Talk:Jim Hawkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on July 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Pre-nominal honorific

I understand that the recent discussion militated, in view of concerns as to courtesy, in favor of our not using the surname only formulation (i.e., Hawkins). I am concerned, though, that such discussion contravenes, as noted by others, not only our extant practice but such practice as codified in the MoS, viz., at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names (which provides, in pertinent part, that after the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only and that first names or complete names should be used to disambiguate between siblings).

Of course, it is quite fine to suggest that we ignore the MoS (in view of concerns as to the perception outside the United States of the dropped honorific), but I'd think those who suggest that common practice ought to change might do best to raise the issue at, inter al., Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, toward the production of a consistent format.

There are only two instances, I think, that would be affected by our returning the article to the MoS-preferred version, so this is a rather insignificant issue, but it's important, I think, that the issue be raised in order that those who raised valid concerns might express them on a meta-level. Joe 06:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Maxamegalon2000 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we might ignore the MoS. Are you suggesting that the use of honourifics, or the use of the full name, are contrary to it? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes (perhaps the shortest sentence ever I've written here). At the very least, I'm suggesting that we ought not to indulge a subject's concern about the exclusive use of a surname where our practice across thousands of articles, as codified in the MoS, is to use surnames exclusively. It may be that our common practice is disfavored by many as disrespectful, but the issue ought not to be disposed of in individual biographies; consistency, of course, is essential across the project. Consider Bill Gates, as adduced by others. There are a few references to Bill Gates, but the overwhelming usage is simply as to Gates.

See also, to pick three biographical subjects from disparate vocations and of different nationalities, the articles apropos of German Formula One driver Michael Schumacher, the Indian politician Abdul Kalam, and the Brazilian songwriter Tom Zé. There are certainly articles that use the given name-surname formulation passim, but those articles do not reflect extant practice.

The Jim Hawkins formulation, IMHO, seems rather awkward, and its propagration should this article grow would render the text unwieldy. The larger concern, though, is as to the departure from that which is common practice and that which, IMHO, is wholly appropriate encyclopedically (we are not, of course, Britannica, but their practice in this respect is instructive). Joe 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your concern, and yes, it would be unweildy were the article to grow. However, it's not strictly contrary to use the first-last construction as the MoS indicates that, after the first mention, subsequent mentions may be by surname only. It doesn't indicate either way which is preferred, just that both are options. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but I construed that may to be an imperative should be, with the form used only to indicate that an editor should not think it inappropriate to refer to a subject only by his/her surname, which understanding I think to be consistent with the idea that the MoS serves to codify extant practice. You are, though, correct that the letter of the MoS does not prefer one version to the other, and I think that for an article such as this (in which subsequent mentions number but two), the current form is altogether fine. I do, in any event, encourage those who partook of the previous debate here and concluded that the surname-only formulation was impolite or inappropriate to raise their concerns elsewhere (perhaps at WP:VP); even as I'd be inclined to dismiss those concerns, I think it better that an encyclopedia-wide standard be developed (or a discussion about extant standards be had) than that we incur repeated objections to the surname-only use by, for example, biographical subjects. Joe 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it perhaps is a bad idea to follow a rule that would be unwieldy were the article to grow, which seems to me to presume that the article will not be growing soon, or that there is an article length at which different styles are applicable. Ought not an article strive to be encyclopedic in tone regardless of its length? --Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree on the one hand. On the other hand, there's also the school of thought that we should do what makes for a good article in the now, also taking into account the context of the larger encyclopedia. As it is now it doesn't look out of place either in the article alone or in the context of the rest of the encyclopedia. I suspect that something like this is behind the non-committal language of the MoS on this point: editorial discretion can be exercised. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just follow the Manual of Style. :-) We cannot modify articles in this manner based upon the subject's preferences. First, it would be a lot of work, time that could be spent improving articles or writing new ones. Second, while we have different styles for different articles, when possible, there should be standardization. Third, upon seeing the article, users who are unaware of the subject's preferences will keep changing the article according to the Manual of Style unless there are big html comment warnings at the top of the article and the top of every section (if you edit a section instead of the whole page, you would not see the warning). Even then, someone is bound to miss them from time to time. Fourth, while I strongly support people's right to privacy, even if they are famous (I supported the deletion of the article on AfD), it is inappropriate to have subjects dictate how their article should look. Therefore, I think that the Manual of Style should be followed in this case. -- Kjkolb 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)