(replying on wikiEN-l)
Matt M. wrote:
I partially agree, and partially disagree. "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux" is perfectly fine, as people who have been beatified are often referred to as such, both by those who recognize the sainthood and those who do not (there are plenty of atheists who debate the viewpoints of Saint Peter, for example). I do think "Blessed ..." is inappropriate though, and frankly a little ridiculous.
I don't see why. "Blessed" is analogous to "Saint." "Saint" is the title of a person who has been canonized; "Blessed" is the title of a person who has been beatified.
In retrospect I agree partially, and would move towards using neither Blessed or Saint. In fact, I would prefer not using titles at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant for an example of this in practice (note that it does not start off "General Ulysses S. Grant..." -- even though in this case "General Grant" was in fact a common way to refer to him before, during, and after his Presidency.
There are a few exceptions, of course. "Saint Peter" should be referred to as such, because that's the most common way to refer to him (though I wouldn't object to "Peter the Apostle" either). Popes should probably be referred to as "Pope John Paul II", because "John Paul II" is not actually a personal name, but one adopted with the office. But I don't think this should extend to all people who have titles.
So, basically, I'd propose we remove titles from both article names and the beginning of the first sentence of the article, unless they are absolutely integral. This includes both official titles (President, Prime Minister, etc.) and honorific titles (Blessed, Sir, etc.). Then if having the title is important, it can be mentioned later (perhaps later in the first sentence). Thoughts?
-Mark