[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

[Delirium]

(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