; 25 March 1947)...", and then later on the name change should be explained, and then while his legal name was the birth name, that's how they should refer him to (of course using the surname), so: "Dwight began playing the piano when he was four...".

______________

Thank you for reading this and taking the time to respond

Cypriot stud 00:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is my view that "nationality" precisely equals "citizenship" and has nothing to do with "ethnicity" Therefore i think that it is exactly correct "just to define Jennifer Aniston as 'an American actress'." Indeed many people feel that to specify ethnicity as a modifier for some "american" fiogures but not for others is PoV and can be taken to imply that only some ethnicities are "real" americans. I agreee that cases like Hitchcock where the nationality changed well after the man becme notable provide a tricky case, but this isn't that case. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You may not have read my post properly. If we all wanted what is correct in our points of view, then Wikipedia wouldn't be here any longer! This is not about what people prefer or think is correct, it's about what is correct. Nationality and citizenship are most definitely not the same! If an Italian emigrates to the United States as an adult (or any time in life) and takes American citizenship, it simply means that they are citizens of the United States (and not American).

You cannot argue with the dictionary, which states that nationality is the status of belonging to a country or nation by birth, descent, or naturalisation, whereas citizen is a native or naturalised member of a state or other political community, and finally citizenship is the status of being a citizen.

Whatever you believe doesnt mean that it's correct. The dictionary is always right, and it supports what I'm trying to say. Jennifer Aniston is not American.

Leon.

Since there are many dictionaries, which disagree on many points, it is simply nonsense to say that "The dictionary is always right". I am curious, which dictionary are you quoting above? You should be aware that "naturalisation" is the process of becoming a citizen, or "national" of a state, so even the def you quote says that anyone who is a citizen of a state has that nationality, although it implies that people may also have other nattionalities by birth (if such people move and change citizzenship) or by descent (If their ancestors moved). Thus Jennifer Aniston clearly is a United States national, or in other words she is an American, even if it could be said that she also has other nationalities. DES ^(talk) 12:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I quote online dictionary at Dictionary.com, my Oxford dictionary, and a Collins belonging to a member of my family.

Yes, I am aware that naturalisation is the process of becoming a citizen of a country (different to one's native land or previous place of residence etc.). But Jennifer Aniston did not become a naturalised American citizen, as she was already born in the United States, thus it was unnecessary as she would've already held American citizenship. So, to call her multiethnic is compatible with the meaning of nationality because it states descent, as is American-born as it represents birth. Can you now see that to simply call her American is favouring one meaning over the other? To call her American would give me the right to delete that and put Greek-Italian-English-Scottish, however I'm not fighting games and being childish unlike what you people seem to be doing, and I revert the nationality to one that wholly fits the meaning.

Now, as for people who have become naturalised citizens of different countries to their native land, perhaps both nationalities should be stated (I say 'perhaps' because only Dictionary.com actually says that nationality also means naturalisation; all others I have read only say birth and descent!). For example, actor and politician Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was born and raised in Austria to Austrian parents) later became an American citizen, so (according to Dictionary.com's proposed meaning) he is an Austrian-American (whereas others label him simply Austrian, due to his birth and descent lying in Austria).

How much longer will you deny what's right? Please let's close the subject and agree with me, finally.

Cypriot stud 17:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that "national" as a noun means "citizen" a person is said to be a "national" of the country where that person hasd legal staus. This term is used to handle the case of those countries that do not use the term "citizen", but rather "subject" or other term. "National" is the term used on passports, for example. "Nationality" is thus the adjectival form. Note that the Merriam-webster online dictionary says: "a : national status; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state b : membership in a particular nation." The Cambridge dictionary online says: "1 [C or U] the official right to belong to a particular country: 'She has British nationality. What nationality are you?'; 2 [C] a group of people of the same race, religion, traditions, etc: 'At the International School they have pupils of 46 different nationalities.' " YourDictionary.com says "The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization". The compact OED says "the status of belonging to a particular nation.". In any case, I think that for most people the coutry of their citizenship is what should be noted in the lead. In cases wher ea person became noted while a national of one country, but then moved, terms like "X-born" may be bets. In cases where a persion is particualrly noted because of an ethnic connection, that should be mentioned in the lead, but the mere fact that a person has an ethnic heritage different from his or her current citizenship, particualrly a mexed ethnic heritage is not a good reason to list "mixed ethnicity" in the lead, nor to call a person born in the United States "not an american". If that standard is applied, the only poeple who can be called "Americans" are the "Native Americans" (a.k.a. "Indians") which is not the way that term is commonly used, and so not the way Wikipedia should use it. I'm sorry, but is seems to me that you are clearly wrong on this issue. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Various different dictionaries give different examples, although they are generally similar. Wikipedia states that citizenship should be clearly distinguished from nationality. I consider my nationality to be English and Cypriot, and I am correct in saying so.

Jennifer Aniston is American if you are talking about citizenship, or nationality (although it would be only partly correct).

Please read ÉIRANN's comment below.

Cypriot stud 08:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jtdirl wasn't supporting your position. No-one is. Mark¹ 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said she was, did I? I asked him to read ÉIRANN's comment, because it is a fair point of view, and I for one think it's pretty low to go for citizenship rather than nationality. Cypriot stud

He. Mark¹ 16:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What it is to be an American

User:Cypriot stud, you may be technically correct, but sometimes being technically correct contributes less information than simply speaking as most people speak. To us Americans, being American means that we're born here, or maybe we moved here and passed a citizenship test, and that for the most part (with rare exception), our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents immigrated from somewhere else. There just aren't that many multi-generational natives to worry about. So, we're American, and that's what it means to be American... it means defending the United States (even while disagreeing with its leaders), and rooting for the US in the Olympics. And it also means that just about every American by that definition is the son or daughter of a German or Italian or Mexican or Chinese parent, but that doesn't matter. We're still Americans.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Jennifer Aniston is an American by that definition, and that's the way she should be described. Stop fiddling with it. She's an American, and yes, her parents come from other places, just like almost all other Americans.

I can't speak for other countries, although I have many international friends. Maybe in Germany, if you're born to Italian parents, you want to be described as Italian-German or multiethnic. So, I'm suggesting that you do your little edits on non-Americans, and I won't have any objection. But leave American alone. We know what it means, and we won't have you fiddling with it. Your edits are getting reverted left and right because you aren't paying attention to the majority here. Stop it.

-- Randal L. Schwartz 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is just me, but I found some of your words incredibly rude and insulting to non-Americans. So, a person born in the United States to Russian parents is American, yet if the same individual was born in Germany, he's Russian (or German-Russian)? I'm sorry, but nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that special rules apply to all American-born people. This is very unfair. I'm going by the book. Look at any meaning of 'nationality' and there will be no exceptions to those born in the States. It doesn't matter where one is born, birth place should never be favoured over descent, which has an equal 'right' to be stated. I've writted God knows how many times what 'nationality' means, and Wikipedia states that we must include nationality in the introduction of each article. Why should I (or anybody) make exceptions to American-born subjects. It's biased and extremely unfair ethically. Even as an American as you describe yourself (I have know idea about your descent or if you have origins lying abroad) I am surprised that you cannot accept this or understand. I am not an American, so I wouldn't know about how you feel or what you know is correct, as I quote from you. But the whole point is that it makes no difference and is not what we're discussing. Maybe the subject of a certain article I have edited feels 100% American (and nothing else) despite foreign parents, however this doesn't change one's nationality or descent.

This needs settling, and I think it's time you understand and go by what's technically, grammatically and logically correct rather than your personal view. We are here to respect Wikipedia's rules (which I am abiding by; you are not), not to put what we consider an American to be. It's totally off the point, and it'd make me happy for all of you people to actually take note on what I say and accept the truth! I don't want to discuss what makes an American, English, French, German etc., but to abide by the meaning of nationality, which I am currently doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style.

Thank you.

Cypriot stud

Comment: This seems to me a legitimate disagreement. Let's stay as far away from rudeness as possible here, and try to sort this out. You have both said things like "I am abiding by Wikipedia's rules, and you are not", and it isn't helpful. Let's just determine what consensus is, and go by that. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Quadell's article on [talk page] It appears that you have a disagreement with several users over how best to interpret Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I'm currently not taking a position on the matter. I'd just like to note a few things.

1. I recognize that most of your edits have been unambiguously helpful, and you're generally helping to improve Wikipedia.
2. You have a valid point about nationality. What you're doing isn't vandalism.
3. On the other hand, those you disagree with have a point as well, and when they revert your changes, they aren't vandalizing either.
4. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by the dictionary. If the consensus is that an ethnic German born in America should be called a "German-American", then that's what we should do. If the consensus is that he should he called an "American", then that's what we should do. Even if you disagree, you'll be expected to go by consensus.
5. It's good that we're having a debate on the subject. The goal of this debate is to acheive consensus.
6. Until we determine what consensus is, it would be better if no one change articles to take one side or other on the matter. Please don't change articles from saying "American" to "multi-ethnic American" or anything else until we sort this out. But by all means, keep making all the other improvements you've been making., I responded: :Hi. Firstly, I am glad that a 'professional' intervention has occurred. I am sorry for seemingly losing it at times, but it was down to frustration and I hope for it never to happen again.

Secondly, moving on to the subject of this topic. The thing is, although I am not trying to imply that the whole idea of being run by consensus is wrong, I do deeply believe that, for this particular subject, it is unnecessary. The Wikipedia manual of style reads that the nationality of each article's subject is to be included. I edited what was already there to make the nationality fully correct, but it was continuously reverted in what, in my view, was partly done to annoy me or to suit the editors' personal preference. There is no need for a consensus for this, because I have made it clear umpteen times that I edited for the good of Wikipedia and to correct the meaning of nationality.

What I am saying is that why should there be a consensus on what nationality means, when the dictionary backs me up? I never said that Wikipedia is or should be run by the dictionary, but simply that the dictionary is in agreement with my edits, which abide by the Wikipedia rule that nationality must be included in articles.

Thirdly, I am a member of the Greek and Cypriot Community, and I have much more knowledge on the whole topic than what the editors do. I know that the nationality of a person born in England to Cypriot parents is both English and Cypriot. A common way to abbreviate this is to call this person an English-Cypriot (even though just Cypriot is equally acceptable, but this only partly agrees with the meaning of nationality, thus out of the question for Wikipedia, just as the other editors' versions). I also fall into this category, being born in England to an English mother and a Cypriot father.

The truth is that the others are choosing the birthplace meaning of nationality over descent. They have no right, and they continue to revert it to this when I make it fully correct. It's just like a person with the full name James Michael Stuart Smith being called just James Michael Smith or James Stuart Smith (thus favouring one middle name over the other). There is no need for a consensus here, as the only problem is that the others refuse to accept or acknowledge what nationality means, rather than us all having a genuine diagreement over what is best.

Seeing you as a superior on Wikipedia, can you please tell me your views on the topic?

Cypriot stud 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually a superior -- I'm just an administrator, and I've been around a while. I don't want to give the impression that my opinion carries more weight or anything. Thanks for writing, but I'm afraid we have to go by consensus even if you're completely sure you're right. That's just the way Wikipedia works.

I'm still forming my opinion to the subject of nationality. I'll let you know if I become convinced one way or the other. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is or should be a "superior" on wikipedia. Some editors are more experienced than others, soem are more skilled at one task or another, soem are trusted with deletion and blocking powers (administrators) but that is supposed to be "No big thing".

It is my view that you are using the wrong meaning of "nationality" in the edits discussed here. Yes it is often common to call a person born in england of Cypriot parents "English-Cypriot". In other contexts it is also common to call such a person simply "British" or a "UK national". In the US is is common to refer to people as "Italian-Americans", "Greek-Americans", "African-Americans" etc. but it is also very common to call such people simply "Americans" and to say that such a person is "not an American" would generally be taken as both untrue and highly insulting. i presume you do not intend any such insult, but I assure you that that is how such a comment would be taken in much of this country. In general when one says "X is an American" nothing can be safely assumed about the ethnic heritage of X. It is myu view that wikipedia should not generally lable people in biographic articels with an attempt at full ethnic background in the lead section, excpet when this is particualrly relewvant that is when the person is primarily famous/noted in the context of his or her ethnicity. Such details may be given in a later section when they are verifiable and deemed relevant by the editor involved. "multi-ethnic American" is not a commonly used term, and subsitituign it for "American" in biography articels does not add any useful information to thae articels, IMO. DES ^(talk) 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Cypriot, you are correct that per Wikipedia policy/style, nationality must be mentioned on a biography page. Unfortunately, it seems clear that you are wrongly interpreting Wikipedia policy to be intending "nationality" as "ethnicity". In a biography, in simple terms, it is important to know who a person is, when they lived, and where they are from -- and, even in cases of multi-ethnicity or multi-citizenship, "from" would most closely mean where they were born, where they grew up, or where they are currently a citizen, but in common speech would not mean where their parents/ancestors are from. -- Renesis13 18:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To DES: I am sorry. I meant 'superior in status' (you know what I mean. I didn't mean that anybody is inferior to Quadel.

It depends what you are referring to if you said "Jennifer Aniston is American". If you meant nationality, then you are (partly) correct. You would also be correct if you we referring to her citizenship. As for ethnicity, clearly not, and vice-versa if you said that she is Greek (or Italian or Scottish or English). In the case of Wikipedia (which is my first example — nationality, American is only partly correct, as it would be if you were to say any of her other nationalities. But by using multiethnic American-born, as I currently do, there is no favouring of one meaning over another, and it agrees 100% with nationality. It's short and simple but with a lot of meaning, and to be frank, it's much better than an actress born in the United States of America to an English-Scottish-Italian mother and a Greek father, isn't it?

OK, fair enough, you don't think that Wikipedia should label people like this. That's your opinion and I accept it, but my view is the opposite to yours.

To Renesis13: No, I am not confusing nationality with ethnicity, it's just that to reach the whole meaning of nationality, ethnicity must be included.

Cypriot stud 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To User:Cypriot stud: I agree that to say "Jennifer Aniston is American" is incomplete -- there is information not included. I do not agree that it is incorrect, even if a different statemetn includign ethnicity would also be correct. I do not agree that to say "Jennifer Aniston is not an American" as you did earlier in this discussion is in any way correct. I do not think that such designations as "multiethnic American-born" are in any way helpful to the reader. They are not commonly used in other encyclopedias, nor have they been commonly used on Wikipedia in the past. Furhtermore, almost every person living in the US would probably need to be so labeled if one is to be fully accurate -- it is a rare person indeed who does not have ancestors of at elast three different ethnicities in the US. I am not saying that information on a person's ethnic backround should be excluded -- I am saying that this kind of complex formulation does not belong in the lead section. In a later section on "descent" or "Ethnic background" or the like such information can be included where it is thought relevant by an editor -- it should IMO be neither required nor forbidden. In the few cases where a person is primarily notable in connection with his or her ethnicity, that should be IMO mentioned in the lead -- I mentioned some examples earlier in this discusion. I agree that saying "actress born in the United States of America to an English-Scottish-Italian mother and a Greek father" is foolishly com,plexx for the lead, which is whay I think "an American actress" (or "a United States actrees") is much better. What extra useful information does the reader actually get from "multiethnic American-born"? DES ^(talk) 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: To Renesis13: Nationality -- as is used in English-speaking countries -- does not include ethnicity. But we may disagree on that. My point is - the opening paragraph is no place to delve into the full meaning of "nationality" just because the term "nationality" is used in the MoS. The MoS wants the writer of a biography to include an introduction to where the person is from. You are not incorrect to say "multi-ethnic American born", but it is highly unnecessary when just stating where the subject is from in the opening paragraph. -- Renesis13 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

DES, as I said before, it depends what you are referring to if you say "Jennifer Aniston is American".

Of course 'multiethnic American-born' is helpful to the reader. By just American it is assumed that her parents ancestry is also American, which is incorrect. I know two people that were reading an article on Christina Aguilera and they wanted to carry on reading when they saw that it said 'biethnic American-born', as opposed to 'American'. My proposal informs the reader a great deal in a very short way, and allows this to be explained in greater detail after the opening paragraph.

Renesis13, why should anybody favour the subject to come from the US than the country/ies of their ethnic background? What exactly is unnecessary about it? As I've explained, it expands by adding just one or two words and the reader instantly knows that the subject is of foreign descent.

Cypriot stud 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You have just finally pointed out to everyone else why we are in disagreement. Very few people reading "American" would assume that "her parents ancestry is also American." As one user has stated, most Americans have some other kind of ancestry. I do. I understand that nationality is not synonymous with citizenship, but unfortunately, in English-speaking countries its use is much closer to citizenship than ethnicity. And as I said before, there is no need to get technical and try to fill the entire meaning of "nationality" in the opening paragraph (whatever you think that meaning is). That is not the purpose of the Style Guide. -- Renesis13 16:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I see what you mean. But I disagree when you say that very few will believe that Aniston's parents are ethnically American. An extremely low amount (if even one (and I'm not exaggerating at all)) where I am based will know that hardly any of the so-called American population are ethnically American. Plus it's beside the point; we shouldn't assume what readers will think, but put it there anyway, one for extra information, two just in case.

So, if this applies for Americans, are you saying that it doesn't for others? For example, if a person is born in the States to Italian parents, you believe that the subject should be labelled American, yet if he was born in England, he should be an English-Italian?

It shouldn't work this way with all different rules applying to different nations. My rule is correct whatever the circumstances and it makes more sense to use that.

Cypriot stud 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually i think the "Nation of immigrants" nature of the United States is very widely known. However, a person born in Great Britin, to parents of whatever background, i would describe in the lead as "British", unless that person's ancestry or ethnicity was particualrly significant. it the person was famed as a cypriot advocate, then "English-Cypriot" might be appropriate. In cases where virtually all persons in a nation are of the same ethnicity, a person born there of a different ethnicity should perhaps have that fact noted in the lead, as there will otehrwise be an incorrect assumption on the part of the reader. But basically I ewould favor the "citizenship only" rule for the lead for all biography articels. DES ^(talk) 19:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are still misunderstanding what I am saying. We need to separate ethnicity out from this altogether and just describe what is most significant about the subject in the intro paragraph. If someone assumes too much from "American" or "British" or "Italian" and doesn't read the rest of the article where their ethnicity is described, then that is their fault. The purpose of the first paragraph is to describe what is most important. Like DES said - if they are British but their Cypriot background is important, then Cypriot-British or something like it would be appropriate. I don't think you are describing people incorrectly, I think you are just trying to be too precise and specific in the intro paragraph. "American", "British", "Italian" etc., suffices in most cases. -- Renesis13 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To DES: I can assure you for one, that in the area where I reside the 'nation of immigrants' status in the USA is extremely barely, if at all, known. Anyway I think it's still beside the point; it's not good to assume like that.

To Renesis13: No, I didn't misunderstand what you were saying, but now it's much clearer as to what you meant. Ethnicity is equal to part of nationality, thus it should be included. Not just that, but you are saying that only the most important facts about the subject are needed. I totally agree with that, and I believe that ethnic origin is most definitely important, in fact, just as much as birth place or whatever you write for nationality.

My version is unspecific! Specific would be for me to write down each and every ethnicity/nationality of the subject. As I have mentioned before, my way gives a lot of necessary in a not-too-detailed way. At least by just reading the opening paragraph, it is clear that the subject has roots elsewhere. Then it is easier for the reader to scroll down a little further to see the actual details of the ethnic background.

I know somebody who was born in Kosovo to an Albanian father and a half Kosovar half Greek mother. At the age of one, he and his family fled to Sweden. He lived in Greece for a year when he was 8 but they went back to Sweden where they live today. He has Kosovar, Albanian, and Swedish citizenship. How would you categorise him if he had an article on Wikipedia?

Finally, I think the best options so far are my own version, or just to simply exclude nationality altogether (and the person's ethnic background (whether he originates from his country of fame or not) be explained under 'Personal Life' or 'Early Years'.

Cypriot stud 11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)