User talk:Demophon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Demophon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Djegan 19:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Bourbon-Parma

Hi Demophon;

Thanks for messaging me on my page. Every member of the ducal family of Parma was named NN di Borbone, principe/principessa di Parma. This indicates the distinction between the house name and the title. The form Prince/Princess NN of Bourbon-Parma is merely an informal treatment when describing a person. Separately, the title has been described as Prince of Bourbon of Parma when listing the Grand Duke's title (alluding to how one can be a Prince NN of Bourbon of Parma, being NN of Bourbon with the title Prince of Parma). In the Netherlands, the members of this family have the surname de Bourbon de Parme, not de Bourbon-Parme. The form de Bourbon de Parme is also the French treatment, as opposed to de Bourbon-Parme. The reason why I reverted it is because the title exists only to present the surname when needed. The title is still Prince of Parma even though it is used in a different form. The statement that the title was only used by the House of Farnese is discounted by the previously given form (di Borbone, principe/principessa di Parma) and when compared to the same situation within the so-called House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, where shorthand titles are occasionally used as well. This all came out rather long-winded, but I hope it answers the question. Charles 01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

As far as I know, it's not common for royalty and members of reigning houses to use their surname, if they have an official surname at all. They are in official cases and in common use described by their given names, followed by their title(s). But in some cases they are named with an (unofficial) surname only.

After they were driven out by the revolution and lost the Duchy of Parma, members of the House of Bourbon-Parma are always named with the title "Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Parma", however they are sometimes named with there family name "of Bourbon-Parma" (in English) only behind their given name. Or "de Bourbon de Parme" (in French), "de Borbόn Parma" (Spanish, see cover of book: [1]), or "di Borbone Parma" (Italian). There are no official sources (that I found), which prove that they use todays the title "Prince of Parma" only in their personal name, without the element 'Bourbon' in the title. The title "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" (thus with the element Bourbon) became a title at its own and is now recognized as an official title (e.g. see: [2]). The House of Bourbon-Parma by-the-way continues to claim the title of Duke of Parma to this day. So, the head of this house uses in his personal name only the title of "Duke of Parma" behind his given name, instead of the title Prince of Bourbon-Parma. But all other members bear officially the title and name "Prince(ss) of Bourbon-Parma" behind their given name(s) (see also website of the family borbon-parma: [3], in Spanish).

Since they use the title "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" and there family name is Bourbon-Parma, the dutch members (the sons and daughters of the 'Titular' Duke of Parma) of the family have been taken up into the Dutch nobility list (see: List of Dutch noble families) logically with the same (French) name and title Prince de Bourbon de Parma (but why with the French surname, I don't know. Maybe because French names are accepted in the Dutch nobility, and are international recognized).

Specifically regarding the Grand duke of Luxembourg and his family: all official sources like the Grandducal website (see: [4], in French), the Luxembourg government website (see: [5], in English), the official Luxembourg legislation website (see: [6], in French, and see also [7], in French as well), and the official website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha (see: [8], in English), they all say or show that Grand Duke Jean and his family members bear the title Prince[ss] of Bourbon-Parma (as well as other titles and names).

Can you give me some evidence (in the official sources) why the Grand Duke of Luxembourg bears the title "Prince of Parma" in his official or common used name, instead of "Prince of Bourbon-Parma"? But given all this evidence I think I will probably have convinced you that the title "Prince of Parma" should be changed back to "Prince of Bourbon-Parma" ;-)) I will wait for one day, before I change it back on the site Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg and his descendants. Unless you come up with a good counter-argument why not to do, of course. Thanks, Demophon 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Demophon;

There are a number of issues with the links that you have given. The first link, the Spanish cover, gives the surname form as I have discussed, not the title. Indeed, someone can be Prince/Princess NN of Bourbon-Parma as an informal version of NN of Bourbon, Prince of Parma. NN, Prince of Bourbon-Parma, however, is not a formal title. The second link, the so-called "Almanach de Saxe-Gotha" is not the same as the Almanach de Gotha. The third link is not the official website of the Ducal Family of Parma. The fifth and sixth links show inconsistencies in the titling of other members of the family (taking liberties with referring to Habsburgs as princes of Bar, etc) and ignore the fact that the Grand Ducal House stopped using the title anyway. It may be a case of error in translating from French, German or Luxembourgish into English. The same document references "the arms of Bourbon of Parma". The seventh references "de Bourbon de Parme" (not "de Bourbon-Parme") and the eighth is the aforementioned "Almanach de Saxe-Gotha". Well-known and respected royal historian and essayist Guy Stair Sainty uses the formal forms of the titles, distinguishing "Bourbon" as the house name and not a territorial designation. Bourbon-Parma does not exist in works such as Burke's Royal Families of the world. The Austrian State Handbook of 1918 uses the form "von Bourbon, Prinz von Parma". The 1821 Almanach de Gotha calls the sisters of the King of Etruria "princesses de Parme", etc. Bourbon-Parma only exists as an informality. The site of the House of Bourbon, Two Sicilies branch, is in the exact same situation and clarifies that the titles are prince/princess of the Two Sicilies, although the informal form is used with the name. Hope this helps. Charles 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Demophon,

Re: Suzanne Lilar, Albert Lilar, Marnix Gijssen, André Delvaux,

Suzanne Lilar and Albert Lilar were my grandparents. I first started the Wikipedia entry on Suzanne Lilar and have been adding pertinent information about her literary career ever since. The entry in Wikipedia is about Suzanne Lilar as a WRITER. She signed all her books Suzanne Lilar. She would have found it ridiculous to be addressed as Baroness with regard to her literary career. She was granted a title for her artistic contributions to Belgium in 1976, just as were Marnix Gijssen and André Delvaux, for example. But nobody talks about the art of the writer Baroness Suzanne Lilar, or the cineast Baron André Delvaux, or Baron Marnix Gijssen, for example. They all would have found the use of this title preposterous as it applies to their literaray or artistic carreer, but they may or may not have used this title in social settings. However, the Wikipedia entry is about the literary career of Suzanne Lilar and how she was known as a writer, and this must me fully acknowledged and accepted. If you, Demophon, wishes to insert a line that she was made a baroness for the the ensemble of her literary oeuvre in march 1976, that is appropriate, but it is not appropriate to add the title in the heading of SUZANNE LILAR. Please understand the difference between the writer and social status, and respect Lilar's intent. The same is true for Gijssen and Delvaux. And for Albert Lilar. Please remove the titles of nobility from the Heading of the names, as they are completely irrelevant to this encyclopledic context of artistic contributions.

Greetings, Verbist (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Verbist

[edit] Moving pages

May I suggest that you don't move pages unless you are fairly certain that the move in uncontroversial. It is possible that the name of a page might not be in conformity with the naming conventions for very good reasons. Please remember that the conventions are just that - conventions; they are not absolute rules, and there are many exceptions. I do agree with you about both the Duke of Parma and the Duke of San Jaime. I am merely concerned about the appropriate process. Noel S McFerran 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Prince vs Duke

Hi Demophon, thanks for the message. That information is good to have on hand and good to know, perhaps it should go into the article. If you were wondering though, the change I made was to list the title of duke as a (formerly) sovereign title as well. I did realize though that the ranking of duke above prince did not hold true for all monarchies (like in the Holy Roman Empire or Germany and in France). Belgium and the Netherlands can be added to that lot as well now. The concept of rank is a tricky one for some readers when two titles that rank one after the other are reversed in another system of nobility. Indeed, even before 1918 when Europe had many more monarchies this was an area of contention for many royal courts. I have not been able to come up with the wording to eloquently explain this situation for inclusion on the ranks page. Charles 09:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of Prince of Wales is sometimes technically viewed as a peerage (such as in the statistics of the House of Lords) and always comes before Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, etc, so therefore I would say that the title of Prince is certainly higher than that of Duke in the United Kingdom. That and it is only ever held by members of the Royal Family as well. All other princes are foreign and may or may not be accorded precedence at court (they don't get it automatically, however). "Technically", if a titled person from the continent is resident in the United Kingdom, he or she has no rank or status in terms of the United Kingdom unless he or she petitions for such. It should be noted that there are two different kinds of Princes in the UK: The Prince of Wales (think of the German Fürst) and then all other princes of the United Kingdom (think of the German Prinz). Royal peers in the United Kingdom (Princes of the UK with the title of Duke, Earl, etc) have precedence over the rest of the peerage. The UK is one place where the rank of a title and the precedence a person holds may differ slightly. The British simply did not adopt the title of prince for its nobility (I would say "just because"), but it exists in the styles of some of the nobility (a duke of the UK is fully styled The Most High, Most Noble, and Most Puissant Prince). Charles 09:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Isabelle, comtesse de Paris

I would say that it is because French was the court language for so many monarchies for a number of centuries that the French simply became the exception in English. My personal desire would be to have all French royal titles (that is, all of the French Bourbons and Orléans) given in English and retain the French forms for the rest of the nobility. Charles 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually common usage in English for the most part to use French titles for French nobles. The marquis de Sade is never called the Marquess or Margrave of Sade and the duc de la Rochefoucauld is rarely called the Duke of (the) Rochefoucauld. That being said, I don't think we can really undo common usage and use English titles for French nobles across the board. Their titles already are "English" in the sense that they are common in this language. The best case for English though is with the French royals: it is relatively common to hear of the Duke of Orléans, the Count of Chambord or the Princes of Condé and of Conti. I encourage you to start a discussion at WT:NC(NT) and I will participate. Charles 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sade was a bad example. Individuals like Rochefoucauld and St Simon hold true though. The difference with Dutch though is that the French prepositions and such are being kept, but I imagine that they are called prins and graaf in Dutch, rather than prince and comte. In that case, de Bourbon de Parme and d'Aixy are more like "surnames" used with titles, rather than territorial/estate designations. The Bourbon-Parmas should really be van Bourbon van Parma in Dutch, but they use de Bourbon de Parme as a surname since they, for the most part, settled in France after exile. I encourage still posting at WT:NC(NT). Charles 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Lilar and Albert Lilar

It would seem that User:Verbist would like your attention concerning these articles. I've already responded, but you might be interested in responding as well. I don't know anything about these topics, I just saw the help tags.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 21:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Demophon, Mijn moeder is Marie Fredericq-Lilar; mijn tante is de schrijfster Françoise Mallet-Joris. Mijn moeder vind het ook ongelooflijk (en absuurd) om de titel barones te plaatsen vóór de naam Lilar in verband met haar litterair werk. Groeten, Suzanne Fredericq Verbist (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Verbist

[edit] "Royal" Highness

I stand corrected (and have re-reverted my last edits). Thanks for the reference.

Cheers, --Crusio (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Axel Merckx

I have started a discussion about the "Jonkheer" at the talk page of the article. Fram (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't agree with your edits, and you don't agree with mine (all in a perfectly appropriate and civilized way, so no problem there), I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. This is a method to get an uninvolved editor to give his opinion about it. It is not binding, but may give us both some feedback and fresh insights. Fram (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postnominal letters

Please stop making these small. There's no need for it and it is not mandated by Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It is not against Wikipedia guidelines. It does look much better, but I took the idea from Wikipedia sites Demophon (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. I don't think it looks better at all, and it's not normal to do it. What do you mean you took it from Wikipedia sites? It has been used in a few articles, but not that much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting everything! It took me a lot of work! It is your own opinion as well. Demophon (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is the style used on almost every Wikipedia page. Please do not take it upon yourself to maker major changes across the board because you prefer the style - many others may well not do. Discuss it first on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). You will have noticed that I am not the only person to revert you. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Thank you, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the idea from other Wikipedia sites, so I'm not the only one who prefer this. I will stop my editing, but the reverting has to stop as well. First we have to investigate and discuss this. Demophon (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This should have been discussed before you made one single change, so please don't complain because you are being reverted. Thank you, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this was done at other sites too, like Anthony Hopkins. Again, it is not against Wikipedia guidelines. Again it is your own opinion. "But" when you do more than 3 reverts in 24 hour just because you don't like it, that's against Wikipedia rules! Demophon (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about? What 3R's? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't, but Necrothes was speedily reverting everything wat took me a lot of work! Just because "he didn't like it". Demophon (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have certainly not violated the three revert rule. I have reverted you twice in one article and only once in any other. Reverts under the rule are not cumulative over multiple articles. Yes, a few articles have used these small postnoms, but usually only to save space in tables. They are certainly not normally used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were violating the 3RR, but it seems you did'nt do more than 3 reverts - per page. My apology! Demophon (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not against Wikipedia guidelines, it is only an opinion. But since more than one person has different opinions I will start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). Demophon (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Demophon, please take some friendly advice: The people above are not trying to put you down or being destructive about your work, it's just that people here like to talk about changes before they are made. It's true that everyone can edit, but the whole look and feel of the pages has to be discussed before it is changed, otherwise every page would have a different format. Believe me, I have been in the same position as you are now, but I had to learn to work with other people. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear andreasegde, thank you for your advice. Demophon (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia tip of the day: Categories

If you add categories, we tend to add the most specific category only, and not more general categories. E.g. if Stijn Coninx is already in Barons of Belgium, he doesn't need a category Nobility of Belgium. Just thought I'd explain to you, enjoy editing. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Bachelor

Once again, it is not normal to add Kt after the names of Knights Bachelor. Please don't. You have also started making postnoms small again despite saying above that you wouldn't without discussion. You really need to stop making stylistic changes like this without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. This is simply not done in Wikipedia or normally. You will not see it in common usage. If you continue to do this without discussion I will be forced to block you, which I do not wish to do. Wikipedia is a collective project, not a vehicle for one person's views. You have been asked to desist in making major changes without discussion several times by several people and told to take it to discussion if you wish to do so, but not to just start making universal changes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your final warning and then you are blocked. This is becoming vandalism. I have asked you to take it to discussion, but you appear to prefer universal changes. You don't seem to understand that making major changes like this should be discussed first, particularly when somebody has objected. Yet you accuse me of arrogance! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Saint John

Appointemtns to the Venerable Order of St John do not strictly entitle the holder to use post-nomials, only those listed here and marked with an asterisk do so. They are used within th eOrder, but should not be outside (I've incorrectly added postnoms to articles here in the past). David Underdown (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul McCartney

Hi, I seem to have missed out on the disscusion that deems the title "Sir" to be part of his name, it's only a title, just the same as Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss etc - if you can explain how a "title" becomes a "legitimate part of his name," I would be very interested. Thanks, Pat Pending (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Crescenzio Sepe's article lead

I do not understand why you, who are systematically removing redundant titles (and rightly so) insist in reverting "Cardinal" in Crescenzio Sepe article. I know the policies and articles you quote. The one about naming conventions reads:

In the titles of articles, cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal", as "Ascanio Sforza", not "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza", nor "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza". Exceptions are cardinals who are identifiable only by the cardinalitial title (as in the case of a hypothetical Cardinal John Smith), those best known by the title "Cardinal" followed by a surname (as Cardinal Richelieu), and those of the period before the introduction of surnames. [and so on]

So it actually tells not to use Cardinal unless the person is only indentifiable as such etc. And, as for Cardinal (Catholicism), it compares the style "Cardinal John Doe" to such styles as "President George W. Bush", and "John Card. Doe" to "Benedictus P.P. XVI", and these are style we do not use in Wikipedia. So the rationale of your edit escapes me. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your MoS edits

Hi, I'm a member of WP:FACT & the original creator of this GA article, Venerable Ho Yuen Hoe. I've observed that u have made many MoS edits extensively of late, though helpful & well-intentional, but wld like to advise u to note the context of the article first, before making any changes esp one that is a removal edit.[9] As you discovered later,[10] she was publicly addressed in her actual Chinese Buddhist title Jìngrùn Fǎshī (净润法师), or its English equivalent, Venerable Ho. As per WP:MOSBIO, such titles are allowed in the opening intro (this was fully acknowledged & allowed during the article GA review previously) as she was only recognisable by its inclusion. This is no exception as almost all the articles on Buddhism-related personalities such as Tenzin Gyatso (commonly known to the world as the Dalai Lama), follow the same convention too. Do exercise care in your tone of edit, or u may encounter unnecessary problems or conflicts on this issue again, according to the related postings on your talkpage earlier. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No degrees in the first sentence please

Is that so? Could you point me at the guideline that says that please? And also, could you point me at the guideline that says where you do put degrees? Thanks in anticipation, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if I can help you; section 2.4 (Academic titles) of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) descibes the following:

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.

Further in the text it gives examples. You will find it here: WP:MOSBIO. Cheers! Demophon (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. (Interesting how it doesn't seem to have been applied with any particular uniformity, isn't it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Action

Happy to discuss on talk page. 'Born into' is certainly correct. On Anglo-Italian, this simply means mixed descent. You can be both that and British. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Anita

Why did you unilaterally move Princess Anita's page? Keeping the article name short doesn't mean cutting off part of the subject's last name. The article has a link to her biography on the the royal family's official page, which refers to her as "Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-van Eijk". I'm going to move the page back. If you feel the page should be moved again, I would appreciate it if you would make an official move proposal so a consensus can be reached. Ariadne55 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns about long names by creating redirects by given name for the princesses. They're the only princesses with those first names who have Wikipedia articles, so it makes sense that someone typing Princess Anita would be taken to her page. Ariadne55 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

@Ariadne55: The links are dead, so there's no prove about only one correct name. Normally you would be right, i.e. a woman that is married can use by law in the Netherlands her maiden namen only (e.g. "Van Haren"), or the name of her husband only (e.g. "Van Steenwijk") or a combination, with the maiden name last ("Van Steenwijk-Van Haren"). However, when a woman is married with someone of nobility, then the customs of nobilty are in use. Law of nobility and its customs are based for an important part on traditional customary law. The wife can us the title of here husband as 'titre de Courtoisie', however the husband cannot use the titles of his wife. Only the husband titles can be passed on. The Dutch nobility is quite traditional: the wife can us her own name or the name of her husband with the titles, but not both! And the name of her husband has in the nobility preference! (source: "Titels, graden & titulatuur" G.H.A. Monod de Froideville and E.A.S. Crena de Iongh-den Beer Poortugael, ISBN 9012109213, both are the experts about nobility naming conventions and worked at the courtof HM Queen Beatrix). So you're probably wrong, however you should show me working links as prove to be sure.

But even if you would be wright, "then" both possibilities are correct: "Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven" as well "Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-van Eijk". In this case Wikipedia still prefers the first one because it is still correct, covers the topoic suitable, and is simplier and shorter. Demophon (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the link to the royal page of Princess Anita is still working. You're wright, it states: Haar titels en naam zijn: Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-van Eijk. This surprises me, but then my second argument is still valid, and then Wikipedia prefers a shorter name above the long name with in the text the full version. The page of Princess Maxima isn't also "Princess Maxima of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Mrs. van Amsberg", only 'Princess Maxima of the Netherlands". Demophon (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the link on Princess Aimée's page. I'll look for links with which to update the other two pages. Princess Maxima's page also isn't "Princess Maxima of the Neth", just as Jan Peter Balkenende isn't listed under the surname Balke. We shouldn't make shorter article titles by cutting a subject's surname in half. All four princesses in question could be moved to Princess Firstname if we want shorter article titles. Ariadne55 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! You're not looking to the argument and the logics behind the use of surnames in the Netherlands. You're familiar with it? I'm not "cutting" the subject's name in "half". The subject surname is "van Eijk" and her husband surname "van Vollenhoven" with the title "Prince of Orange-Nassau". Since her surname isn't changed by Royal Decree into "van Vollenhoven-van Eijk" as one integral name, the customs as I described above are in use. So again: the use of "van Eijk" (maiden name), "van Vollenhoven" (with title), or "van Vollenhoven-van Eijk" (with title) as a combination are all right. However the most short correct (and used) version is then prefered by Wikipedia above the longer one. Demophon (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear, from the official site, that they are using the hyphenated forms as one integrated name. If so, using "van Vollenhoven" on its own would be incorrect. Anyway, we don't have to agree on this, the shortest correct version of each princess's name would simply be Princess Firstname. There are no other princesses with the same first names. If you propose a move to just Princess Firstname, I'll support it. Ariadne55 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agian, you're not looking to my arguments! All websites say that the princesses are not Princesses in their own right but they bear their husbands titles as courtesy: Princess of Orange-Nassau. There wasn't a Royal decree to change their surname, so in this case the naming customs of the Dutch wedding laws are in use: after marrying, a wife still can use her maiden name, or choose primarly and only to use her husband surname, or to use a combination of both names, first the husbands name then the wifes name, and separated by a dash. If you don't believe this I can look it up for you the Dutch wedding laws? In case of the option of combing the names of Princess Anita this would be: Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-van Eijk.

So several names would be possible:

1. Anita

2. Anita van Eijk

3. Princess Anita

4. Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven

5. Princess Anita of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven-van Eijk

Wikipdia guidelines are more or less to use a "firstname (nickname) + surname" for a biography title in general, and in cases of nobility and princesses "Princess X of Y". It is by Royal decree that her husband (Prince Floris) has to use the title "Prince of Orange-Nassau" together with his surname "van Vollenhoven", however to be put in front of his surname and seperated by a comma. Thus: Prince Floris of Orange-Nassau, van Vollenhoven. Thus as name giving for her biography page version 4 and 5 are right, but 4 is prefered because it is shorter and still correct. Version 1, 2 and 3 are not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Demophon (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You say that the wife can choose. If she has chosen option 5, Wikipedia shouldn't use option 4 for her instead. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this here. However, this isn't about what you and I can agree on, it's about community consensus. If you want to move the page to something other than the subject's full name, propose that move and let everyone comment on it on the subject's talk page. I don't know what everyone will agree on, but at least the conversation will be preserved on the page it refers to and people re-discussing this a year from now will be able to easily find it. Ariadne55 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashton

Thank you for removing the academic degrees from the Frederick Ashton entry; they are almost certainly honorary degrees and, if listed, should so indicate, together with the institutions which bestowed them. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodes

I think it really is against the spirit of wikipedia to railroad your own views without trying to discuss them or build consensus. You obviously have strong personal views on homosexuality which I think should be irrelevant to the article in question. You need to approach the issue with consistency, neutrality and integrity. If a fact is disputable then please provide evidence as to why. I'm not going to revert your pointless additions again for the timebing as frankly I think such games are quite childish. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not have strong personal views on homosexuality, the same as I do not have strong personal views on heterosexuality. However I'm trying to guess what the reason is why more than 500 words are spend about someone's suspected sexuality, and still then there is no clarity about the subject. What is the reason? What does this "large" section have in mind? Demophon (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Attenborough

I noticed in an edit summary on Frederick Attenborough, you said of his son:

He's named Richard Samuel, Baron Attenborough (or Lord Richard Samuel Attenborough) not Richard Samuel, Lord Attenborough (in between)

That's not quite right. Richard Samuel, Lord Attenborough is a correct form of address (with or without comma); see the House of Lords minutes [11]. "Lord Richard Samuel Attenborough" is totally wrong, as that's the form of addrses for the son of a duke or marquess (see Courtesy title).

However, I do agree that Richard Samuel, Lord Attenborough is rather obscure and formal, and looks out of place as people are unfamiliar with it. Therefore I've come up with a solution that avoids it completely by listing their later titles separately (see article). I hope you'll agree that it's much better now! Regards, JRawle (Talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree that your solution is anyway much better then my editing! Because his son's weren't Lord or knight when they were children and they acquired the titles after he was already dead. Demophon (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Combination Western forename + Chinese names

By a bizarre coincidence, I've just answered your question, having contacted you about a totally unrelated edit earlier today. I didn't realise I was replying to the same person again until I just looked at your talk page! So don't worry, I'm not stalking you or anything ;) It's even more of a strange coincidence because I haven't editied Wikipedia much for the last year, but just got back into it yesterday.

Anyway, I've replied to your question about Chinese names here. Regards, JRawle (Talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Coke

Hi, could you explain your edit that removed his doctorate? thx Victuallers (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, very simple: this is according to the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies. Demophon (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thx ... any chance of a quote? Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes: for biographies in general, see WP:MOSBIO; for Naming conventions (names and titles), see WP:NCNT; and for Naming conventions (Clergy), see WP:NCWC. Good luck! Demophon (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Mar Gregorius

I hope that you don't mind that I put in the template to allow editors to express their opinions about the name change. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, it's a good idea what you did Demophon (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Veteran Editor

Thanks very much for this but are you sure I qualify? I may have 17000 edits but I've only been here ten months rather than the 3 years specified. --Rodhull andemu 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rodhullandemu,

My well-meant excuse! You 'don't' have the right to the Silver editor star. You're right, only after more than 16,000 edits and 3 years' service you're entitled to the Silver editor star. Sorry!! How did you get so many edits in such a short time? Demophon (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama edits

Hi Demophon, please don't continue to edit war over on Barack Obama regarding the term to be used for his ethnic background. There is a discussion about it on talk and you should participate in that rather than trying to force your preferred formulation into the article. Admins like myself are going to keep a close eye on this article because of past edit warring, and blocks will be issued to those who edit war without discussion, at times even if WP:3RR is not breached. I would also point out, and you might not be aware of this, that while the term "mulatto" is technically accurate as a description of Obama it is considered offensive by many in the United States, which is probably why we don't use it articles for the most part. Anyhow, please discuss the issue on the talk page and consider this a warning about future edit warring, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know this... I don't understand, why is mulatto considered offensive by many in the United States? He is bi-racial, it's a fact! Why to leave out 50% of his heritage? This kind of labeling is a quite racist point of view. Demophon (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and biracial is definitely acceptable as a term. Even 30 years ago mulatto was probably largely acceptable, but this is not really the case anymore. If you look at the entry on Mulatto you get a hint of why, namely that the word is etymologically tied to the word "mule" which obviously can be offensive to many (no one wants to be compared to an animal, particularly African Americans given the history of slavery and racism in the U.S.). Aside from this though, the fact is that Obama generally identifies as African American and is generally so identified by the press. Obviously most African Americans have mixed-race ancestry because of the horrors of American slavery (rape by white masters of female African American slaves) so in a sense the vast majority of African Americans are in fact "biracial." However most folks with some form of African ancestry tend to identify themselves (and be identified by others) as African American or black more readily then they identify as biracial (or white if that is part of their background). The reason for this is indeed rooted in racism and the abhorrent one drop rule, however at this point it is not considered "racist" to self-identify as African American when one of your parents was black and another white. The racial history of the U.S. is rather unique obviously, so the situation would be different in many other countries. For reference you might also see Halle Berry, who has a similar background as Obama but is identified as "the first and still only woman of African-American descent to have won the award for Best Actress." Hope this information is helpful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, you're right, this is a quite offensive word! However I'm still confused, how do Americans define 'African American'??? I'm not from de USA and considers this definition to be quite strange. For me the word is a quite dividing word: "You consider me (or I consider myself) part of that group (and in case of Barack Obama, ignoring an important part of the heritage), and you aren't part of it".

By the way, are Mariah Carey and Dave Matthews also African Americans? Both are Americans with an african ancestry. Demophon (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling American racial categories "strange" is an understatement! They are nothing if not confusing, even for people who live here. Mariah Carey would generally be considered African American (though if she described herself as mixed race, or as Afro-Venezuelan with Irish heritage then some would say that instead). Dave Matthews is absolutely not considered African American. In fact, the term "African" in this context really means "Black African." A person born in the US whose parents were white South Africans would never be considered African American. The root of all this is that "African American" is, in point of fact, simply an alternative term for "black," one which came into vogue around the time of the Black Power era when connections to Africa were emphasized by many in the black community (and also in keeping with how some white ethnics in the U.S. describe themselves, Irish-American, Italian-American, etc.). African American and black are often used interchangeably in the U.S. to describe any person who is partially of African descent, though the former term is often thought of as being more polite, formal, or politically correct. Don't feel bad about any confusion, you can teach a whole college course about this kind of stuff. :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)