The problem is that most people where titles are not used see them as some form of foppish irrelevance and don't understand that people in states with titles are often known at different points of their career by personal name only, by title and by a combination of both. It would be nutty, for example, to write an article about 'Henry Coyningham'. He is known variously as Henry Mountcharles, Lord Mountcharles and the Earl of Mountcharles. To stop people writing 'Henry Coyningham' to provocatively cause confusion (as part of their campaign against titles) he ended up having to change his name by deedpoll to Henry Mountcharles but that too doesn't stop confusion among those who have never heard or don't remember his first name but know 'Lord Mountcharles' as the guy who holds rock concerts at Slane Castle and is an Irish politician.
The same is true of the man who at various times was the historian and politician Frank Pakenham and the historian and politician Lord Longford or the Earl of Longford. No-one of my generation know him as Frank Pakenham because we only ever heard of him as Lord Longford. But my grandfather and father's generation knew him primarily as Frank Pakenham. And you have to indicate which Lord Longford he was because a number of people held the title and his brother, the prevous Lord Longford, was a famous impressario while his son the current Lord Longford is also like his father a historian.
Delirium's arguments here as elsewhere are simplistic and show no understanding whatsoever the the fact that there is often no such thing as a person's name, but a series of names and titles interlocked that have to be used to create maximum recognition among those who depending on their age may have heard of someone referred to by any number of combination of names and titles. It was the same rubbish that made Wikipedia initially a laughing stock when it decided to put in the current Prince of Wales as 'Charles Windsor' (and they couldn't even get that bit right, his personal name is actually Charles Mountbatten-Windsor). And you can just see everyone copping on to who Victoria Wettin is! (That was Queen Victoria's marital name. Her Royal House name was Saxe-Coburg. Her title was 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.)
Putting the correct article name on the Prince of Wales's article involved a war with 'no titles here' brigade who didn't understand that vast numbers of people outside the US do know people by title and leaving out title is completely unworkable and simplistic. And 'most commonly recognised' is not an option in an enclopaedia in all cases; there has not been such a person as 'Prince Charles' since February 1952 when his titles changed to Duke of Cornwall, later to Lord Rothesay and Prince of Wales. And though she was called it a billion times, there never was such a person as 'Princess Diana', she was actually simply 'The Princess of Wales' or 'Diana Mountbatten-Windsor'.
Delirium's well meaning arguments are in fact simplistic, mis-informed and completely unworkable. Wikipedia's job is not to push agendas but do deal with was 'is'. Titles exist and are a necessary requirement in many cases. That does not mean in using them we 'approve' of their use, just reflect the fact that they exist. Using them is NPOV. Choosing because you don't like them that they should not be used is pushing your POV. And the last time I checked, Wikipedia is against pushing POVs.
JT
This is a difficult problem. If they deserve an article they have probably done something under their name (without title), but we have a faction that honestly believes that all members of the titled British nobility deserve an article based on their title. Long ago someone said, "Well, they appear in Who's Who"
Fred
From: Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:05:31 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] the proliferation of ridiculous titular naming
schemes
Among many other examples, if a reader were looking for the person commonly known as [[Robert Harley]], on Wikipedia they'll be pleased to find them under the ridiculous title of [[Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer]], a name not used except in the context of giving his title. Now, while the said Robert Harley may indeed have been 1st Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, it's nonetheless a plain fact that his name was Robert Harley, and it is by this name that he is and was commonly called.
This seems to be a proliferation on Wikipedia, and indeed there is a proposal, currently with a wide degree of support, being discussed on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] to make this official Wikipedia policy: where someone holds a title, it must be part of their name, without exceptions. At least for British titles; perhaps other countries' titles will be dealt with more vaguely.
I'd argue that simply using peoples' names, except where their titles are commonly used or necessary for disambiguation purposes, is best in keeping with our standard "use the most common name in English" naming policy, and far preferable to the one currently being proposed.
In either case, those of you with an opinion might wnat to head on over to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage]] and vote.
-Mark
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
James Duffy wrote:
The problem is that most people where titles are not used see them as some form of foppish irrelevance and don't understand that people in states with titles are often known at different points of their career by personal name only, by title and by a combination of both. It would be nutty, for example, to write an article about 'Henry Coyningham'. He is known variously as Henry Mountcharles, Lord Mountcharles and the Earl of Mountcharles. To stop people writing 'Henry Coyningham' to provocatively cause confusion (as part of their campaign against titles) he ended up having to change his name by deedpoll to Henry Mountcharles but that too doesn't stop confusion among those who have never heard or don't remember his first name but know 'Lord Mountcharles' as the guy who holds rock concerts at Slane Castle and is an Irish politician.
After some discussions with john (I forget his full username, but he signs 'john'), I partially agree and retract my initial complete opposition. However, I also still oppose using titles uniformly, even in cases where they are not the standard way to refer to the person. For example, [[Bertrand Russell]] should be there, because he was not an Earl until relatively near the end of his life, and in philosophy and mathematics journals, where he is best-known, he is almost always referred to as "Bertrand Russell", not as "Lord Russell" or anything of that sort.
I wouldn't object to the first line of the article being "Bertrand Russell, after [[year]] the 3rd Earl Russell, ...".
-Mark