[WikiEN-l] the proliferation of ridiculous titular naming schemes

[James Duffy]

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 at rufus.d2g.com>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:05:31 -0600
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at 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