(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
"Delirium" wrote
... 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.).
I'd agree with the general sentiment. Had a ''Sir'' imposed on an article I wrote, and felt this made too much of a non-hereditry title. Isaac Newton doesn't need the "Sir", for example.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
"Delirium" wrote
... 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.).
I'd agree with the general sentiment. Had a ''Sir'' imposed on an article I wrote, and felt this made too much of a non-hereditry title. Isaac Newton doesn't need the "Sir", for example.
If you don't want titles in the articles that you write that's just fine. Others may prefer to include them in the articles that they write; that's fine too.. Going around and removing these titles just because they don't please you is a disrespectful act.
Ec
"Ray Saintonge" wrote
If you don't want titles in the articles that you write that's just fine. Others may prefer to include them in the articles that they write; that's fine too.. Going around and removing these titles just because they don't please you is a disrespectful act.
Puzzled by this comment. I wouldn't so remove anything, in the absence of a convention. Presumably there can be conventions? My wish not to have William Nicholson (artist) not called Sir wasn't respected.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
"Ray Saintonge" wrote
If you don't want titles in the articles that you write that's just fine. Others may prefer to include them in the articles that they write; that's fine too.. Going around and removing these titles just because they don't please you is a disrespectful act.
Puzzled by this comment. I wouldn't so remove anything, in the absence of a convention. Presumably there can be conventions? My wish not to have William Nicholson (artist) not called Sir wasn't respected.
I looked at the article and respect your view about it. It has had only one edit besides yours. The last four were by you and more than a week ago, so I have no reason to touch it myself because I know nothing aboui Nicholson. There is nothing on the discussion page. In these circumstances I would be the last one to object to your dealing with the "Sir" in the manner that you stateed. I would, however, recommend that you discuss the matter with [[User:Angela]] who is the person who made the change.
Ec
Charles Matthews wrote: Had a ''Sir'' imposed on an article I wrote, and felt this made too much of a non-hereditry title.
And later wrote: My wish not to have William Nicholson (artist) not called Sir wasn't respected.
And then Ray Saintonge made me pay attention by writing: I would, however, recommend that you discuss the matter with [[User:Angela]] who is the person who made the change.
Me? Oh, I'd been ignoring this whole debate until I saw my name mentioned. I really don't care either way. I thought what I was doing was making it consistent with other articles. If you have a problem with it you should have changed it back, mentioned it on the talk page or asked me directly. I was not "not respecting your wish". I didn't know that was your wish. Maybe I just thought you'd missed it out accidentally. It wasn't meant to impose on "your" article in any way and you are quite free to remove it. I don't even remember making the edit - although as it was at 5.30am I was probably asleep anyway. :-).
I apologise for having caused you any distress or to feel that your views were not being respected. This was certainly not my intention.
Angela
________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
"Ray Saintonge" wrote
I looked at the article and respect your view about it. It has had only one edit besides yours. The last four were by you and more than a week ago, so I have no reason to touch it myself because I know nothing aboui Nicholson. There is nothing on the discussion page. In these circumstances I would be the last one to object to your dealing with the "Sir" in the manner that you stateed. I would, however, recommend that you discuss the matter with [[User:Angela]] who is the person who made the change.
Think you misunderstand why I brought this up. There is no wiki reason for me not to edit the page; but every human reason not to get involved in an edit war over three letters. I've not been seriously involved in WP for long enough to do more than test the water on the issue, since others have raised it.
In any case, I have other wiki experience to tell me that these things can certainly wait.
Charles
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
"Delirium" wrote
... 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.).
I'd agree with the general sentiment. Had a ''Sir'' imposed on an article I wrote, and felt this made too much of a non-hereditry title. Isaac Newton doesn't need the "Sir", for example.
If you don't want titles in the articles that you write that's just fine. Others may prefer to include them in the articles that they write; that's fine too.. Going around and removing these titles just because they don't please you is a disrespectful act.
I don't see consistency as disrespectful. Using some titles and not others is highly POV, and so removing them all is an attempt to NPOV things. Saying that we like the Catholic Church and the British Crown and so will respect Saint, Blessed, Sir, and so on, but dislike the President for Life of Turkmenistan so won't respect his self-proclaimed title "His Excellency Turkmenibashi" is a POV distinction. Maintaining such a distinction between "titles we accept and use" and "titles we don't use" is untenable. I don't really see a problem with simply not using titles at all in the initial entry, and mentioning them later. See [[John F. Kennedy]] on the English Wikipedia for a good example of this: it starts off "John F. Kennedy...", *not*, "President John F. Kennedy", but nonetheless conveys the important information that he was president within the first sentence. IMO all articles should be like this, with the exception of a very few people who are known primarily by their title (like Mother Theresa or Cardinal Richelieu).
-Mark
At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
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.
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by Fowler, decades ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and optionally add others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003 (other churches also have saints, but not the same list--so we need to be specific). Ringo Starr isn't a redirect to Richard Starkey, and Gerald Ford is listed as that, not primarily as "President Ford" or by his birth name.
In message 5.2.0.9.1.20031023082716.0305c970@smtp.panix.com, Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org writes
At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
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.
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by Fowler, decades ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and optionally add others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003
Just nitpicking to be pedantic, but she hasn't been canonized, only beatified so far... (I nearly said "beautified", but that would be more difficult! :) )
Blessed, not Saint. And beatified, not canonized.
RickK
Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote: So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003 (other churches also have saints, but not the same list--so we need to be specific).
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
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.
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by Fowler, decades ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and optionally add others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003 (other churches also have saints, but not the same list--so we need to be specific). Ringo Starr isn't a redirect to Richard Starkey, and Gerald Ford is listed as that, not primarily as "President Ford" or by his birth name.
There is a risk of confusing two issues here. Obviously we need stricter naming rules for srticle titles than in the body of an article. Failing to adopt conventions for article titles could make some of them unfindable, especially since the search function became dysfunctional.
The article title [[Sir Ringo Starr]] would not be acceptable. The controversy for now is over the first sentence of an article. Thus if an article about him were to begin "Sir Ringo Starr was a member of the Beattles," would that be an acceptable placing of the word "Sir". Assuming that it is factually correct, I would say yes. My more general contention is that this is a point where a great deal of latitude and flexibility is essential.
Ec
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by Fowler, decades ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and optionally add others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to be a disambiguation anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact that she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003 (other churches also have saints, but not the same list--so we need to be specific). Ringo Starr isn't a redirect to Richard Starkey, and Gerald Ford is listed as that, not primarily as "President Ford" or by his birth name.
Call people the name they're best known by -- just like [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] has said for years? What an intriguing and revolutionary proposal!
<end sarcasm>
Yes, Vicki is entirely correct.
-- Toby