James Duffy wrote:
As we have an agreed naming convention, applied to thousands of articles, by a range of people from professional editors like Zoe and bookworms like Deb to experts on constitutional history like John Kenney, any unilateral attempt to abandon what has been agreed because Mark has a POV he wishes to push, would be a gross abuse of wiki and grossly insulting to the many people who solved what had been a glaring problem. Mark may not like titles, but the fact that they exist. Covering them accurately and factually is NPOV. Trying to push an agenda that says 'I don't like them, therefore I will remove them', is pushing a POV, is unencylopic and grossly disrespectiful to the large numbers of people who debated the issue, made observations and have spent a year implementing the agreed wikipedia policy in a professional, encyclopic NPOV manner.
I disagree strongly, and your attempt to leverage credentials is both a logical fallacy (look up "appeal to authority", or the equivalent Latin phrase if you prefer) and grossly un-wiki.
The issue is that Wikipedia is endorsing certain titles, and not endorsing others, which is inconsistent and POV. When we use Sir, Blessed, and so on, and refuse to use His All-Holiness, His Excellency, and The Honorable, this is a POV judgment, and unacceptable in a professional encyclopedia.
If you do wish to use some honorifics, I would like to see some conventions adopted indicating which we should use, and which we should not. Why should the article on [[Mother Theresa]] start off "Blessed Mother Theresa", while the article on [[Clarence Thomas]] does not start off "The Honorable Clarence Thomas"? Is there a principle behind this decision?
You're talking about two different issues. James is talking about article titles. Delirium is talking about personal titles at the beginning of the text IN an article. It makes it easier to know what we disagree about when when we agree to disagree about the same thing. :-)
POV is unencyclopic when it pokes out one's only good eye. ;-) Sorry James, but I can't resist the temptation of a good typo.! Ec
:-) Actually Ec, the naming conventions deal with whole issue of naming; article titles and textual entries. Whether one likes titles or loathe titles, they do (unfortunately) exist. Using factually existing titles is simply a recognition of reality. ''Choosing'' to ignore them is by definition POV and you are choosing because of a point of view to ignore them. So Delirium's stance, apart from doing a Bobby Ewing and trying to imagine that the last year and the work of many people, not to mention debates, discussions, proposals put to the Wiki-L, etc didn't exist, is POV in that it is taking a policy stance based on personal opinion to ignore something that exists. So on three fronts, ignorance of what titles are, ignoring the work of everyone over the last year who following an agreed naming convention, and seeking to opt for POV reasons to ignore the reality and push a POV agenda on titles, Delirium is wrong.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
James Duffy wrote:
:-) Actually Ec, the naming conventions deal with whole issue of naming; article titles and textual entries. Whether one likes titles or loathe titles, they do (unfortunately) exist. Using factually existing titles is simply a recognition of reality. ''Choosing'' to ignore them is by definition POV and you are choosing because of a point of view to ignore them. So Delirium's stance, apart from doing a Bobby Ewing and trying to imagine that the last year and the work of many people, not to mention debates, discussions, proposals put to the Wiki-L, etc didn't exist, is POV in that it is taking a policy stance based on personal opinion to ignore something that exists. So on three fronts, ignorance of what titles are, ignoring the work of everyone over the last year who following an agreed naming convention, and seeking to opt for POV reasons to ignore the reality and push a POV agenda on titles, Delirium is wrong.
I still disagree, and do not appreciate your condescending "this matter has been decided by the High Council of Wikipedians With PhDs in the Field" tone. I do agree that where titles are an integral part of the name, they should be used. Pope John Paul II should clearly be referred to as such. However, "Mother Theresa" is the standard form of that name (at least in English), and "Blessed Mother Theresa" is used by very few non-Catholics. This is true of people who have been beatified a long time ago as well: the "Blessed" title is rarely used by non-Catholics. "Saint" is a more tricky issue, as it also involves factual correctness. As with an example someone else brought up (Bernard of somewhere-or-other), some people are considered Saints by some Churches and not Saints by other Churches. Calling them Saint is taking a POV stance on the issue, since some Churches disagree that they are deserving of Sainthood. [[List of saints]] has a handy table summarizing the various stances on this issue. Saying "so-and-so was canonized in 1856 by the Patriarch of Constantinople and is considered a Saint by Orthodox Christians" is factually correct. Calling him a Saint with no qualifications is factually incorrect, because the Roman Catholic Church may not agree (one can easily find examples of the reverse situation as well).
Note also that this is not me versus a unanimous consensus. The Saint Bernard issue was brought up by someone else who opined that the term Saint should not be applied to him in an unqualified fashion (I've since deleted the email, so can't recall who), and the "Blessed" was removed from the front of the Mother Theresa article by someone else (I didn't remove it; I only supported its removal on the talk page).
In short, I think we should not use titles unless they are the common English way of referring to a person. This viewpoint had significant support the last time it was discussed on the naming conventions talk page before I left that debate, thinking it was resolved. Under this viewpoint, we have: *Pope John Paul II *Cardinal Richelieu *Mother Theresa *Saint Peter *Charles, Prince of Wales *etc.
But not: *President John F. Kennedy *The Honorable Representative Tom DeLay *His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholemew *Blessed Mother Theresa *Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II *etc.
As for your distinction between honorifics and actual titles, this isn't even consistent on Wikipedia. You cite "Her Majesty" as a title we *don't* use, but [[Charles, Prince of Wales]] begins "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor...". So apparently we *do* use "His Royal Highness", an honoriffic form of address, but for some reason do not use "The Honorable" or "His Excellency" or "His All-Holiness", which seem very similar in spirit. Is there a reason for this? I'd argue "Blessed" is very close to this as well, as outside of the Catholic community is is rarely used.
-Mark