Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes

Proposal: No Exceptions to 'No Honorific Prefixes' Use title name conventions as preferred first instance No "Sir/Dame"

I propose modifying the policy such that no honorific prefixes are permitted, with no exceptions. I acknowledge that the custom in Britain is to refer to some with 'Sir'/'Dame' and we would not be adhering to their customs, just as we are not adhering to "H.H." prefix customs on the Dalai Lama or slews of other established social norms that some people are hung up on. Right now the prenominal exceptions are not a culture-neutral policy and is therefore POV. I would also like to get rid of the postnominals, which have the same problem but unless there is broad support I'm only pitching prenominals here. Ripe (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason currently given for any exceptions? Robert K S (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an expert but honorary KBEs(like Bill Gates) are authorized by British convention to only use postnominal "KBE", whereas full KBEs (like Tim Berners-Lee) are distinguished by prenominal "Sir" plus the postnominal letters. So to start listing just the postnominal letters without the prenominals might imply that TBL is a fake knight instead of a real knight... but IMO NPOV trumps accommodating British cultural norms since no other cultures' prenominals seem to be permitted. If it's inaccurate to use the postnominals without the prenominals then let's toss the postnominals also since the distinctions that are permitted as postnominal distinctions are arbitrary & culturally biased. Ripe (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, definitely not. This has been discussed before. "Sir" or "Dame" is part of the name of somebody who has been knighted or created a dame. It is not a "custom". It is not an honorific prefix. It is a title. There is a huge difference. Sir John Smith, having been knighted, will be for the rest of his life addressed as "Sir John", not "Mr Smith". Not including the title would make Wikipedia inaccurate for the sake of dogma (not NPOV at all - it's not POV to include something that is part of somebody's name). Postnominals are, in Britain and many other Commonwealth countries, also integral. It's also not culturally specific to Britain - have a look at articles on other European noblemen, who are equally titled and whose articles use those titles, as they should do. Let's please throw out this proposal before it even starts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Prof. Smith or Dr. Smith OD? I'm not proposing referring to your example as 'Mr. Smith' either, I'm proposing simply 'John Smith'. The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a Sir Charles Darwin here. What country's conventions do we use? The honorific prefixes section says that "Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes", then says in points 1-3 that styles and honorifics should not be used with any of them inline, then proceeds with #4 to make a British-specific exception to allow Sir/Dame. The English_honorifics article equates 'Sir' with the use of Mr./Mrs./Dr., which aren't used in Wikipedia either. The only NPOV policy is to not use titles. Ripe (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the English honorifics article is grossly over simplifying the situation. When a person is knighted in the UK their name does change - "Sir" is a title not an honorific prefix. It is used instead of them in nearly all cases (I'm not sure of the conventions for knighted doctors and professors) which is where the confusion arises. But the knighthood or damehood is a part of the name. It would be POV to start stripping off parts of people's names in the name of so-called "cultural neutrality" which sounds rather like imposing the US anti-titles position onto names. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Incidentally, "Sir" replaces Dr but it does not replace Professor - the correct style is "Professor Sir". "Dr Sir" is sometimes seen (Sir Rhodes Boyson always uses it, for example), but it is technically incorrect. My point is that Sir John Smith should never again be referred to as anything other than "Sir John" - the pretitle has become part of his name. He is no longer simple "John Smith". This is a completely different situation from honorifics. The English honorifics article is, I'm afraid, incorrect. Ripe is confusing honorifics with titles - titles are always used on Wikipedia, as you will see if you look at any article on nobility or royalty from any country - this is not an exception for British people. How is it POV to list somebody's correct name? As Timrollpickering says, this sounds suspiciously like an attempt to force American anti-title prejudices on the rest of us, and that is in itself POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a Sir Charles Darwin here. This is nonsense. You're attempting to assign your own beliefs to the United States Government. The United States, of course, does not grant titles of nobility, but that is very different to not recognising them. It does, in fact, recognise titles: for instance, the current British Ambassador to the United States is listed in the Department of State's Diplomatic List as "His Excellency Sir Nigel Elton Sheinwald". Proteus (Talk) 15:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, lousy idea, as explained by those above. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely culturally neutral would be to follow the style adopted by the culture in which the person lives, rather than seek to impose a blanket style upon varied cultural norms according to some arbitrary external standard, which derives from - where and whom exactly? Tyrenius (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that Adolf Hitler should be referred to by his honorific title? I'm sure that would go over well. Moreover, honorifics usually are meant to imply something positive about the person with them. Using honorifics is just a bad idea. As for titles, though, that's a bit trickier, and it is even worse with Sir. King, at least, is both a profession and a title, but Sir is basically an honorific. I'd personally like to get rid of it for consistancy's sake, as it is difficult to recognize who exactly has proper authority to bestow such titles on people neutrally - if some crazy cult leader bestows titles on people, who are we to say his titles are any less meaningful than those by king whoever of wherever? We could qualify it lots of ways, but in the end, it isn't neutral to allow some people to bestow titles and deny others the priviledge, and I think ultimately we'd all be a lot happier without any of them rather than letting random kooks' decrees stick titles in front of people's names. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So centuries of British tradition was formulated by "random kooks" was it? Or are you only saying that the policy as it stands would allow self-bestowed titles to stand? No it wouldn't. It hasn't done yet and it wouldn't do in the future. The only titles which can be added are those bestowed by recognised national governments and which are therefore completely valid. Even most Americans with any manners/awareness of other countries' cultural norms would address someone who had been knighted by the British Crown as "Sir" whatever. It is recognised worldwide as correct form. Omitting it from Wikipedia would make Wikipedia incorrect; are you prepared to do that because you personally don't like titles? POV anyone? Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We apparently don't have any problem omitting Sir/Dame from article titles - that policy page refers to the non-prefixed version as the "personal name". I have a hunch that article naming policy has been vetted more than the in-article one here, so I'd like to modify my proposal to: "let's import the article naming conventions policy as the preferred first full name in the article". If I may also gripe about post-nominals, they're not part of the name and their presence biases the up-front representation of honors and memberships to those honors and memberships that have decided to refer to themselves with... postnominal letters. e.g. the recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed with postnominal letters VC, but Medal of Honor recipients are not honored with a "MoH" postnominal. The prenominal & postnominals under discussion are conventions of address that do not let the facts speak for themselves. The recipients of these honors are probably largely good people and I'm not trying to strip them of that, but so are a lot of other people that don't have the opportunity to be members of things that distinguish their members with postnominal letters that WP sees fit to acknowledge (too bad, John Smith, DDS), or to cultures that don't use the latin alphabet, or that have large numbers of English-speaking editors in WP defending their cultural conventions. Let's put all this stuff in the bio infobox awards line & appropriate sections of the article where it belongs. Ripe (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a very daft argument to say that Victoria Cross winners have VC after their names, but Medal of Honor winners don't have MoH after their names, so we should omit the VC. It is the norm in Britain and Commonwealth countries to use these postnoms, and they will frequently be seen after people's names; it is not the norm in the United States. Once again you are attempting to impose American cultural norms on all articles. Why should the American norm become the Wikipedia norm? DDS isn't used because it's a qualification, not an honour. There is a big difference. Your proposal to use the article name as the first line name is also changing the whole Wikipedia policy - that means that full names will usually not be used in the first line (since most articles are titled with the person's common name, not their full name), going against all encyclopaedia conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil, I think it's a perfectly valid argument. Wikipedia NPOV policy shouldn't defer to cultural norms. It's also the norm in some countries to refer to their favorite religious deities in certain terms (or perhaps not stating their name at all in non-religious texts to avoid invoking it) but Wikipedia is under no such obligation to accommodate these norms. I think you might have misunderstood TD's argument above - he's pointing out that the current policy contains a POV selection as to who are the kooks and who aren't. If you can propose an alternate culturally neutral policy, please do so but it's POV to have policies that are British pre & postnom specific. I really can't think of one, so that's why I'm proposing no adornments. There's already a standard, NPOV place for honors & awards - the infobox. Ripe (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is most certainly not POV to use British titles and postnoms when they are used in Britain and are recognised worldwide, any more than it is POV to use the American custom of adding suffixes such as "Jr" or "III" to names, which sounds equally weird to us Brits. American names would be incorrect without these; British names would be incorrect without the titles. Simple. As I said, you really need to distinguish between honorifics and titles, which you don't appear to be doing (e.g. your deities argument - these are honorifics, not titles, and people who do not worship the deities do not use them; this is not the case with titles, which are a recognised part of somebody's name and are used by everyone). I have argued against honorifics myself a number of times, but omitting titles is simply incorrect. You also continue to bang on about British titles currently being an exception, when I have already said that this policy is valid for all legitimate countries that use titles. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) omit the "Ritter von" from the names of German knights or the "Chevalier de" from those of French knights either. This is correct usage. It is not POV in any way, and I fail to see why you think it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Anyway do you have a source that Sir/Dame is part of one's name? This publishing style guide calls it an "honorific title", doesn't require its use inline, and in fact requires that it be omitted from names in their footnotes, so the name is correct without it. These honorific titles are most certainly not recognized worldwide, such as by the U.S. Library of Congress. Ripe (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, he was a king! Of course he had a regnal number! That's a bit different from the American usage - the number of reigning kings who've had that name, not the number of people in a family who've had it. We don't use them for anybody else (although Jr was occasionally used in the 19th century). I really don't think a publishing company's guide re footnotes should be taken as a definitive guide to correct usage in an encyclopaedia, do you? Take a look at publications like Who's Who, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for a rather more encyclopaedic approach and read some of the debates higher up this page and in the archives - you're not the first to say this and you probably (unfortunately) won't be the last. I don't think you'll find a single encyclopaedia, British, American or anything else, that doesn't include people's titles with their names where they belong. As to the Library of Congress not recognising titles, really? Take a look here or here!. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

yes really. Ripe (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So a recent amendment of the LoC should apply to Wikipedia should it? Why exactly? Is Wikipedia obliged to change its policies because the Library of Congress does? In any case, since I have a copy of AACR2 in front of me, that amendment essentially fits in exactly with our current policy: titles are no longer used in "headings" (equivalent to WP article titles) but are still used in "statements of responsibility" (i.e. they are still used in-line to describe the author of a work - xx, by Sir xx xx). So in fact the LoC policy does not agree with your ideas, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you implied that I was wrong when I said that Sir was not used by LoC (in response to your assertion that Sir is used worldwide) by linking to presumably old search titles that predated the current LoC policies. I'm not stating that we defer to LoC or AACR2 policy, I'm just saying that you were wrong. As far as statements of responsibility, feel free to change your name to "Sir Necrothesp" or even "The Right Honourable Necrothesp, VC" and have those appear as such in the history changelogs. I won't oppose.

There's a lot of noise here. Do you have a source saying that Sir/Dame are not honorific titles and/or are part of the name? Ripe (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form, which sets out the legal names of the holders of various dignities (including "Sir" for knights). Proteus (Talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Proteus - could you paste in what it says on the topic? Ripe (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It gives "Sir John Brandon Knight Bachelor" as an example of a knight and "Dame Frances Elizabeth Smith"/"Frances Elizabeth, Lady Smith" as an example of a knight's wife. Proteus (Talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but can you put in verbatim the part about it being part of the name, and that the name is incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense without honorific titles? Also does it say what part of speech Sir/Dame are? Are they indeed "honorific titles"? If so do they have examples of other honorific titles - e.g. are Lord/Lady also honorific titles? Ripe (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

anyone? Ripe (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can we get some clarification on this. The current example is self contradictary. "Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur, DBE" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the example is an example of a regular (non-honorary) usage of "Dame". So I think it's poorly formatted/ambiguous but not actually contradictory. I think everyone can agree that this could be worded better. Ripe (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sir" and "Dame" discussion

"#The honorifics Sir and Dame should be included in the text inline for baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity, provided that they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage. No baronet should be shown with the postfix but without the prefix, e.g. John Smith, 17th Baronet is wrong, the correct style being Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. (Note that honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters.) Example: "Dame Ellen Patricia MacArthur, DBE (born July 8, 1976) is an English sailor...""

Again, asking for clarification of how this execption is not violaiton of NPOV. The above discussion stalled when the exceptionists were asked to provide support for "dame/sir" actually being part of the name. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand I well that this is according to you a violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view? If this is the case for you, can you explain to me why? Demophon (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it (the exception) only applies to honorifics bestowed by a specific group. Why should honorifics bestowed by a particular country be given an exception to a rule that is not granted to honorifics bestowed by any other country or group? Allowing this exception promotes a POV that this honor is somehow different or special. If we are not going to have honorifics, we need to apply that consistantly. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of what people claim, it is an honorific, and it is wrong to make an exception for the British. No one, not even George W Bush and Queen Elizabeth II have "Queen" or "President" before their name. Clearly, Sir is inappropriate as well, as we aren't even giving Bush or Elizabeth "President" or "Queen". There's really no room to argue, here; NPOV requires consistancy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if I go out and start knighting people, why aren't they listed as Sir? Why am I any different from Queen Elizabeth in this regard? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

agree w/ TRPOD & TD. Sir/Dame honorifics need to go away like all the other honorifics. Ripe (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's because you're not the officially appointed Head of State of a country! These titles have legal status. As for Queen Elizabeth II and President Bush: "Queen" is not really a title - her formal style is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom etc etc Queen"; "Queen" Elizabeth II is informal usage, but not official. "President" is a job description, not a title, since the United States does not use titles. What you are basically proposing is that, because many countries do not use titles, titles should not be used on Wikipedia even for people who come from countries which do use them. That sounds to me like the POV here, not the use of titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Removing the "Sir" and "Dame" at the beginning of a person's name would be removing part of their name. This is not POV; this is a fact. You will find them listed in every encyclopaedia, Who's Who etc. Why should Wikipedia be an exception to the rule that these titles should be used? And once again we have the baseless claim that only honorifics "bestowed by a particular country" are included. This is simply not the case. Look at any article about titled people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc. They all have titles included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You make 3 claims 1) you claim that titles granted by other countries appear in articles - and so it is not a POV exception. If we are going to allow those titles, then the EXCEPTION in the MOS must not be limited to England, which it currently is. A POV violation.

2) that 'other guys are doing it' - so if 'other guys' are jumping off bridges... that is not a reason that we should be POV.

3)that 'Sir/Dame' is 'part of the name'- and yes, this has been 'discussed before'- when the same 'explanation' was stated above and Ripe asked for proof of that claim, none was provided. Can you provide some now to back your claim?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not an exception for Britain (not England, since the honours system is UK-wide and once extended to the whole Empire/Commonwealth). The section says that titles should be used for knights bachelor and baronets, which are indeed British, "and members of knightly orders whose rank grants them that dignity", which can apply to any country which has such orders. Just because the example is British does not mean that the section only refers to British titles, but it is certainly true that the vast majority of titled people with articles on Wikipedia are British and that is why the section is tailored towards British titles. This does not make it POV to include those titles. I have no problem with expanding the section to refer to other countries. I am certainly not arguing that Britain should in any way be an exception - all valid titles should be used (note the difference between a title and an honorific - I have opposed the the use of the latter many times myself).

2) Not at all. If respected information works without exception use a style then we would be rather stupid not to do so also.

3) Can you provide any proof that the use of titles is POV other than your own POV? You seem to take it as a given that the current system is POV because you say it is. Proof works both ways. But for proof, try this, from the Statutes of the Order of the British Empire: "Dames Commanders of this Order...may on all occasions have, use and enjoy the appellation and style of Dame before their Christian or first names" (italics mine). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the MOS "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia." yep thats why we are here'" Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy." The MOS then identifies guidelines for using honorifics for the three groups: Nobles - no. Government Officials - No. Members of royal families and clergy - No.

THEN there is this bizare exception 4. for "baronets, knights bachelor, and members of knightly orders" looking up 'kinghtly orders' in WP we are redirected to military orders, which is not what we are talking about here, but Order of Merit (disambiguation) does seem to apply. So what I understand your position to be, is that honorifics from these organizations would for some reason be an exception to the 'no honorifics' policy - because 'dame/sir' are (at least for some British orders) an "appellation and a style" (focusing on the 'appellation' and ignoring the 'style'). I do not see this as logical.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand. It is not an exception. "Sir" and "Dame" are no more honorifics than "Earl of" is an honorific. They are titles. Britain has three groups of titles: Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage. In point of fact, if peers were allowed their titles on Wikipedia and baronets and knights/dames were not it would be they who were the "bizarre exception". -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

according to my dictionary (admittedly not the OED), there is little to no difference between 'honorific' 'title' and 'style' 1) mode of address or designation; title. 2) A token of esteem paid to worth; as A. a mark of respect, as a title. 3. Title applied to the holder of certain civil offices 4. A descriptive name, an appellation . Guess which definitions go with which words?

And again, your source also calls Dame/Sir a 'style' and the exception in the MOS that we are talking about calls dame/sir honorifics. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear TheRedPenOfDoom,
Your way of thinking about what is POV or NPOV is wrong. The honorific "Sir" (or "Dame") is an additional part of a name (of course you can omit it from the whole name, the same as you can do this with the personal name and to show only the surname). "Sir" or "Dame" as part of a name is a cultural custom used and evolved for many, many centuries! It's totally not uncommon in many biographies about people to address them with this honorific. This is the same as with titles of nobility, not only the UK, but also in other countries in Europe. Is this a form of elitism? Yes of course! But that's something different than being POV. The Wikipedia NPOV concerns about how you approach information, not about the content of the information itself. If you want to write a biography about someone, then you have to take at least two rules into mind: 1) Describe someone as complete as possible (also regarding their name), try not to leave out parts because you dislike it. 2) Be as neutral, objective, and open minded as possible in describing the person. The fact that someone's name contains titles of nobility and is this is therefore elitist, doesn't matter. That you want to leave out the honoric "Sir", because you regard it as a form of elitism and you therefore dislike it (your comment - POV exception redux: because we are speeeeeeecial), is highly subjective and therefore POV.
Greetings, Demophon (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop saying 'this has already been discussed' as if that means anything. WP policies are always open to reconsideration and discussion. To reiterate my request from above, do you or anyone else have a source to back up the assertion that Sir/Dame is the first word in the recipient's new name and its absence makes the name incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense? I provided several examples where it is policy (e.g. the U.S. Library of Congress) to /not/ use them. Tim Berners-Lee's drivers license doesn't say 'Sir'. Not that this would be sufficient, but does anyone have a way to restate the current policy such that it could apply to other honorific titles granted by other cultures (e.g. without explicitly stating 'Sir'/'Dame')? If not it is POV. Ripe (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Demophon - why don't we use "Dr." to those who have received the honor? To use it is a cultural custom that has evolved over centuries. It's not uncommon in non-WP biographies to address them with it. Its use is spread across many countries. It informs the reader about the person. The answer IMHO is that we are supposed to describe the person by stating facts about them (e.g. "Tim Berners-Lee was granted membership in the KBE"/"C. Everett Koop received his M.D. degree from Cornell Medical College") rather than using the style conventions in our text ("Sir TBL did this & this & this"/"Dr. Koop did &c..."). There's a key difference there. Ripe (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I note you have ignored both the quote I provided above from the Statutes of the Order of the British Empire and my refutation of your Library of Congress argument in our previous discussion (i.e. the LoC guidelines only apply to titles of records, and nobody is arguing that "Sir" or "Dame" should be used in our article titles, and in any case the policies of the national library of a country that does not have titles are not binding on an international encyclopaedia). Incidentally, how do you know what Tim Berners-Lee's driving licence says? Do you have a copy? And what on earth would "Tim Berners-Lee was granted membership in the KBE"/"C" mean? Tim Berners-Lee was knighted as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire - he wasn't "granted membership" in anything (that would be an MBE). He should now be addressed as "Sir Tim". That is a fact, whatever your POV may wish to believe. He holds a title, not a qualification, not a job description, not an honorific, a title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Your own source from 1917 recognizes the Sir/Dame prenominal as something prior to, not a part of, the person's name. Whether or not people may enjoy usage of name dongles /here/ is something for WP policy, not inherited from British ceremonial customs or elsewhere. I think we finally have an answer to my question - it's /not/ actually part of the person's name as some have claimed.

2. Go back and reread the part you're confused about. This time break on the quotes and slash not the period indicating an initial rather than a new sentence/clause. C. Everett Koop is former surgeon general of the U.S. and a medical doctor. If I didn't phrase the example correctly my apologies but try to focus on the point that I'm making. Fix the TBL phrase if you want or not, my point still stands. Ripe (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Not at all. It's saying it should be added to the person's name as it stood before the honour, it should be used at all times, and it is an appellation (i.e. part of the name).

2) My apologies. I misunderstood you. However my point still stands also. Berners-Lee did not become a member of the Order; he became "Sir Tim", according to the Statutes of the Order that I have quoted (which, incidentally, do not enumerate that knights should be called "Sir" because that was already long understood - "Dame" was a new title introduced by the Order of the British Empire, which is why the Statutes felt the need to explain it). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

1. My copy of the concise OED defines appellation as "a name or title" - do you have any more recent sources on that aren't ambiguous in terminology and usage outside of formal situations? I can pull many sources saying that the proper method of introducing/referring to C. Everett Koop is "Dr. C. Everett Koop" but that doesn't mean it should be WP policy.

2. I'm not asserting he's a member, I was giving an example of how facts about awards/titles/honors should/do appear in Wikipedia - through their statement via the pattern "person X is a Y" rather than their use by styles or honorifics inline. I'm not contesting that Sir/Dame are traditional modes of addressing those who have been given the honor; I'm contrasting the current policy with how WP treats other styles/honorifics inline (which is, they don't). If you're focusing on the fact that my example was factually incorrect, that's not the point I was trying to make. Ripe (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We are effectively having a rather pointless circular debate here. Your basic argument is that the use of titles is POV, mine is that it is not. This is getting us nowhere and without a huge effort on your part to find support and proof for your POV it is inevitable that current guidelines, which support my POV, will stand. Let's stop wasting energy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not said 'my position is not pov and yours is' I have said this exception is an exception for an unusual group of people and has no logical basis for exemption (except for your one statement that the dame/sir is 'part of the name' - and yet even your source for that claim says that dame/sir is also a 'style'). Why should there be this one exception for honorifics granted by a limited and arbitrary set of entities when no other honorifics are thus exempted? Exceptions provided to arbitrary groups are POV/bias.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To follow the logic through to its conclusion, is it being proposed that the article Pope Benedict XVI should be moved to Joseph Ratzinger, and that Dalai Lama should be renamed Tenzin Gyatso ?? Bazj (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are not talking about naming conventions for articles themselves, but about usage within the article. But anyway the second part of your question is obviously, no. Dalai Lama is a title/postition and Dalai Lama is about that title/position and Tenzin Gyatso is the article about the man who currently holds that position. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sir" and "Dame" discussion - arbitrary break

So far as I understand, there's a rather solid consensus across the project to avoid titles and honorifics, regardless of whether they are political, religious, or cultural. Is there any such convincing consensus for this exception to widespread practice? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, let me try to explain once again as simply as possible. Take five people: Mr John Smith, Dr John Smith, The Honourable John Smith, The Reverend John Smith, and Sir John Smith. They can all be referred to as "John Smith", right? Wrong. The first four can all legitimately be referred to as "John Smith" - they may prefer their honorifics, but except in very formal situations it is entirely correct to refer to them without their use in any country in the world (Britain included). If the fifth is referred to as "John Smith" he is being referred to incorrectly. He is not John Smith; he is Sir John Smith. The title has become effectively part of his name. It is no mere honorific that can be used or left off as the addresser/referrer sees fit. If he himself says "call me John" then fair enough (for instance, actors often leave off the pretitle professionally, but when referred to in the media it will usually be used), but otherwise it is insulting to leave off the title (as anyone who watches The Apprentice in the UK will know!).

Some people here are banging on about "prove it, prove it", and I have tried to do so, but this is very difficult as the British use of titles was laid down many centuries ago and it is something that is entirely understood by the British establishment, which sees no need to lay it down again. This is the problem with demanding concrete proof of something that was established long before the digital age - lack of easily accessible proof does not make the fact a non-fact. It often makes it something that is so well-established and so well-known that it has not needed to be reiterated for centuries. If we did not use these titles on Wikipedia we would simply be giving incorrect information to our readers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another attempt at some proof, the Times Style Guide section on titles. While it can't be taken as concrete evidence (since it's a style guide), The Times is the UK's newspaper of record. It states that honorifics (Her Majesty, His Royal Highness, The Right Honourable etc) are not to be used when referring to peers and members of the Royal Family, that children of peers do not need to be referred to using "The Honourable" (to which they are entitled in formal situations), but that knights, baronets and dames are to be referred to as "Sir" and "Dame". I would also point out that such titles are used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Who's Who and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, among many others. They are used on the BBC and by most other media sources. They wouldn't, for instance, refer to "The Right Honourable Gordon Brown" or the "Most Reverend Rowan Williams", but they would refer to "Sir Alan Sugar". Why? Because it's correct, and unlike the previous two honorifics it cannot legitimately be left off! Yet here we have some people arguing that we shouldn't use them on WP because their use is "POV". Obviously most respected information sources do not regard them as POV, so I do feel this is a complete non-argument. Yes, apparently they also feel that we shouldn't do things just because other sources do, but I really don't see why we should not do something that is correct just for the sake of some sort of anti-title dogma that has not been properly thought out in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To add some examples, insisting on deleting these titles is as POV as insisting on referring to Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Windsor or Benedict XVI as Joseph Ratzinger. It would simply be regarded as incorrect to do so by the vast majority of people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee's own professional biographies at W3C [1] and MIT [2] refer to him without Sir prenominal inline, yet our Tim Berners-Lee article uses it inline. If verifiability is a criteria for articles it should be for this policy - maybe if nobody has written it down, you're mistaken. The citations you provided also include other examples that are explicitly not allowed by policy. Please don't be condescending with your "Look, let me try to explain once again as simply as possible" etc. We've heard your assertions before. You've provided nothing new. I provided a cite before showing that the 'Sir' prenominal is the prenominal for an honorific title of knighthood. Kentucky colonel is another example of an honorific title. Kentucky Colonels refer to themselves with the prenominal 'Colonel.' Muhammed Ali is listed as a Kentucky Colonel. Should we go edit the page to refer to "Colonel Ali"? Realize that you're asking us to both violate verifiability and accept a non-NPOV policy. Ripe (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, realise that you are asking us to change a guideline that has long been agreed and accepted. I am asking you to do nothing. I have already said that any further discussion between us is a waste of energy, since our POVs are fundamentally opposed. And absolutely no condescension was intended; I was merely trying to explain the facts to a new entrant to the debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the debate is over. I reject your argument that because it's the status quo you can drop this and it remains here. This has long been contentious and I will follow this through to consensus. 1. Can you explain how two of TBL's professional bios omit something that you claim is fundamentally part of his name. 2. Do you support the use of all prenominal references inline to those with honorific titles (e.g. Kentucky Colonels) or do you want it to remain only for 'Sir'/'Dame' 3. Do you admit that you know of no source explicitly stating that 'Sir'/'Dame' are fundamentally part of people's names as opposed to a style/honorific/mode of address (please do not refer to your personal experience with convention as you have previously - we know conventions, and respecting them [e.g. "Dr."] in WP is at our discretion according to NPOV policy.)? 4. Do you feel comfortable emailing W3C or MIT notifying them that they have an error in TBL's bios by omitting 'Sir' as you would feel comfortable editing a WP article for a KBE that wasn't referred to as 'Sir'? Ripe (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir Tim Berners-Lee's biography at the W3C does include "Sir" [3]. In the abridged introduction it omits it. That reflects the common situation where more modest knights might omit their title in informal situations. But that doesn't mean they don't hold it. Equally, famous actors might not use their titles in film credits because they already have an established name before receiving the honour.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so is for representing facts. Individuals are free to use their titles or not; Wikipedia has to let people know what the correct title is (if the individual concerned didn't want the title, they could have refused to accept the honour). The current situation is a good compromise. The title of the article doesn't include "Sir" or "Dame", and neither should it, just as it doesn't usually include middle names. The opening sentence of the article, however, should include "Sir" or "Dame". Note that knights bachelor aren't entitled to any postnominal letters, so if you don't use the title, there's nothing to indicate that they have a knighthood.

Titles like "Sir" (and also titles of peerage) are quite different to Mr, Dr, etc. In British passports at least, titles are not normally used. However, if someone is a knight or dame, that can be added to their passport. (Lords also have passports under their titles, but that's not what we're discussing here). Knighthoods are particular to the UK and Commonwealth countries, so articles should surely follow the conventions used in that country. Lots of people will visit Wikipedia to see if someone is a "Sir". If you insist it can't be used, you are depriving them of that knowledge.

I would like to add that I've joined this discussion independently after happening across it. I haven't been canvassed for my views at any stage. Regards, JRawle (Talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That page lists it in the header prior to the bio but omits it from the bio itself. I argue that cases showing omission are more informative than inclusion because it shows that it is legitimately optional and hence WP can opt not to use them in light of our NPOV policy and the person's name is valid. If you read the above discussion and are neutral, you will see that I was proposing informing the reader that the subject is a recipient of honors through the pattern "person X is a/has been awarded/is a member of/received degree Y". I'm depriving readers of no knowledge whatsoever. "Sir X" is ambiguous and must be disambiguated anyway because there are several honors that map to that prenominal. I do not object to the inclusion in Wikipedia of a statement that recipients of honor Y are frequently referred to with prenominal Z. I do not object to redirections of "Sir X" to the page for "X". There is no loss of information any more than there is by omitting "Dr." in front of Stephen Hawking's name inline and stating that he received a Ph.D.. The usage of 'Sir'/'Dame' or any other honorifics inline is what I object to because it is not consistent with NPOV. Feel free to answer the 4 questions I listed above. Ripe (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"However, if someone is a knight or dame, that can be added to their passport. " If it were "part of the name" as has been argued, then the name on the passport would need to reflect sir/dame. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So it's NPOV to omit a title someone has been awarded, but not to include it? I don't think so. The most NPOV solution would be to include Sir in the page title if the subject uses the title, and to omit it if he didn't, just as we might include the middle name if the subject commonly uses it. The first line of the article, however, shold have the full name; therefore omitting the title is POV.

We have to draw the line somewhere, just as we do for notability of subjects. That's why we don't include university degrees as postnominals, but includee honours awarded by a state. For the same reason, we include Sir, but not Dr or Prof. It's entirely consistent. Being a knight is still a rare honour. Being a PhD is surprisingly common. (Someone who is a Sir is probably notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Most PhDs are not.)

I was very careful to say that people will look at Wikipedia to see if someone is a "Sir", not to see if they are a knight. Not everyone will understand that if you say "Smith was appointed a knight bachelor", that means he's a Sir. Also, if you include Sir, it is possible to see what honour someone received, as knighthoods other than knight bachelor come with postnominal letters.

Finally, regarding passports, it may be a parculilarly British thing, but traditionally in English common law, one is entitled to use whatever name one likes. But unless you are going to ask celebrities for photocopies of their passports, I don't know how you would ever know whether it showed "Sir" or not. Therefore I consider it POV to omit it. JRawle (Talk) 19:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"We have to draw the line somewhere" - and since the line we have drawn doesn't include Presidents, Queens or Popes, why in the world would it include sirs? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer to the debate here. I believe the truth is that usage is changing. While it may at one time have been incorrect to omit Sir/Dame from the name of a person entitled to that usage, it is becoming increasingly acceptable. Here are a few searches I tried on Google News to illustrate the point:

• Paul McCartney 2917 hits
• Sir Paul McCartney 1098 hits
• Tim Berners-Lee 131 hits
• Sir Tim Berners-Lee 44 hits
• Bob Geldof 590 hits
• Sir Bob Geldof 83 hits

Scan results like this for a while and it becomes clear (to me at least) that there simply isn't a single accepted standard. Some quite reputable news organizations, including some in the UK, feel free to omit the "Sir" completely, at least for some people in some contexts. I susepct that a generation ago this would not have been the case, but for today, I believe User:Necrothesp is exaggerating in claiming that it is just patently wrong to omit Sir/Dame. Compare for example similar Google News searches on the pope - about 95% of news stories that mention "Benedict XVI" use the form "Pope Benedict XVI" vs much less than 50% use of "Sir" in the examples above. In sum, it seems to me that the standards are in flux. High quality, formal, traditional sources do stick to Sir/Dame as if part of the name, but many perfectly respectable ones don't. This is one where Wikipedia could reasonably go either way. Mrhsj (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another search showing that even the Times doesn't always follow its own style guide: Search the Times for Paul McCartney without 'Sir' Mrhsj (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to go round-and-round on this about once a year, but I've yet to have anyone explain convincingly how it's POV to include part of somebody's name in the opening part of the article. The evidence that news organizations get it wrong now and then doesn't change the that the correct usage is to render the full name. "Dr" or "President" is not part of somebody's name, but "Sir" or "Lord" (and variants thereof) is. This is accepted usage within media organizations, within other encyclopedias, and within Wikipedia itself for nigh on five years. Absent a fresh argument as to why this is wrong-headed I think it's sensible to let the matter be. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are engaging in the fallacy of many questions. Do you have a source that 'Sir'/'Dame' is part of the name and its absence makes the name incorrect in a fundamental sense as opposed to a politeness/convention sense? It is critical to your position that you do so. Please refer to the 4 questions I posed above and provide answers to them and I will gladly explain what form your non-NPOV takes wrt this issue. Perhaps if defenders of the status quo stopped stonewalling the debate with unsourced assertions that it's part of the name and long restatements that it's an established British custom, then the discussion would not go round-and-round. Ripe (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is simply not demonstrated that inclusion of "Sir" is current standard usage within media organizations. We are not talking about them "getting it wrong now and then." I have done some actual work here, searching news organizations for recent reports on public figures. I find that most reputable news organizations (including nytimes.com, ap.org, reuters.co.uk among others) omit the "Sir" FAR more often than they include it. Here is just one:

* Ian McKellen without Sir on NY Times 6,470 hits

* Ian McKellen with Sir on NY Times 638 hits

The New York Times omits Sir TEN TIMES as often as it uses it. Yet some claim that using Sir is standard accepted usage and that it's "wrong" to omit it. I don't buy it. (BTW I take no stand on the rest of the issue. I don't care one way or another about this policy, I just think some of the arguments being advanced in its defense are demonstrably false.) Mrhsj (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, sources have been quoted above to the effect that the correct usage is to include Sir/Dame. Media organizations are not infallible. It cannot possibly be correct to either include it or not include it; even if the media are not consistent we're obliged to be. You've yet to produce a source which suggests that our present usage (to render someone's legal name) is incorrect, but we've presented sources which confirm that usage. Sources were also brought forward to that effect last January, when this issue was last raised. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's do a google search:

• His popular name "Paul McCartney" 1830000 hits
• His name "James Paul McCartney" (also with Sir) 4930 hits

Well, according to the logic of Mrhsj: we can leave out "James", one of his given names.

The fact that it is not always used, doesn't mean it is not part of the whole name! The way of thinking of a lot of guys here is incorrect.

And it makes me tired. In the past the same discussion was made extensively with proper debates and arguments. On basis of that and the reached consensus the Wikipedia community then agreed about a guideline. Once a while some 'wise guy' is starting the whole discussion all over again, thinking he knows it better! However the end result is the same. Sometimes I really have the feeling of "Groundhog Day" here. Demophon (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points here. First, I'm glad there are more hits for "Bob Geldof" than "Sir Bob Geldof" - as an honorary knight he is not entitled to the "Sir" in any case. Second, I'm rather puzzled as to why usage for three people (Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Ian McKellen), two of whom are in the entertainment business, in which it has always been common to leave off the pretitle, should predicate usage for every knight and dame in Britain (incidentally, since Berners-Lee was only knighted in 2004 there are obviously many articles written before that date that don't use his title). Third, even if usage is dropping off today (which is, incidentally, largely due to a media ignorant of correct usage in any case, which is why Google searches are pretty spurious in this regard - WP is an encyclopaedia, the aim of which is to educate, not perpetuate false information), why should that determine whether we do or do not use titles for the vast majority of knights and dames who received their titles when it would have been inconceivable not to use them and are therefore always referred to using them? Fourth, do a search on the BBC News website for any of these people with and without their title - you'll be surprised if you think the use of titles is going out! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points that you are not exactly accurate on: 1) last January when asked to provide evidence that sir/dame was 'part of the name' - ZERO evidence was provided. 2) The evidence provided this time says that it is an appellation AND a style - still no proof that this exception for this group of people has any basis when our standard procedure for EVERYONE else is not to use styles/titles/honorifics. -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Our standand procedure is to use names. Proof has been provided, both direct and indirect. Direct, in the form of Debrett's, and indirect in the form of other standard reference works which follow our practice. We don't use inline styles like "The Right Honourable" and so forth but we do use people's names, which can in systems where nobility still exist include "titles." Mackensen (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As Necrothesp has noted, much of the proof must be adduced from usage. I feel rather like I'm being asked to prove that in Western countries one's name is rendered "First name Last name." If you've ever watched Prime Minister's Questions, you'll note that the Speaker does not use styles such as "Right Honourable" when calling upon a member to speak, but does use the knighthood, if present. So, for example, "Sir Teddy Taylor" (as that's his name), but not "the Right Honourable Gordon Brown" (as that's not his name). Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name, that their use in all situations is mandatory not optional, and the name is strictly incorrect without their presence. This has been requested many times before (see above) but no response from any of you despite the fact that a lot of pro-status-quo people have posted, so I'm more willing to imply from that that it isn't in there. You claim you have direct evidence well please share with the rest of the class.

Re. your claim of indirect evidence; 1. there are many situations where other prenominals are used/not used in various situations but that doesn't prove anything. In a university lecture introduction outside the British honors system 'Right Honourable' would not be used to introduce someone but 'Dr.' would be. Also 2. I note again that it's more informative to recognize situations when the title is legitimately omitted rather than when it is used and gives wikipedia policy license to omit. I find the fact that British Parliament uses some variant of the British honors system neither surprising nor informative on this subject. However we have found significant indirect evidence that omitting the title leaves the person's name still valid. So I think you can claim the support of neither direct nor indirect evidence. Ripe (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier you are making again a thinking error. Omitting "Sir" is like omitting one of someone's given name from his whole name in the first sentence of an article. For example: Sir James Paul McCartney. To leave out Sir and James, then you only get "Paul McCartney". Our omit all of his given names, leaving only his surname "McCartney". Technically it is legitimate to call someone only with his surname, but it is not his whole name! Demophon (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please provide a source for the assertion that it's fundamentally part of his name etc. per above. Ripe (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's very difficulty. Then we need an official document to prove it, like a passport or another government document with the name on it. Demophon (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you admit that you have no source, given all that's written on the British honors system, to support the assertions here that Sir/Dame are fundamentally mandatory part of knights' names in all situations per above as opposed to an honorific/style/title/custom? If the answer is 'yes' please answer directly. If the answer is 'no' please provide said source's words verbatim on the topic. Ripe (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well again, if I could show you some government document (like a passport or other) in which the official name of a knight is shown, would this convince you? This is what The Red Pen of Doom asked. However this is highly difficulty! Demophon (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never asked for passports. Someone claimed that 'sir/dame' was "part of the name" because it appears on some passports. I said that if 'sir/dame' were indeed "part of the name" it would appear on all passports. Ripe has been quite clear in his/her request for some sort of documentation that supports your position. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For a while I was thinking to search for some passport or marriage certificate, with on it the official name of a British knight, to prove it. But when even this is not convincing for you, well then I'm not spencing all the of time to find that, it's not worthy. Demophon (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth asking at this point what standard of proof would be accepted; demanding infallibility of a fallible system is a complete non-starter. It's been demonstrated that this is the correct way to refer to people, and that it is done in media, by the government, and by other reference works similar to this one. Given the general hostility shown towards the British government and British honours system throughout I wonder whether even a letter from the Earl Marshal would convince parties here. For that matter, we could just as easily write Who's Who or the people behind the Dictionary of National Biography, but that these broadly-available general purpose works follow follow the same usage should be a telling point. Res ipsa loquitur. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would refer parties to, for example the National Council of Archives. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found a certificate of civil partnership of Sir Elton John with his partner: [4]. On this British government document the official name of Sir Elton printed when he was entering his civil partnership. But probably even this is not convincing enough to serve as prove. Demophon (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, from previous my comments:

"Per the MOS "The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia." yep thats why we are here'" Wikipedia currently distinguishes between three groups: nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy." The MOS then identifies guidelines for using honorifics for the three groups: Nobles - no. Government Officials - No. Members of royal families and clergy - No." ""We have to draw the line somewhere" - and since the line we have drawn doesn't include Presidents, Queens or Popes, why in the world would it include sirs? "

From Ripe's previous comments:

"People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name, that their use in all situations is mandatory not optional, and the name is strictly incorrect without their presence. This has been requested many times before (see above) but no response from any of you despite the fact that a lot of pro-status-quo people have posted, so I'm more willing to imply from that that it isn't in there. You claim you have direct evidence well please share with the rest of the class.

Re. your claim of indirect evidence; 1. there are many situations where other prenominals are used/not used in various situations but that doesn't prove anything. In a university lecture introduction outside the British honors system 'Right Honourable' would not be used to introduce someone but 'Dr.' would be. Also 2. I note again that it's more informative to recognize situations when the title is legitimately omitted rather than when it is used and gives wikipedia policy license to omit. I find the fact that British Parliament uses some variant of the British honors system neither surprising nor informative on this subject. However we have found significant indirect evidence that omitting the title leaves the person's name still valid. So I think you can claim the support of neither direct nor indirect evidence."

Boiled down our position is very simple. The Wikipedia MOS in general does not use honorifics/styles/titles with this odd exectpion. Provide some convincing proof that this exception is necessary/improves Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, speaking in my position as the author of the quoted part of the manual style, it arose out of a long discussion some two years over whether styles such as "the Most Honourable" or "His Holiness" should be used inline. The consensus was that they should not, and the primary reason was that other reference works, not to mention news agencies did not. Wikipedia uses styles/titles when they're actually part of somebody's name and not simply a form of address. Direct proof has been provided in the form of Elton John's civil parternship; indirect proof in that other works follow this usage. Wikipedia's usage is not exceptional, nor is there a special exception in the Manual of Style. I did not intend a special exception when I wrote that section; the people who supported it did not believe a special exception was being created. This "helps" Wikipedia by prescribing the correct usage and guaranteeing that we refer to people in the correct fashion. Please explain how Wikipedia would benefit from deviating from such. Mackensen (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, if someone can provide an answer to this simple question "People keep referring to Debrett's, which many of us don't have access to. Please type in verbatim the part in Debrett's where it says 'Sir'/'Dame' styles are fundamentally part of the holder's name" we will not need to continue this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it in front of me, but it's been quoted above in any case. I'd appreciate it if you'd ruminate on all the various works which render it as part of the name, including Elton John's certificate. You don't have any evidence at all to the contrary (that it is not part of the name); you're making great hay out of a section of the MoS when I'm telling you, as the author, that it does not say what you think it says. I and others have show you numerous examples which suggest very strongly that you're in the wrong. You have presented no evidence which contradicts what I and others maintain the correct usage is; that newspapers do not always follow their own guidelines proves nothing. Mackensen (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are readers going to understand why we include this title and prohibit all others? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the absence of readers inquiring about the matter, I suspect the answer is yes, they understand. Certainly American readers are reasonably familiar with knighted British thespians. I'm sure they would be much more flummoxed by the fact that Wikipedia omits part of the name (Sir/Dame) when a news story they were reading included it. Inconsistency breeds chaos. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Readers tend not to inquire about a line of text reading TIMMY IS SO DUMB, either, but that doesn't mean they haven't noticed it. I admit you have a point, but among non-UK readers at least I really don't think they'll see it as anything but a title, which (to my mind) it rather appears to be, part of the name or not. This isn't the end of the day, for me, either way, but I really do see how this could be portrayed as a systemic bias, if UK honorifics "count" and others don't. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They "count" because they're part of the name. We also include German titles (Graf, Ritter, Herzog etc) because they're part of the name, although inline rendering isn't as consistent as I would have liked (due, in large part, to the chaos of mediatization after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the abolition of the monarchy in Germany after World War I). If the UK looms large, I put it down to these factors: the continuation of a noble system after most countries have abandoned same, and the unusual level of codification found therein. I fail to see bias in properly rendering a name. Mackensen (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The only statement from Debrett's in the above discussion is Proteus' summary: "Debrett's Correct Form, which sets out the legal names of the holders of various dignities (including "Sir" for knights)." Proteus (Talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC) to which Ripe replied "Thanks Proteus - could you paste in what it says on the topic?" Ripe (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) To which Proteus replied ... well nothing. You have been asked several time: What text in Debrett's are you basing your summary on? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Previously I had asked if consensus supported this exemption ("interpretation" might be a safer word), and after some discussion I'm inclined to think it does, or at least is trending that way in this discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, in fact, asked Proteus to weigh in. I note, however, that numerous other supporting evidence has been presented, and none of it has been refuted. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that your evidence has not been refuted. I think I or others have addressed each of your points. But there's a lot here so please summarize your evidence that you think still stands in light of the counter evidence. Nobody has yet provided one citation saying that 'Sir'/'Dame' is part of the name - please do so if that is your evidence. If you make any assertions back them up with citations. Britain's own Identity and Passport service does not permit its inclusion in the name field. This is not a mistake. They are not incorrect. Therefore Wikipedia articles that would omit the prenominals would also not have mistakes or be incorrect. If people have titles they can read the text. Nobody is confused by the lack of Dr. in front of MDs or PhDs even if they saw the name in that manner in some other source. Under what situations can other cultures or institutions e.g. the Kentucky Colonels use their prenominals in Wikipedia? Can I bestow on someone a title and have it appear? Why are non-peerage prenominals (Dr., Prof.) not permitted? Please answer the '4 questions' I listed above. There is a lot that you & the other status-quo defenders have flat out dropped or refused to directly answer. Ripe (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I and others have pointed out numerous reference works which follow the same practice. The mere existence of other works doing so ought to tell you something, but apparently it doesn't. See in particular the archival style guide, whose link is posted below. Second, you've provided no evidence that Sir or Dame is not part of the name; all you've done is demonstrate that sometimes media publications leave it off (contrary to their own guidelines), and that the passport service does not include it. Why this is so we don't know, and their response to your query gives no indicator. Whether from space constraints or some international standard, it's clearly in conflict with standard reference works, media style guides, and, for that matter, academic usage. Wikipedia does not derive its manual of style from a passport office. Third, the question relating to academic titles is a different part of the style guide, but I note that reference works generally do not include them. One possible reason is that the earning of an academic degree does not alter a person's name. Fourth, the granting of titles in the British Honours System is established in law, which grants it standing. If you created a process by which the awarding of a title could alter someone's name, Wikipedia would be bound to recognize it. Fifth, a title such as "Kentucky Colonel" is purely honorary, and the manual of style distinguishes between an honorary title and a title of knighthood (recognized as something quite different). Sixth, a peerage and a knighthood and a baronetcy are not the same thing, and you're confusing the issue by referring to them interchangeably. Mackensen (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the passport issue, the name on my driver's license does not match my legal name. Why not? Because the software used by my local government can't handle multiple middle names, so instead of two middle names I have one long hypenated middle name. Is this usage correct? I don't think so, but it works for the purposes of the government. If I ever rated an encyclopedia article, would my name be represented that way? I hope not. Mackensen (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fourth, the granting of titles in the British Honours System is established in law," Find the statutes that identify the prenominal as the name and you have your case made. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A) my response to your example instances has been 1. that omissions are more informative than commissions. I grant that people external to wikipedia can opt to use the styles. You need to accept that people also can opt not to use styles. 2. I can provide as many examples of using Dr. prenominals. Academic titles predate peerage, are more widely used globally, and I can match your style guides proscribing the use of 'Sir' with ones proscribing the use of 'Dr.'. Presence in style guides doesn't mean anything here. Consious absence however means something in that the non-prefixed name is still considered correct by the publisher. B) The burden of proof is on you since you're making the assertion that it's part of the name - you haven't answered my many many requests for a citation backing your claims. I don't need to disprove your unproven assertions. If all you have are things you want us to imply from documents from the early 20th century where the name field includes prenominals, I claim my response from the /Identity/ and Passport Service has more weight than stuff from 1917 & 1921. I agree WP doesn't derive MoS from passports (or marriage licenses or other reference works or parliaments) but it indicates that in direct refutation of your claims, in official usage names are entirely valid without the prenominal reference. C) You are once again claiming that 'Sir' alters their name. Please provide a source for this assertion. D) see C & RedPen's response E) Kentucky Colonels is bestowed by the Governor of Kentucky on thse that have enrich the lives of Kentuckians and they are expected to perform duties that continue to do so. This is similar to the criteria for Knighthood. According to our own article, Knights are another example of an Honorary_title_(award). Do you claim that Knighthood is not an honorary title or do you claim that it is, but you assert that it's treated differently because it changes the name? F) I'm not an expert & acknowledge that I may be not discriminating between them in a manner sufficient to discuss them for purposes of an academic discussion in the British honours system but I think I am able to discuss them adequately for purposes of discussing this policy. If you think the substance of the debate changes, please correct me. G) Do you have evidence that British passports have some technical limitation preventing the Identity and Passport Service from including 'Sir'/'Dame' if they were so inclined? I've seen loooong Indian names & multiple names accomodated - there's plenty of room. H) these points are either responses mentioned previously or stuff in previous posts so please don't claim that I left stuff unresponded-to. However I have a much much stronger claim that you've left unresponded to the many requests to provide British law or Debrett's or whatever anything that shows that Sir&Dame are part of the name in a fundamental sense, which you essentially again asserted above. Do you admit that you have no source for this assertion? Ripe (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Omissions are not more important; what matters is what an organization's style guide says. Again, Who's Who, the DNB, the Times and the Archives are prime examples here. My point is that standard reference works follow this usage, which we reflect, and that this isn't arbitrary, because reference works don't approach these questions in an arbitrary fashion. I'd be surprised if academic titles as presently used predate the peerage, given that the English system dates from the Conquest, and their are Continental titles older still. Presence in style guides is absolute when we're talking about the Manual of Style. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Wikipedia's Manual of Style is at variance with common and accepted usage, which you've signally failed to do. Given that someone's name suddenly becomes Sir X Y instead of X Y, I'd say it's obvious on its face that their name (or, if you like, the representation of their name) changes. Knighthood is an honor, but it is not an honorary title. The corollary here is an "honorary knighthood" bestowed on an American citizen; while they're allowed post-nominal letters, they may not have the pre-nominal. That both a Kentucky colonelcy and a British knighthood are "honors" proves nothing because they function in a different fashion. I don't have any evidence at all that a technical limitation circumscribes how the British passport system functions, my point is that what goes for the passport system doesn't have much bearing here. Your demand for a written source is nettlesome when dealing with a system in which many things (including the constitution) are unwritten, and I'm not an expert on British law. However, I can point to a wealth of practice, custom and convention which suggests overwhelmingly what the correct usage is. I maintain that the burden is on you to demonstrate the Wikipedia's present usage is incorrect for a general-use encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What you haven't pointed to is a logical basis for WP to maintain this arbitrary exception to our 'dont use honorifics' guidelines.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You haven't managed to demonstrate that the practice is arbitrary. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We say that we shouldnt use honorifics, then make this one exception - what could be more arbitrary than that? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Paul McCartney 2917 hits
2. Sir Paul McCartney 1098 hits

That's actually quite a flawed survey, as the former search doesn't exclude any articles that include Sir. So there are actually 1819 without "Sir" and 1098 with. As noted already, he's an entertainment figure who was known as plain Paul McCartney for many years, and still is professionally. Many article will also be from parts of the world where people don't understand the British honours system.

As already noted, Bob Geldof isn't enetitled to be called Sir. The fact that he is in some articles just goes to show how Googling can't be used to prove much. If you'd looked at his Wikipeia article, you'd have seen that he isn't "Sir"; of course, after the changes proposed by some people here, you'd be left none the wiser.

I'd just thought of Sir Elton John's civil partnership certifcate as an example, but someone beat me to it! I also visited Sir Edward Elgar's birthplace recently, and they have a couple of his passports on display. They clearly read "Sir Edward Elgar" (and "Sir Edward Elgar, Bart" for the last one). JRawle (Talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the Identity and Passport Service and they confirmed that 'Sir'/'Dame' prenominals are not used. Ripe (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please post your original e-mail and the reply here so that we can all see what they have to say. I'm very surprised if they reply so quickly to a casual enquiry, seeing that it can take people weeks to get their passport. JRawle (Talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I submitted "Hi - I'm doing research on the British honours system. It's my understanding that Knights & Barons have a special status in that they can typically include the prenominal 'Sir' on official documents such as passports while other styles/titles/honorifics are typically not included. Can you confirm that this is the case and what the requirements are & what the prenominal is called. I have some sources indicating that it is called an "honorific title". Is it considered part of the "name"? If you have a list of such honorific titles that would also be permitted (e.g. Lord/Lady), I'd be grateful. thanks, [name deleted]" to the web form at on https://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/contact-general.asp. They (From: IPS <ukpa@reply.co.uk>) responded "Dear [name deleted], Thank you for your enquiry. Although your title is not shown on the details page, in certain circumstances an observation can be noted within the passport if you wish. For further advice please call the Adviceline on 0870 521 0410. Thank you. Customer service e-mail team" Ripe (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The strong implication there (especially since you asked about a baron and not a baronet) is that peerages aren't on passports either, but no one could seriously dispute that a peerage is part of someone's name. This, then, doesn't really settle the matter: Sir/Dame isn't included because no part of the titular name is included, but that in no way changes the fact that they are part of a person's name. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that according to the British Identity and Passport Service that people's names are legally correct without the prenominal? Ripe (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the reply. It's hardly surprising that there's no room for a title in passports as all countries are now bound to use a common, machine-readable format by international treaty (or, at least, forced to use that format if we ever want to visit the US). The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is a free-format wiki, making it extremely flexible. That means articles can be tailored to follow the conventions of the nation or culture that the are connected to. It isn't necessary for articles on British citizens to follow naming conventions used in the US or other countries. No-one questions that the name without "Sir" is one correct form of the name. The current situation is a good compromise. The article title doesn't include "Sir" or "Dame". If those of us who wish to retain the titles were really bloody-minded about it, we could push for them to be included in the article title as well. But as I said, the status quo is a good compromise, meaning the page title has one form of the name with no title, and the first line includes a bit more detail about the name, including any honours, whether they are postnominal letters or a title. This current situation gives something to everyone, rather than being an "all or nothing" approach with no room for compromise. JRawle (Talk) 09:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but my point is that 'Sir'/'Dame' are not IN the name field, not that titles weren't on the ID page. There's plenty of room for 4 or 5 more characters ('Sir '/'Dame ') in the name field if it were actually part of the name. There's no technical reason why they couldn't be included. Thank you for granting that omitting 'Sir' is one correct form of the name. Does anyone disagree? Ripe (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Sir" and "Dame" discussion - arbitrary break 2

Here's a list of transfers ("No. 32280". The London Gazette. . {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) under the Land Transfer Acts listed by HM Office of Land Registry. Note the second entry: name = Sir John Stavridi, description = Knight. Nobody else on the list is given any honorific prefixes (Mr, Mrs etc). An official document. There are many other similar examples in the London Gazette. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that it suffices but do you have anything a bit more recent? Ripe (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does it not suffice? And why does the date make any difference to the fact? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another example is in the House of Lords minutes when new peers are introduced. Jack Cunningham, who always styled himself "Dr Jack Cuningham" prior to receiving a peerage, appears without his "Dr" [5], whereas knights keep their "Sir" [6]. JRawle (Talk) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah like I said before it's not surprising nor informative for Parliament to do this. Listing examples where titles are used but ignoring examples where they are not is missing the point I'm trying to make. If we were debating removing 'Dr.'s from inline usage (which I would be a proponent of if they were there), then this might be a relevant example of a formal situation where someone is introduced and recognized without the Dr. prenominal. If I were making that argument in that hypothetical situation, a bunch of responses from others showing evidence that Dr. Jack Cunningham is introduced in university lectures & listed in print using the Dr. prenominal and implying that therefore it should be used inline here are not helpful and missing the point. Ripe (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well , let I again refer to this British government document with the official name in which Sir Elton was allowed to enter his civil partnership: [7]. Demophon (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But you dont have the text from any statutes or any text from Drabbert's (or whatever that codification of style)? I am still hoping that some type of more explicit confirmation of the claim that Sir/Dame is inherrently part of the name and not an honorific/title/style.

Our guidelines say don't use honorifics - not for popes not for queens, not for presidents. And yet we have this arbitrary exception for this certain group of people. Why? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The honorifics you refer to are not titles. "Sir" and "Dame" are titles. The difference is a clear one and your inability to distinguish the two is, I'm afraid, the fundamental problem here. A queen's title is simply "of Foo", which we allow, not "Her Majesty", which we do not. A Pope's title is "Pope", which we allow, not "His Holiness", which we do not. A president doesn't have a title, since "president" is just a job as "prime minister" is a job. You are not comparing like with like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

All this about proving they are part of a name is barking up the wrong tree anyway. Wikipedia should reflect common, everyday usage in the country or culture the article pertains to. In the UK, we use Sir and Dame. This morning I was reading the magazine for my professional body, Physics World. It is full of articles about people who are Dr, Prof, Eur Ing, etc. However, there is no mention of those titles. But if someone is a Sir or a Dame, those titles are certainly used. That's just the way we do things in the UK! There is also the point that we do include honours such as MBE, OC, etc. Sir and Dame fall into that category. Likewise, we don't include PhD, so we don't put Dr. If there are other parts of the policy that are inconsistent, they should be looked at. There could certainly a case for including some titles that are currently omitted. A policy of no titles at all isn't right. JRawle (Talk) 12:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia should reflect common, everyday usage in the country or culture the article pertains to" in that case our whole manual of style is wrong. That is why we are having this long long argument. There is this arbitrary exception to our guideline on not using honorifics. Why? The 'no exceptions' side was not the group that brought up the 'part of the name' argument. That was given as the reason by the 'keep this exception group' why we would have this exception. We have then been asking for verification that this 'reason' for the exception is actually true.

If 'sir/dame' are NOT honorifics and are instead 'titles' in a somehow fundamentally different category (although the 'keep this exception' group provided evidence that 'sir/dame' are 'styles') then the use of 'sir/dame' is not an exception to the 'do not use honorifics' and it should be removed from that part of the MOS and placed in its own section explaining how to use 'titles' and how exactly 'titles' are different than 'honorifics'. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care whether they are exceptions to some rule, or a different class of title that are used under a different/new rule. I just think having "Sir" or "Dame" at the start of appropriate articles enhances them and leads to a more useful Wikipedia article. I would be happy to help with drafting such a section for the MoS, which could also be general enough to allow titles used in other cultures to be added too if there is a good enough case in the future.

Otherwise, this discussion is a waste of time as no consensus will be reached, and it's far too long for anyone to read through to join in. JRawle (Talk) 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one would definitely appreciate a re-write that is clear for those of us who do grow up under a system where these distinctions are culturally ingrained and 'obvious'. Please also know that any such 'clarifications' that apply only to titles granted by singular/arbitrary groups will also be ripe for contention as POV/arbitrary designations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On that note I think this discussion is more or less concluded. To sustain a charge of arbitrariness you'll have to explain how a comparable class of titles is being treated differently, and show Wikipedia's approach is different from that of other English-language reference works. I can alter the language if it'll suit people present, but it will in no way alter the reality of usage. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Once a consensus version of this forthcoming clarification is in place, then yes, this discussion will be over, at least on my part. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I leave it to you to make a suggestion, if the changes to the section headings that I've just made isn't sufficent. The existing usage is correct, as demonstrated by the numerous style guides, academic works and encyclopedias which follow it. It's also sensible, given the difference between a style and title. Whatever wording eliminates the perception of "arbitrariness" is fine by me, so long as does not materially alter our practices here. Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they pretty clearly are a title and not a style, and I'll cop to muddling the issue somewhat two years ago. Sir and Dame are in an entirely different category from "The Most Honourable" or "His Holiness," and you'll note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names is perhaps clearer on the matter. There's nothing arbitrary about the distinguishing between them, not when Wikipedia does it and not when other encyclopedias do it. If someone wants to conjure up better wording I'm all for it, but the fact of the matter is that in effect and implementation there's nothing arbitrary about our usage, whatever the language might imply to some. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir/Dame proposed resolution

I propose deleting the current honorific title blurb & replacing it with a section called "Honorific Titles" containing the following italicized text:

Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given subject. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus.

Regarding the use of a permitted honorific title for a particular subject, it should be recognized by Wikipedia editors that the use of honorific titles inline is intended only to describe the subject as holding a particular title, and not prescribe a style or method of addressing or referring to the subject or other holders of such titles (thus using it as an honorific). Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference to the subject, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title. Editors should neither add nor remove existing honorific titles from inline reference since doing so implies that the unedited version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling). Editors should also take care not to impose an honorific title prefix inline on subjects who have received a title but which is not significantly referred to in general media when discussing that particular subject. Absence of an honorific title from inline usage does not and should not imply that the subject does not hold a particular title that is associated with that (absent) honorific title - the infobox is the canonical location for all titles and honors. If there is a person for which the status of their use of an honorific title is particularly misunderstood, the reader should be explicitly informed of this fact by a section detailing the confusion in the article (e.g. Bob_Geldof#Awards_and_honours) rather than leaving the reader to imply the situation from inline usage.

Though I reserve the right to bitch about honorific titles in the future if I so choose. And they're still not "part of the name". Ripe (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Editors should neither add nor remove existing honorific titles from inline reference"? It sounds to me like you're suggesting that if they haven't been added by the creator of the article then "Sir" and "Dame" shouldn't be added by subsequent editors, even if they are correctly held. If you are suggesting that then I completely reject it. They should definitely be added if they have been incorrectly omitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You interpreted my suggestion correctly. After the first instance we don't require the inline reference of normal non-honorific titles along with each invocation of the subject's name. Requiring the inline use of honorific titles along with the name implies that the honorific title is being used as an honorific, not as a title. Ripe (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm saying it should always be present on the initial invocation of the name in the article (like regular titles). subsequent invocations of the name would be up to the editor (like regular titles). Ripe (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Fair enough. I misinterpreted it. After the first reference people should generally be referred to using surname only in any case - I have always opposed any use of given name except for clarification, since to do so implies an unencyclopaedic level of familiarity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah I hate to keep hounding the guy, but the "Sir Tim"s inline in Tim Berners-Lee are strange - agree w/ you re. level of familiarity - we don't use just the given name alone for non-knight Tims. Would definitely prefer surname only in the article body. Though (after the initial reference) if someone were to type in "Tim Berners-Lee" without the prenominal, it would be one correct way to refer to the man per above discussion & according to the above proposed guideline one should not go in & add the "Sir" since that would be violating the guideline by prescribing it as an honorific. Deleting the "Tim" in that case I guess is permitted provided it's done in the spirit of 'use encyclopedic surname-only when unambiguous' as opposed to 'it's incorrect to utter the given name without the prenominal.' Of course if it's absent from the first reference or infobox photo heading it can be added like normal titles. Propose adding Honorific titles prepended to the given name only (without the surname) exhibit an unencyclopedic level of familiarity with the person and should be avoided (as are given-name-only references for those without honorific titles) unless this form is heavily preferred in popular usage such that the addition of the surname or use of the surname alone renders the entire name unrecognizable. to the second paragraph in the proposed guideline above - not sure if that last clause is necessary but there you go. So e.g. under this proposal, those lone "Sir Tim"s here would go away in preference to surname-only but the rest would stay as-is & editors would be free to use or not use the prenom when using his full name in the body. Holy crap do we have agreement? Any other clarifications? Ripe (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I submitted the above edits. Ripe (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The addition in my 18:41 comment conflicts with the existing subsequent use of names guideline stating Similarly, if someone has been knighted s/he may be referred to as, eg. "Sir Stephen" (for Sir Stephen Redgrave) or "Dame Judi" (for Dame Judi Dench)... Consensus to change this? Ripe (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this proposal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Late to the game (been elsewhere), but I endorse this as well. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also late, but I oppose this, at least until we have an article on Honorific titles that explains how they differ from Mister, Doctor, and General. It would be nice to be able to reference the body of the article when interpreting this title, rather than leaving "Honorific title" undefined. I'm also not sure there is an actual consensus to treat Sir, Dame, Lord, and Lady as special cases. — PyTom (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious Honorific prefixes - Rabbi

Hello.

I believe there is a bit of an ambiguity regarding religious-based honorific prefixes in an article's lede, in particular, the term "Rabbi." Granted, the term itself is inherently ambiguous, as it can be bestowed to someone for passing certain religious exams, it can be bestowed on someone by their functioning as a congregation leader (pulpit Rabbi) even without formal ordination, sometimes it refers to teachers in religious schools, and sometimes it is used to refer to Jewish people, even if there is no indication of their ordination or occupation as such.

The article in direct question here is Yisroel Dovid Weiss. We have no reliable sources that this person received semicha. Nor is there any indication that he serves as a leader of a congregation or a teacher in a yeshiva. However, he as been referred to as "Rabbi Weiss" in print. Therefore, I believe the term Rabbi is inappropriate in the lede, as opposed to someone like Moshe Feinstein, who was universally known as "Reb Moshe", the honorific being the primary name used, similar to Mother Theresa

I would appreciate your respective comments on the matter. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A rabbi is a title that almost all spiritual Jewish leaders of some standing have. true reb moshe was a bigger rabbi than rabbi Avi Shafran, but if "all" the outlets of media and information of the world bestow on them the title rabbi we are not in the position to change the world. and if they call all nuns mother as the honorific we would also do it. i agree that if some sources do not call the subject a rabbi we in wikipedia should not take sides on this question and we can leave out the word rabbi, but the case at hand is different all the sources do indeed call it with the word rabbi, not one of them calls him plain mr. or without the word rabbi attached. thanks--YY (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Shafran is referred to as a Rabbi in the article, but not given the honorific prefix in the first sentence per the current MoS. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha that was done by u Avi after consensus was against u in this regard and now u even want to adopt it here as policy because other users play by the rules and do not revert excessively. time will tell if the community will suffer such conduct--YY (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "…Shafran is a Haredi rabbi…" was in the article long before I edited the page. -- Avi (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the examples of Athanasius of Alexandria and similar major religious figures might be the ones to follow here. In that instance, the subject was the Patriarch or Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, arguably that body's single most important position, and the person in that post is generally referred to as "Pope" by the members of the church. However, that is a comparatively small body today, and he is most widely known by the world today as simply Athanasius of Alexandria, which is how the article is titled. That does not rule out using the honorific in the bolded name beginning the article, though. Even other religious figures who are generally best known by their honorific and family name, including Father Coughlin, the host of a very popular nationally distributed US radio show, do not use that as the title of the article, so I think there is clear precedent that we should not use the honorifics in the title of the article. However, if appropriate, it is certainly possible to create redirects which lead to the main article if they would be of help, and there are no particular reservations about doing so if there is just cause. John Carter (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi: There has never been a hard-and-fast-rule on Wikipedia about how to exactly ascertain, prove or validate if anyone is truly a 100% "rabbi" in the classical Halachic sense of the word. For example, not every rosh yeshiva has formal semicha ("[rabbinic] ordination"), see Not all present-day rabbis have semicha, and not every Jew who has received a semicha ever serves as a rabbi, so that if an individual is commonly referred to, reported by the media as one, and even has a following who considers him as such, then there is no "law" in Judaism or in the world that can remove or repress that individual's claim to be called a "Rabbi" (regardless if he is one with semicha or not, and there are so many grades of semicha that not everyone accepts everyone else's in any case) -- indeed, it is common practice that out of common courtesy, many Haredi and Hasidic men are called or addressed as "rabbi" (even if they turn around and say, "oh, I am not a [real] rabbi") and they hold no rabbinic position and have never served as rabbis. As for the question if the title "Rabbi" should be included as the first word in the biography of a subject, there has never been one consistent policy on this and it's doubtful if there ever will be because there are just too many individuals and variables at work. For example, some of the greatest sages of the Talmud did not have the title "rabbi" and many great sages over the millenia were never formal "rabbis" but were philosophers or merchants and traders and never called themselves "rabbi" anything. The situation in modern times is even more confusing and it is safe to say that the title "rabbi" has become essentially meaningless unless one knows the exact people involved. Thus, this entire discussion is moot and almost pointless. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious honorifics - Christian Bishops and Hierarchs

I propose that the current rules for Popes be extended to all Christian bishops. There is inconsistency now, for example:

Herman (Swaiko) begins, "His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)".

Katharine Jefferts Schori begins, "The Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori".

Philip Saliba begins, "His Eminence the Most Reverend Philip (Saliba)".

Cardinal Law begins, "Bernard Francis Cardinal Law".

Rowan Williams begins, "Rowan Douglas Williams".

I suggest they should read:

Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko)

Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori

Metropolitan Philip (Saliba)

Bernard Francis Cardinal Law

Archbishop Rowan Williams

Comments? Mrhsj (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need the honorifics, but neither do I think it's necessary to add "Bishop" or "Archbishop" etc in front of the name (most articles do not do so at present) unless it effectively becomes part of the name, as it does with cardinals and Eastern Orthodox bishops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: 'Christian prelates should ordinarily be identified simply by their names. Titles should be included only when they are in such common use as to be practically part of the person's name, as is the case with Popes, Cardinals, and Eastern Orthodox Bishops who are known primarily by their first name. Thus "Pope Benedict XVI...", "Bernard Francis Cardinal Law...", and "Patriarch Alexius II" are correct, as is "Rowan Douglas Williams... is Archbishop of Canterbury."' Honorifics such as "His Holiness" or "The Right Reverend" should not be used except when specifically discussing formal modes of address.'

That seems like a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the mos is Title Name See like Archbishop Demetrios of America, Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, etc. If the person has served more that one post, the highest or most recent goes as the title. I dont like the last name thing at all, that was just taken from Orthodoxwiki and assumed policy, but if we do decide to keep it, there are some examples of it such as Metropolitan Methodios (Tournas) of Boston. Also, keep in mind that common names override the policy such as in the case of Cardinal Law, where that is what he is most known by. Grk1011 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i found the naming convention. click this There is no new mos to make since one already exists. Grk1011 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a big help. I have modified this article to just make clear that the policy on honorifics applies to all clergy, not just popes, and added a link to the article you cited. Mrhsj (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be the article naming policy not their use inline. Ripe (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

extended debate: Buddhist clergy

In addition to the discussion above: what is the police according to titles, honorifics and styles regarding Buddhist clergy? It seems that a lot of pages about Buddhist monks, especially about Theravada Buddhist monks (see Category:Theravada Buddhist monks), begin with the horific style "Venerable". For example: Ajahn Khemadhammo, Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, Chah Subhatto, Chanmyay Sayadaw, Gangodawila Soma Thero. I tried to remove the style at some of the pages, since I think it is against Wikipedia guidelines, however some people (very aggressively) reverted my removal of this style. Can we have a more clear guideline about this too? Demophon (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the honorific prefixes "venerable", according to WP:MOSBIO. Demophon (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And that is entirely correct according to WP guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ripe (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, a proper guidline is missing in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy) how Buddhist monks or Hindu priests should be named correctly in Wikipedia. Okay, not to use the honorific style "Venerable" (in English) is very obvious, however it seems that there are many Buddhistic or Hinduistic honorific styles that are comparable with for example "Venerable", like "Sayadaw", which means 'venerable teacher'. Allowed to use or not? Or the Hindu honorific "Sri", which also means 'venerable' (Besides for people, it is also used in the name of the country Sri Lanka, which means venerable island). What to do with that? Demophon (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics

We are having a minor dispute about the use of honorifics. Basically, the question is which of these versions is correct[8]. Currently, the "honorific titles" section starts with "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics." On the other hand, while for e.g. nobility the honorifics "should not be included in the text inline", for royalty and clergy they "should not be used to open articles", although "Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper". It doesn't clearly say if they can simply be used in the text inline, despite the general ban of such usage. I am not arguing for the removal of all mentions of style: an article that says that Patriarch X is styled "His Beatitude" is quite allright. An article that continues with "His Beatitude has visited Y and Z" is, inmy opinion, not. Since the MoS can be interpreted in both ways (honorifics for clergy and royalty are not allowed, or they are allowed except in the introduction), I would like some clarification and more opinions on this issue. Whatever the result of this discussion, I would prefer that the MoS is made clearer on this point. Fram (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it's even more of a stretch to apply your interpretation to other types of articles, that are clearly not biographies? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not more of a stretch than to suppose that you may not write "His Holiness" in a biography, but it is perfectly allright to use it to refer to the same person in another article. I interpret "biographies" in this instance as "how to write about people", even if it is in an article about e.g. a religion. Fram (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is covered by "For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them, with surnames used only. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth"." Effectively religious titles are professional titles (i.e. they are titles the individual only holds because of their job as a member of the clergy), so we should not use them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal regarding honorifics for clergy and royalty

Our current guidelines regarding honorifics for clergy and royalty do not match actual practice on Wikipedia. Right now, we state only that honorifics should not be used to open articles. This is in distinct contrast with our guidelines concerning honorifics for noble title or politics which are completely prohibited in inline text (except in discussion of the titles themselves):

Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and clergy. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... " nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria..." Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy).

In practice, editors never permit honorifics like "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" anywhere in article text other discussion of titles. Take a look at the cited examples of Pope Benedict XVI or Queen Victoria for example. In the case of clergy, using "His Holiness" in article text could also be construed as a violation of NPOV policy, as it appears that Wikipedia is endorsing the holiness or religious status of the person, which can be contentious in some cases (antipope). I would like to propose that we bring our guidelines concerning clergy and royalty in line with our other guidelines on honorific prefixes by changing it to the following:

Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper. Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy).

What are other people's opinions on making this change? Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think by Such styles should, however, be discussed in the article proper means that somewhere it should be noted what the honorific is, not necessarily using it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the newer wording will make that more clear. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)