Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) page.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, (Northern) Irish?

NOTE: The latest discussion (on the 'UK nationality' guideline/essay) is below this archive.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is the current proposed wording of the clarification to the guideline:

The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)

Usage notes:
3a. Wherever possible, provide evidence of a person's nationality in a note.
3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
3e. British nationals – The United Kingdom is comprised of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Although persons from these countries hold British nationality, there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or Irish)", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".
3f. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

(The underlining will be omitted from the final version.) If you have comments on it, please add them to the end of the discussion thread. Cheers, Jacklee. Updated on 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Hi, this issue has probably cropped up umpteen times, but I don't know where to find a definitive answer for it. For, say, a writer who has British nationality and was born in Cardiff, Wales, should she be billed as a "Welsh author" or as a "British author from Wales" or "of Welsh extraction", which is what I've been doing? I ask this question, because some edits I made were recently amended on the basis that there was apparently "common consensus". I was referred to the Featured Article "Charles Darwin", but there was no discussion on its talk page on the matter, and I would think that the "other stuff exists" rule applies here. If there is a consensus on the matter, could it be added to this part of the Manual of Style? Cheers, Jacklee 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a person from Wales isn't really of Welsh extraction. They're Welsh. "Welsh extraction" implies that they're of Welsh heritage but don't actually come from Wales themselves. Neither would I put they were British from Wales, which sounds rather odd. They're either British or Welsh. Either is acceptable and both are accurate. My preference is usually to put English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish if it's indisputable which they are (i.e. if they were born in that country and there's no suggestion that they identified with any other) and British otherwise. If you put their birthplace in the body of the article then the reader can draw their own conclusions. In any case, whatever you put in your example someone will come round sooner or later and change it to Welsh. -- Necrothesp 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a person from, say, Cardiff, is not British or Welsh, he or she is both. I would have thought that it is better to put that a person is "British... from Wales" as such a person would have British nationality. I don't know whether there are people from other nations where this issue crops up: "Catalan painter", "Florentine sculptor", "Quebecois scientist"? I suppose I don't mind either way, but the preferred approach should be decided upon through consensus and mentioned this in this part of the Manual of Style. Incidentally, I don't think it's a good reason to make a decision one way or another just because other editors are going to come along and amend articles in certain ways. If that were the case, we wouldn't have any guidelines on the use of copyrighted images, because editors keep inserting them into articles. :-) Cheers, Jacklee 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are both. That's what I meant. However, it is not normal to say a person is British and Welsh or British from Wales (or England, Scotland or Northern Ireland) - for instance, I would describe myself as British or English depending on the context, but I would certainly never describe myself as British and English or British from England. British is my legal nationality, English describes my country and culture of origin and is how I happen to prefer to identify myself. Informally, some people prefer to describe themselves as one, some the other, some are equally happy with both. I agree that guidelines should not be dictated by nationalists, but it is still the case that whatever you put a nationalist will come along and change it to their preferred version. This has been happening since Wikipedia was born and no amount of discussion is likely to change it. It's not an argument against guidelines, merely a statement of fact. -- Necrothesp 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely the problem here is that "Welsh" or "English" is indeed about (in Necrothesp's words) how "some people prefer to describe themselves". The difficulty is in finding the evidence for their preference. Simply being born in one of the regions of the UK is insufficient, because it tells us nothing about that preference. Where there is no evidence, shouldn't "British" be the default? Bluewave 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No British shouldn't be the default, as its not accurate as to how many, indeed, most people in the UK would describe themselves. I agree that being born someone is no sign of nationality, if Sean Connery had been born in, say, Newcastle because his parents were on holiday at the time, that would not make him English. He's clearly Scottish. With most people it is easy to know what they are, with those that arent, then British is good. But we should not have people going round en-masse changing to British, which is what User:Darkieboy236 has been doing. And the reason I exampled Darwin was that as a featured article had there been a massive problem with English, it would have been brought up in the review. It wasnt. In addition, we use English/Scottish/Welsh categories. We have them for a reason. I think that most people on Wiki accept English/Scottish/Welsh, but every now and again people come along on a crusade to change them all to British.--UpDown 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "With most people it is easy to know what they are". Do we honestly know that Darwin (the original example) regarded himself as English, rather than British? Bluewave 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Lets look at the facts. Darwin has born in England, to English parents. He lived in England all his life, he died in England. This is how we know. In the same way we known Sean Connery is Scottish, or Tom Jones Welsh. As I say below, the UK is made up of four constituent countries. The 3 on Great Britain all have long histories as indepedent nations and distinct cultural indenties. The union of Crown and Parliament has not changed this. --UpDown 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone was born, lived and died in England, it does not necessarily mean they would regard their nationality as English rather than British. An ICM poll[1] concluded that 19% of the people polled in England regarded themselves as British, not English, whereas 11% were English, rather than British. The great majority regarded themselves as some combination of the two. I don't accept that there is a simple test for Englishness. Bluewave 07:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no "simple test", but we can use our common sense and intelligence. --UpDown 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bluewave's suggestion seems to be a sensible and pragmatic one. It will be difficult in most instances to find evidence for how people prefer to describe their "culture of origin", as Necrothesp puts it. If there is such evidence, then the Wikipedia article should use the preferred mode of description and refer to the evidence in a footnote. Otherwise, the default should be the nation that the person is from. Yes, there will always be editors who will make changes like the one we're talking about, but perhaps a guideline on the matter in the Manual of Style will help. At least it is a standard that editors can refer to, rather than reliance on unreferenced statements that this is a matter of "common consensus". Cheers, Jacklee 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just realized that this guideline currently states, in the "Opening paragraph" section, that a person's "nationality" should normally be stated. A note continues: "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Does this suggest that there is in fact a consensus, in the example we've been talking about, in favour of "British" rather than "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Irish"? If so, it would seem to me that a good compromise would be, for instance, "British... from Scotland". Cheers, Jacklee 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No I don't believe it does. The UK is made up of "four consistuent countries". Each one is a nationality. British is the legal citizenship, not nationality.--UpDown 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, note further town when talking about titles in says "English sailor" when referring to Dame Ellen MacArthur. --UpDown 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept that the United Kingdom consists of "four constituent countries" (see "United Kingdom") and that at least the three countries that make up Great Britain had long histories as independent nations and distinct cultural identities, as UpDown points out. However, the fact is that following the various unions of the countries they are no longer independent nations but a single nation: the United Kingdom. I'm not convinced that it is right to say that a person born in, say, England has "English nationality". The article "British nationality law" explains the meaning of nationality, and nowhere does it state that British nationals from each of the four countries in the UK respectively have English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish nationality.

I don't suppose there is a problem with using "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" or "Northern Irish" if the subject of a biographical article was born in a particular UK country and spent most of his or her life there. However, what if a person was born in Edinburgh but was raised in London and lived and worked there most of her life? Would it be accurate to call her Scottish (or English for that matter)? The fact is, without more evidence it is not possible to make a judgment call. Putting the person down as "British" avoids this problem.

In fact, if a person was born in one country (say, New Zealand) but lived for most of his life in another country (say, the UK), and it is not known for sure whether he has taken on citizenship of the second country, editors may have no choice but to avoid all mention of nationality or citizenship until more facts come to light.

As I said earlier, I am happy with either using "British" or "English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish" (though I lean towards "British"), but feel there should be some consistency. At the moment, the Manual of Style guideline is not very precise. It says, "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable" [emphasis added]. Some consensus needs to be reached on this issue, and I would then suggest that the guideline be updated with a specific usage note concerning the UK.

Finally, I don't think that relying on the fact that "Charles Darwin" was passed as a Featured Article helps us resolve the matter. There is no indication on its talk page that the issue was discussed. The editor who passed the article could simply not have thought about it. Also, just because there are categories such as Category:English writers and Category:Scottish actors (which are perfectly fine) doesn't really, in my view, resolve the issue of whether a person should be described in the article itself as "British". There are also "British" categories. Cheers, Jacklee 21:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before (not sure whether here, but I've certainly said it), not all people will fit the English/Scottish/Welsh for whatever reason. And for those people we put British. But these people are in the minority I believe. The problem is there cannot be consistency, and we can't avoid that. Putting British on everyone is not realistic or a good reflection for the reasons I've said before. And as you say not everyone can be English/Welsh/Scottish. We have to accept that we cannot have a blanket policy on this. Our policy should be we use our sensible judgement in each article. I am also strongly against "British actor from England". This I think is confusing and unclear. They should be either a British actor or an English actor, not a mixture of both. And the categories do matter. They are child categories of British, and should be used and British not if possible. My point is if, for the sake of argument, Ioan Gruffudd is in Welsh categories then Welsh should be at the top, not British. It's consistent for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UpDown (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be so much simplier to have them all as British, so much easier. Afterall, it's the United Kingdom, not the sorta United Kingdom. GoodDay 20:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually my understanding is that the nationality of those from Northern Ireland is different because of the Good Friday Argeement - legally individuals from Northern Ireland can legally be recognised as Irish, British or both - this makes the situation different from others in the United Kingdom.--Vintagekits 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It can be very confusing for outsiders. I'm Canadian, so the usage of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish to me, would be the same as using British Columbian, Albertan, Quebecer, Ontarian etc'. GoodDay 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No I don't think it would be. England/Scotland/Wales are known as countries, with their own sport teams, long histories as individual countries, cultures etc. The Canadian states are not countries or nations. --UpDown 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, they're all British. GoodDay 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can have a hard and fast rule. Sean Connery, who is of Irish extraction, presumably has a British passport and lives in the Bahamas should probably be referred to as Scottish. Winston Churchill should probably be referred to as British. If the emphasis is on culture, as with most writers, their cultural identity is probably more important than their passport; so it is likely that Scottish (etc.) will be more appropriate than British. But the decision should be based on how they identify themselves or are generally identified by others, not on any nationalistic point of view of the person editing the article.--Boson 21:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It still stinks though. It's like saying the people of the UK are unified, yet not unified. It's quite frustrating. GoodDay 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not see what is so confusing or unclear about the formula "British author... from Scotland". I would have thought that that was an acceptable compromise between simply "British" and "English/Northern Irish (or Irish: see "Northern Ireland#Citizenship and identity")/Scottish/Welsh". It is not the case that a person is either British or Scottish and not both. Quite the opposite, such is person is certainly both British and Scottish. I would propose the following clarification of the rule:

The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)

Usage notes:
3a. Wherever possible, provide evidence of a person's nationality in a note.
3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
3e. British nationals – The United Kingdom is comprised of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. If usage note 3b applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or Irish)", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British from England/Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales".
3f. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

Comments and suggestions for improvement please, particularly regarding notes 3c, 3d and 3e. Cheers, Jacklee 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say above I strongly disagree with the above. I think using "from England/" is deeply misleading and also sounds awful! I think the above is designed knowing that for many finding a reptuable source for English etc would be difficult, meaning many would wrongly be called English. I don't believe we can have a rule for everything, and this is one of those we can't for. We have to use our reasoned judgement. Frankly its a lot easier than you are making out. --UpDown 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If somebody is "British from England" then they are English - the two terms are synonymous, but the former looks weird and would never be used in normal speech. If there is confusion about their nation of origin then they are not "British from England" but simply British. Is someone who was born in England but grew up in Wales and then moved back to England "British from England"? That's merely their country of birth. They might identify as English or Welsh (or maybe both) or simply as British. In this case it is far better to put English or Welsh if they are known to express a specific preference or just British otherwise. If they were born in England and have lived in England all their lives then they are English - that's a fact and their preference is fairly irrelevant, just as we wouldn't list somebody as a "citizen of the world" (which is how some people describe themselves). -- Necrothesp 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good point about "citizen of the world"!--UpDown 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we need a guideline on this. It's no good saying "we have to use our reasoned judgment", because my reasoned judgment told me (wrongly, according to you), that it would be better to list certain persons as "British" rather than as "English" or "Welsh", which was your preference. If a guideline is not developed, other editors are going have this debate over and over again. All right, what about this?

The opening passage should give: ... Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.)

Usage notes:
3a. Wherever possible, provide evidence of a person's nationality in a note.
3b. Where there is evidence of a person's preference as to how his or her nationality should be indicated, this should be respected and the evidence referred to in a note.
3c. Otherwise, if there is other sufficient, undisputed evidence of a person's nationality, such as birth and long residence in a country, nationality of that country may be stated.
3d. If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated. No assumption regarding a person's nationality based on his or her place of birth or residence should be made.
3e. British nationals – The United Kingdom is comprised of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Although persons from these countries hold British nationality, there is consensus that if usage note 3b or 3c applies, a person should be described as "English", "Northern Irish (or Irish)", "Scottish" or "Welsh", as the case may be. In other cases, the person should be described as "British".
3f. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

(The underlining will be omitted from the final version.) In this way, only if it is completely unclear which part of the UK a person is from will he or she be called "British". In other cases, "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" will be used. Cheers, Jacklee 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just say British, and leave it at that? British from Wales? That's like Canadian from Alberta. GoodDay 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I hate to sound patronising, but User:GoodDay if you don't understand the difference between UK/England and Canada/Alberta then I suggest you do some reading up on our articles. There is a huge difference.--UpDown 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The UK is divided into constituent countries and Canada is divided into provinces & territories. GoodDay 20:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a good idea but is probably unimplementable because of the strong feelings it will raise. As far as I know, "British" is the only one that has any legal validity or verifiability, in the UK or anywhere else. Someone becomes British by meeting certain legal conditions. On the other hand, "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" describes what some believe to be their cultural identity. There is no verifiable test of this, and there is nothing to stop any British person deciding that they are Welsh one day and Scottish the next. Where someone is particularly associated with the cultural identity of one of the countries, there is some point in using the more specific terms: Sean Connery and Tom Jones have been mentioned already. However, at the moment, Wikipedia has got the balance wrong and categorises the great majority of British people as Scottish, Welsh or English, rather than British. We know from the ICM poll that I cited above that a large proportion of people in the UK say that their nationality is British, and this is simply not reflected in Wikipedia at present. Bluewave 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Have made a slight amendment to the proposed new guidelines above. I hope they represent an adequate compromise position. Cheers, Jacklee 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOSFLAG states we should only ever use the sovereign "upper" nationality in infoboxes (so British in this case). A compromise may be that the lead uses sub-British nationality, whilst the infobox does not. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Patrick Pearse, for obvious reasons, doesn't use the B-word, or the flag. There's no reason why every article needs to have a nationality stated, either in the lead in words, or through some poxy flag icon in an ugly infobox. If you don't know, don't say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Use of flag icons isn't really the issue here, but I accept what WP:MOSFLAG says about the association between flags and nationality. Cheers, Jacklee 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it's snowing in the United Kingdom. --Breadandcheese 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with the revised proposed usage notes (see the top of this section), I thought we're quite close to a reasonable compromise. Cheers, Jacklee 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
For one, it seems to have been drafted with little or no understanding of the problems arising here. Firstly, the UK is made up of four constituent countries - 'four countries' is controversial and is not used on Wikipedia in favour of the former usage. Secondly, the idea of expanding the localised nationalities is ridiculous in the context of people who are clearly primarily defined as being British. --Breadandcheese 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, have amended the proposed guideline to read "constituent countries". For the reasons given by Bluewave above, I don't think we're going to get consensus to use "British" across the board, so the guideline is a compromise that recognizes that many people identify culturally as "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh". If there's evidence that a particular person wishes to be known as "British", then by all means that should be indicated, in line with usage note 3b. Cheers, Jacklee 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed ... I think we may have a guideline!! The second proposal sits fine with me. I especially like "3c.", which I think most UK people would we be able to go in to. As long as the following "If there is no clear evidence of a person's nationality (e.g., if a person was born in one country and lived and worked partly in that country and partly in another), no nationality should be stated" doesn't apply to actors like Sean Connery who, while obviously, Scottish, don't like in Scotland, then I'm happy. --UpDown 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
--Obviously identifies as Scottish, though is of Irish ancestry! I'm being mischeivous - forgive me! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest proposal looks fine to me. . . .LinguisticDemographer 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a month or two ago on the proposed and rejected UK MOS. On that occasion, it was felt that the only reason for the proposed MOS was a thinly veilled attempt by some editors to have all UK nationals described as "British". (There is an air of nationalist politics blowing in that direction at the moment.)

The sticking problem then was that even though most people don't explicity declare to be English/Scottish/etc. to the exception of British, the normal way of describing people from the UK is still, for the most part, in those terms. A blanket description of everyone as British, with the exception of declared Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists (which in effect is what it would mean) is quite abnormal.

The proposal above falls into exacly the same trap. --sony-youthpléigh 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the guideline looks reversed and that we should only use British if the note 3b applies and that the appropriate constituent country should be used in all other cases. Keith D 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with that. --UpDown 08:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
So am I right that this applies to lead sections and prose, but we maintain "British" in the infobox per policy? (No flags for any). -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


No, because there is no policy about insisting on "British" in the infobox. Lurker (said · done) 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This still stinks, the UK's division (constituent countries) shouldn't be getting special treatment. Italy's people are Italians (not Nepalese, Scillian etc) , France' people are French (not Normans etc). GoodDay 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Giving up on this discussion, there's too much nationalism involved. (Northern) Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh peoples seem reluctant to have British put ahead of their historic nationalities (which IMHO is frustating, but existant). GoodDay 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to imply that those who use the constituent country nationality are nationalists, but those who use "British" are not. If you want to leave a debate, please do so without implying that those who disagree with you are being unreasonable- it's not very constructive. Lurker (said · done) 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my 'slight temper flare', I'm just frustrated with the whole thing. And you're correct, I shouldn't be leaving this discussion in a huff, my apologies. GoodDay 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you do as you propose, and make the default "English/Scots etc", you are ignoring the fact that only 22% of people in England regard themselves as more English than British and 50% of people in Scotland think they are more Scottish than British (assuming the ICM poll is representative). And, by the way, I don't think I'm a "vociferous advocate of the Union": I really don't much care about the Union but do find it odd that almost no-one mentioned in Wikipedia seems to be of British nationality. Bluewave 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, that is only one opinion poll. --UpDown 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not simply an issue for the United Kingdom

On the "taking things to their logical conclusion" principal, what nationality was Leonardo da Vinci, or Goethe, or Yehuda Halevi, or Isaac Newton, or Adam Mickiewicz, or Bonnie Prince Charlie, or Muhammad, or Jesus?

For that matter, what "nationality" is Gordon Brown? To the media and the general public he is (almost quintessentially) Scottish, he apparently identifies himself as primarily British (although he has never rejected his Scottish nationality), and technically he is a citizen of the European Union, and approaches his 'Europeanness' with great pride and seriousness if his brave political decisions are an indication of his personal feelings.

What "nationality" is Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama?

Petrarch, who has long been used as an example on this page, is described as "Italian" here, centuries before the invention of the Italian state.

Please note that this - "Although persons from these countries hold British nationality..." - is incomplete. People from those 4 countries are not only citizens of the United Kingdom, but also citizens of the European Union, sometimes also/or of Ireland; and are treated differently under the separate legal systems according to their official domicile (see English law, Northern Ireland law and Scots law).

Personally, I am of the opinion that English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationalists would absolutely love it if Wikipedia started imposing the adjective "British" all over biographical articles, especially if "English" etc is then added in brackets as a sideswipe à la Colin McRae. It sometimes seems to me that the vociferous advocates of the Union here at Wikipedia are actually their own worst enemies. Plus ça change... --Mais oui! 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't like the idea of one country being treated different from the others. There's too much prominance being given to the UK's divisions. People of Italy aren't called Scillians, Naplese etc (and those former independant countries have just as long of histories). GoodDay 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Because Britain is regarded as a union of countries. If Italy doesn't do that, that's their choice, but Wikipedia should base its articles on facts and not politics. And the fact is that constituent country nationalities are regarded as equally valid as "British", as a look at any UK newspaper will confirm. Lurker (said · done) 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, why was a notice about this debate posted on the English, Northern Irish, Welsh And UK Wikiproject pages, but not the Scottish one? Anyone disappointed to see Scots appearing on this talk page? Lurker (said · done) 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted the notice on the various WikiProjects, as I thought that other people would like to express their views on this matter. The notice was not posted on the WikiProject Scotland talk page but on Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, as instructed at the top of the WikiProject Scotland talk page. Cheers, Jacklee 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure who had posted the notices on those WikiProject pages. Also, I'm giving up on this discussion - you're correct about the wide usage of things like London, England, Edinburgh, Scotland, Belfast, Northern Ireland and Cardiff, Wales (for example). Hope, someday the people of the UK consider themselve as British primarily. GoodDay 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think with increasing indepdence to Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish Parliments/Assemblies, thats very unlikely. And there is a huge difference between the UK and other countries. The UK is four nations united. Italy, France and the others are one nation. If you can't see that I suggest you read the relevant articles. With regards to some of the examples above. I believe that politicians should be described as the nationality of their Parliament (to avoid any confusion, saying G. Brown is a Scottish politician might suggest he a MSP). So UK MPs should be British, MSP Scottish and so on. This avoids any confusion in my opinion. --UpDown 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh heck this one again. (By the way what would you do about politicians who've sat in more than one parliament? Let's leave aside people who've sat in two of Westminster, devolved parliaments and the Dail and look at a few others - Richard Casey was in his career a member of the Australian Parliament and Governor General of Australia. But he was also a member of the British War Cabinet in the Second World War and as a peer a member of the House of Lords. Or Ignaz Trebitsch-Lincoln - to quote the reference desk "A Hungarian Jew by birth, he went on to become a Liberal MP in the British House of Commons, who subsequently took part in an abortive right-wing coup in Germany, meeting Hitler in the process, finally dying in China in 1943 as a Buddhist monk and a Japanese agent!")
Problem 1 - the terms "nation" and "nationality" are rather more fluid than their uses here imply (indeed a lot of "is Scottish a nationality?" seems to hinge more on what nationality means than anything to do with Scottish). This is especially tricky when we're talking about civic nationalism - who is passing down rulings from on high that one nation "exists" and the other doesn't? A lot of political states have "forged the nation" by generating a common sense of national identity based on the political state. Also "nationality" is often used interchangably with "citizenship" (particularly on passports
Problem 2: The idea the UK is somehow different from other countries is a little hard to swallow (although I think the examples cited aren't always the best) - is there really no dispute as to whether someone from Montreal is "Canadian"/"Quebecer"/"Québécois"?! Many modern day countries in Africa encorporate various existing identities - South Africa has had numerous (as well as black/white/coloured/Indian, there are many different tribes, some of whom embraced the "independence" of the Bantustans, the Afrikaner-British divide which reflects both ethnicity & civic loyalties but also the historic divide between the four old provinces... one can go on for ever on this). Look for instance at this BBC News story [2] about how "South Africa" has gone from being "a small country of just five million people" that a golfer said he came from to one where the rugby captain felt he had "43 million South Africans" behind him in 1995. But there has been a very proactive effort at "South Africanisation" in that country. I think the reason we get these issues far more with the UK than anywhere else is down to having a lot of Users who hold different views on this, whereas a lot of the other countries there's either a language distinction as well that diverts the positions onto other Wikipedias or far fewer Users here.
Problem 3: Within the individual constituent countries there are very different levels of national identity. Walking around Edinburgh last week I saw far more displays of constituent country identity - saltires flying, shops selling traditional Scottish dress & other products and so forth - than one sees in London. It's been noted in several studies that people from ethnic minorities in England tend to identify as British first and foremost rather than "English" (although the figures can fluctuate, especially during international sports tournaments), perhaps because "English nationalism" has at times been claimed by ethnic nationalists. One survey (I forget where it is online) was rather more rigid about identity and produced results suggesting that overall people narrowly opted for the constituent countries but when you break it down into results by those countries (as that kind of majoritarianism would suggest) the English opt more for "British".
Problem 4: Historically "English" and "British" were often used interchangably, so even if someone from a past era can be sourced as saying they were "English" it's not clear that they were making the choice the way we'd make it today. For instance Andrew Bonar Law said he was "Prime Minister of England". But Law was born in Canada of Scottish & Northern Irish descent, came to Scotland at the age of 12 where he was educated and built up a business and during his premiership was the MP for Glasgow Central. There's equally the problem with "England" meaning "England and Wales (and Berwick)" for a significant period, and then there's even the question of Monmouthshire (or perhaps that should be eastern Monmouthshire - part of the problem is it's very much a county of two halves that have historically had more in common with their neighbours than with each other) where retroactively applying the modern day "it's Welsh" position as though it was clearcut then is somewhat anachronistic.
Problem 5: Identity can change depending on the circumstances and many do not feel they have to choose one identity over another. The survey cited above indicated that a lot of people are happy with both "British" and "English" in various proportions and proportions can change. Studies in Northern Ireland have found that a Protestant can feel "British" when contemplating the border, but "Northern Irish" during international football matches and "Irish" during international rugby matches.
Problem 6: The UK isn't as simple as "four [insert preferred word]" - there's Cornwall, Orkney, Shetland and so forth.
Problem 7: Too many users seem to think any attempt to settle this by guidelines and Manuals of Style is a covert way to get some ruling to impose one POV, rather than a wish to avoid having to fight the same issues out on every article and have the outcome determined by who lasts the course in revert wars.
Timrollpickering 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this has veered too much into the area of how a subject self-identifies (which can be discussed in articles if it's important), whereas I think the lead is supposed to reflect legal national citizenship (whether the law is just or not). Internal political and ethnic conflicts and identity ambiguity can be discussed in the article if relevant. So what about "UK"? This reflects national citizenship more obviously than the more ambiguous "British", and more specifics could follow. Just a thought.
Also, I think there is a valid analogy to be made between say Scotland/UK, Quebec/Canada, Hawaii/United States, the problems in Belgium, and probably plenty of other contentious national disputes. I'm not absolutely sure what the answer is, but I am wary that the only debate being done here concerns the UK, and that so much weight is being given to polls of how the public self-identifies. I think the opening sentence should stick with legal citizenship realities. Perhaps before this is decided, folks should try to research other similar examples and think through what's most appropriate on a wider scale than just the UK. --Melty girl 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Scotland/UK and Quebec/Canada and Hawaii/United States is that Scotland is a region of unitary state (the UK) which has recently been granted a degree of local government which may be withdrawn at any time, while Quebec and Hawaii are sovereign constituents of federations with powers irrevocably reserved to them. Quebec and Hawaii are far closer to being legal nations than Scotland is. --Michael Johnson 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just a wee bit condescending! Do you really think Scotland can have its £431m fully-elected Scottish Parliament’s powers ‘withdrawn at any time’! By who? The Queen? It's a little more than a 'granted degree of local government' to say the least! The in-power Scottish Nationalist Party is negotiating support for their planned referendum on independence in 2010. If the SNP get enough support to follow through (and if enough Scottish people show they want it, they most likely will), and the public then vote ‘yes’, Scotland will become an independent country! It’s the buzz in Scotland – and a major possibility.
So how can Hawaii (of all places!) be ‘closer’ to being a legal nation than Scotland? Hawaii has it’s own legislature (as has Scotland for many years), and Hawaiian arms of the Democratic and Republican Parties, but its hardly more autonomous than many other US States, and it’s not exactly bidding for independence (even if it does have various movements). The USA simply doesn’t give up places it owns! It's far more interested in assimilating new ones, in my opinion. Hawaii lost its nation status when it became the 50th State of America. I would certainly support claims to nationhood (and independence) if the idea and movements were strong enough, though – but I’m not sure of the support. I think the Democrats have held majority power for years. Scotland has always has its own laws, and a strong sense of dependence – now it has a Parliament headed by their organised, popular and long-established national party, it may well achieve it.
Unlike Hawaii, Quebec is a recognised nation (by Canada). Having been arguably cheated out of ‘sovereignty’ in 1995, it’s odds-on (in my view) they’ll get it their 2010 referendum, though the normally high support seems to have dipped a bit right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 17:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Relying on legal nationality is not such a great idea. What legal nationality was George Washington? Michael Collins? Jan Czyński? Patrick Pearse? Bronisław Szwarce? Problems, problems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Timrollpickering has raised many valid points. I especially agree with his "Problem 7" – I don't have any vested interest in whether people are referred to as "British" or "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh", and just wanted to find out whether there was any consensus as to which was preferred. If so, "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" seemed to be the right place for the consensus to be recorded in the form of a guideline.

I didn't think the issue was going to be a straightforward one. The main problem seems to be whether "nationality" refers to legal citizenship or, for want of a better phrase, "cultural nationality". There are pros and cons for either approach. I'm not sure which direction the debate should take now. Should we:

  1. Stick to trying to achieve consensus on UK first, leaving the issues of other countries to be dealt with in separate discussions?
  2. Broaden the debate to whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or cultural nationality?
  3. Admit failure and abandon attempts to formulate a guideline through consensus, leaving the issue to be fought out article by article (which, to me, seems the least desirable option)?

Cheers, Jacklee 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or simply avoid plastering nationalities and flags across articles. Mention them only when important. And if it is important it will be verifiable from reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look Before you Leap

Jacklee, I see you are from Singapore and studying in the UK. I suggest you learn a bit about the current affairs and history of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland – before jumping in to major things like this. I don't mean to be rude, but...

In the UK, we have learnt to deal with describing our identities without rigid rules!

It is particularly important for Northern Ireland, with the sensitive nature of its past troubles and current stability, and for Scotland, where whether to hold a public referendum on attaining full independence from Britain has been a major issue in recent years. My country, Wales, is likely to be swayed by the tide. I am British and Welsh – please, let me decide when I say which one. People (as usual) can edit away on Wikipedia until a happy consensus is found for the article in question!

TWO FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW!

You might be surprised that ‘Britain’ (and hence the word British) does NOT include Northern Ireland! (you could start by reading the Wikipedia article!). The UK (United Kingdom) is the name for Britain and Northern Ireland! Also, Wales happens not to be represented on the Union Jack (the UK flag). Life is flexible here – we are an island and a 'melting pot' and always were, we have enough problems with rigid ideas of nationalism regarding immigration etc, as it is. Please - let us Celts in particular choose our own ground. (the Celtic countries, by the way, are Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland.) --Matt Lewis 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) --Matt Lewis 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SOME FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW

Matt, Pretani (and hence the terms 'Britain', 'Great Britain', 'British', and 'British Isles') DOES include Northern Ireland. In fact, so does the United Kingdom (as you yourself pointed out). England is a Celtic country also, by the way, by virtue of the fact that it was settled by Celts. --Setanta 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What? You are say "England is a Celtic country also, by the way, by virtue of the fact that it was settled by Celts." Look again at the way you used 'is' and 'was' in the same sentence. Then read a little about logic - and a little about the Roman invasion too. You are the Setanta who says "they are British whether they like it or not". Nice controlling attitude. --Matt Lewis 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Matt, don't bite my head off! I never said I was an expert on things relating to the UK. I just wanted to know whether I ought to state persons as "British" or "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" in articles, after UpDown reverted some edits that I had made, claiming there was consensus that the latter should be used. Being unable to find anything in the Manual of Style about this, I suggested that perhaps there ought to be a guideline. Of course it's open to people to choose how they wish their nationality to be referred to: see note 3b of the proposed guidelines. The problem comes when there is no evidence of any choice (which would be most of the time). Can there ever be a "happy consensus" if there isn't a guideline agreed on by consensus to follow? I seriously doubt it.
By the way, I know that Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, but according to "British nationality law", residents of Northern Ireland are "British citizens". See also "Northern Ireland", which states that "[p]eople from Northern Ireland can choose to be British citizens on the same basis as people from any other part of the United Kingdom." It seems, then, that it's perfectly valid to refer to people from Northern Ireland as "British". Cheers, Jacklee 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well to really confuse things, isn't "Great Britain" derived from the "British Isles", a term which is used to include Ireland, not the other way round, so "Northern Ireland is British" is not a technically incorrect term. (And yes I'm aware this is a contentious term in Ireland but more with Irish nationalists - I've not heard of Unionists objecting to this one.) Timrollpickering 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Great Britain is derrived from the need for medieval mapmakers to distinguish between two Britains: Britanny and the island of Britain, which were written similarly.
If you go back for enough, at about the time of the Roman conquest of Britain, the two islands along with Iceland (and sometimes Norway and Denmark!) are called "Islands of Britain" - but the island today called Britain was at that time called Albion (e.g. "Albion, an Island of Britain" and "Hibernia, an Island of Britain", and "Thule, an Island of Britain", "Thule" is thought most likely to be Iceland). This contracted after the Roman invasion, with Britain first referring to the area conquered by the Romans and then, with time, the whole island. (Albion, in some way some ways flipped around too, becoming a mythical-like word in English, but contracting to mean only Scotland, roughly the area of Albion/Britian unconquered by the Romans, in the Celtic languages of Britain and Ireland.) --sony-youthpléigh 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say in British nationality law that residents of NI are British citizens? MurphiaMan 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's implied rather than express. "British nationality law#Classes of British nationality" states "British Citizens usually hold this status through a connection with the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ('United Kingdom and Islands')", and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. People from NI don't appear to fall under any of the other five categories of British citizenship. The point is put more clearly in from "Northern Ireland". Cheers, Jacklee 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To muddle things up even further, read Irish nationality law, Ireland, and Northern Ireland to see that Northern Irish people are equally Irish nationals also. Eeeek! --sony-youthpléigh 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect Matt, "Britain" (and therefore British) does include Northern Ireland, since "Britain" (see the first definition on that page) is commonly used interchangeably with "United Kingdom". Great Britain isn't, but Britain certainly is. -- Necrothesp 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Necrothesp – How can you say ‘NI does include Britain’ (your italics) with only your purely subjective reasoning that they are 'commonly' interchanged! You would have better said ‘can include Britain’! AND THAT IS MY POINT!!!!! It depends who you speak to!!!!! So why have rigid rules? PS. Using a Wikipedia disambiguation page to prove your point really makes me despair! Where is the Wikipedia article on just Britain? – there isn’t one! Nor does your 'Britain' (without Great) appear anywhere in the Northern Irish page!!!! Even Wikipedia admits that we shouldn't use Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia!

Jacklee - 'Perfectly valid' just isn’t kind of language to use on Wikipedia regarding nationality and Northern Ireland, whatever document you feel you've cleverly gleaned something from, like some kind of lawyer! The UK is a complex place! Perhaps you could work for the Foreign Office and sort it all out for us? We could use some help on Welsh language road signs in Wales – perhaps you are our man? Croeso I Gymru, my son. I'm trying to tell you that the 'rules' you want cannot and certainly will not be applied by the people of the UK anything like as rigidly as you want them to! We need room to manoeuvre. Please read my above entry again. I suppose I am 'biting your head off' - but it's because you are simply dismissing hard-felt cultural issues surrounding the UK just to make Wikipedia neater and more convenient for people similar to yourself (who have little or no attachment to the UK)!

You must read-up about the UK (which you should have done first), though it’s good you admit you have very little knowledge of us. This is starting to be a whole Wikipedia issue with me though – people fanny around it so carelessly – it really annoys me to be honest, especially with political subjects like this! The UK happens to be deeply complex and diverse! How can people not know that?! Maybe it’s because I’m Welsh I get so cheesed off – so many maps and globes choose not to find space for a label (it is our curse that England is to the right of us), and we are consequently a little less well known internationally. Many of us are particularly keen on placing ‘Wales’ before (or even in place of) British, or UK. We have an economy to look after, after all.

The current 'consensus' I referred to over UK nationalities is unique to each article, and is found though the Wiki process of edits, reverts and discussions – because it cannot be done by a ‘rule book’! And people then settle on someone (or something) being Welsh or British etc by themselves! You see? Many people you are in discussion with are clearly not from the UK – I am - so listen to me! And with your invitation messages in the Scottish, Welsh and Irish discussion pages you are in serious danger of being wound-up by countless merciless Celts! (either that or completely ignored by them).

If someone needs to know what Welsh or Wales etc means – they can surely click on the words can’t they? I usually use the format ‘from Aberystwyth, Wales, UK’ – but why should I force anyone else to? I then tend to use ‘British’ at some point, but I’ve had it changed to ‘Welsh’ and I’ve let it be – why would I not? ‘UK’ usually remains somewhere in the article – which should be enough for any pedant. Using ‘Principality’ however, is a ‘no no’ with me! I think that one is definitely fair game to remove!

It is a truism to say that people cannot always categorise another 'People' (or two, or three) as easily as they seem to want to! Just look around the globe, as someone else has pointed out. Unless you have a deep 'need' for rigid rules, flexibility of expression where nationalities are concerned needn’t be such a terrible thing! Sometimes ‘woolly areas’ like Wales are just a simple fact of life. Forgive me if I keep ramming this home, but you won’t find many conforming like sheep if your guidelines are passed.

By the way – you won’t get a real feeling of anything just by reading the Wikipedia article on it – please read elsewhere too! If I could be left with that on my gravestone I’d die a happy man (the whole line, that is - not just ‘please read elsewhere too’!).

(PS. Your other ‘British’ Guidelines – like leaving nationality out when having no proof - are completely BONKERS too.) --Matt Lewis 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"The current 'consensus' I referred to over UK nationalities is unique to each article" Well yes and no. The problem is that individual consensuses have existed in some areas - for example in sport most international players have been given the nationality for the country they play for. But all too often these get challenged by new editors or changed on the basis that some other article uses a different form or because liks can be found to give a different answer and the result is we get ridiculous constructs like "Scottish tennis player who plays for Great Britain" that just confuses even more (it sounds like someone of one country who plays for another country through exploitation of the grandparent rule or equivalent - even though we just call Greg Rusedski "a former British tennis player", well at least until someone spots this). Frankly in a lot of places it isn't an individual article consensus so much as "which POV can last longer" in revert wars. This in turn causes problems when several people whose nationality is equally clear get written up on the basis of who got there last. That's hardly an ideal solution. Timrollpickering 20:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oooh matron!
I’ve honestly never come across any problem, not even awkward constructs that can't be improved by someone till it reads okay. Where do people revert like you say they do? Are you sure this is not all merely a kind of fancy, driven by a rather naughty need for strict discipline?
And you won't get your 'ideal solution' guys - especially if you try and bring sport into the equation! (it'll be fun watching you try though!) --Matt Lewis 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm back (after having cooled off); another reason I prefer British over English, Welsh, Scottish, (Northern) Irish? The 'Year' articles- (ex: 2007 etc). It's frustrating to see, in the birth and death sections - Canadian actor, American comedian, English actor, Italian singer, Scottish dancer, etc. GoodDay 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I don't see what you're so riled up about. The guideline I'm currently proposing actually permits editors to indicate "English/(Northern) Irish/Scottish/Welsh" in many situations, since there appears to be a consensus that that is the right way to go where the UK is concerned. I agree with Timrollpickering – on balance, there's less harm having a guideline than not having one. At least that way if there's a dispute over whether a consensus exists one way or the other, the guideline provides evidence of the current consensus on the matter. And why is proposed note 3d "completely BONKERS"? It advises that a person's nationality should be left out when it's not clear what the nationality is. Following the example in the rule, if, say, I was born in Singapore but was educated in the UK and worked there for half of my life and in Singapore for the other half, and there was at present no other evidence of my nationality, would it be accurate to state that I was "Singaporean" or "British"? Cheers, Jacklee 05:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's easy! Based on what we know about you, it's as clear as a bell you're not British! Do you get my point? (silly question...) If someone doesn't know about something they shouldn't be editing it!!!! And what is the current 'harm' in there being no guidlines?! --Matt Lewis 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Matt, I am well aware that we shouldn't use Wikipedia to prove Wikipedia. I merely provided the link as illustration. I note that nowhere have you provided proof that Britain is not interchangeable with the UK, despite your rant on the subject of people providing proof of their opinions. And while Jack may not be British, I am and I fully understand the differences in terminology. Irish nationalists do not (naturally) regard NI as part of Britain, but most other British people do. Can I prove it? Probably not. Does that mean I'm wrong and you're right? No. And incidentally, may I suggest you calm down and stay civil. -- Necrothesp 12:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, just because I'm not British doesn't mean I'm not knowledgable about some topics relating to Britain or that I should be barred from editing all British-related articles. The focus of this discussion is on whether the subjects of biographical articles should be termed "British" or "Welsh [etc.]". That fact is not always evident from available sources, in which case in accordance with proposed note 3d an editor should not make guesses about nationality. I can't understand why you object to that. If the fact can be discerned with some certainty (notes 3b and 3c), then of course nationality may be stated. In dismissing the example I gave you're missing my point. Of course you can discern my nationality based on information provided on my user page, in which case if you were editing a Wikipedia article about me you could state that fact. But in many cases, there won't be such clear evidence and the person's birth place or place(s) of residence may not provide a conclusive answer. In my view having a guideline along the lines I've proposed provides evidence of consensus on the matter, and may help to reduce disputes over how a person's nationality should be indicated. Obviously, if some editors choose to ignore it not much can be done about that, except reverting their changes. Cheers, Jacklee 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement; British editors are not the custodians of British related articles. GoodDay 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so over-dramatic guys!

No-one is suggesting ‘barring’ anyone not British! But as a Welsh Brit, I’m entitled to demand that people know what they are talking about, especially if they are playing around with somebody else’s nationality (and doubly especially if it’s my own)! And it’s not 'uncivil' to highlight the simple flaws on your kind of argument, Necrothesp - and your 'tit for tat' reply just kind of proved my point!

And as for your comment on your proposed guidelines, Jacklee ("Obviously, if some editors choose to ignore it not much can be done about that, except reverting their changes.") – that is exactly what I’m worried about! You and your guideline-followers will have to keep reverting articles to fit the guidelines! Reverting will get a lot worse then than you imagine it already is (and I don’t believe the current reverting/arguments are anything like as bad as you are falsely claiming just to push your guidelines through!). So why fix something that isn’t broken? And have you really got the ego to remove ‘Wales’ from an article just because you can’t find proof of Welsh nationality, and no-one else has given it? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time? To me it really is bonkers.

If there was the ’easy answer’ about Britishness that you so want, there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place – and simple guidelines would already be there! They are not there because Britain exists as a flexible construct – and always has! The success of Scottish independence and the likelihood of devolution was in the papers and on the news this morning – why not read or watch something like that for an idea about how we see ourselves? And don’t be so rude to say you are not really touching things like that. Look at the lines drawn through Africa, the mess around Jerusalem, countries like Belgium, Russia, China, Spain, Northern Ireland – I wish the world could fit into simple definitions, I really do! But push or guide people into ‘convenient’ slots – and you only stir up trouble. --Matt Lewis 21:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, why do you allege that other editors are trying to "push... people into 'convenient' slots"? The effect of note 3e of the latest version of the proposed guidelines is that in appropriate circumstances (i.e., when notes 3b and 3c apply) "English [etc.]" may be used instead of "British", since there are a number of editors who think this is the preferred approach. This seems to be entirely in line with the views you've expressed. The whole idea behind the proposed guidelines is to record consensus on the issue in an article that is easy for other editors to locate.
You express concern over proposed rule 3d. Don't you agree that unreferenced facts should not be inserted into articles? I don't go around randomly removing "Scottish [etc.]" from articles (yes, I have better things to do than that), but if I happen to be editing an article that I'm interested in why shouldn't I, if neither notes 3b or 3c are satisfied? What you seem to be suggesting is that editors should be free to insert "Welsh [etc.]" into articles with little or no basis, but that other editors should not remove such attributions.
You said earlier that "[p]eople (as usual) can edit away on Wikipedia until a happy consensus is found for the article in question". If there's a dispute over whether a person should be described as "British" or "English [etc.]", it is not likely that a "happy consensus" will be reached. (And at no time did I say the situation was very bad, so I do not appreciate your allegation that I made a false claim.) Why not try to achieve consensus over the guidelines now? Cheers, Jacklee 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to tell you that it is a different matter for each article! You would have to cover all possiblilies - and what's the point in that? And if a dispute is meaningful it would actually be explained in the article anyway! By trying to work it out universally now, you are trying to squash us into one convenient blob - even if you don't see it!! On council forms and the like I can often put that I am Welsh, or a UK citizen, or British (and the same with using the postal service) – no one minds because we know what we mean and because we can't enforce even guidelines without offending people. And why offend people?? Wikipedia links to itself - so anyone here who doesn't know where Wales is can soon find out! How do you actually expect to find a collective consensus ‘first’ anyway? How will it happen? Honestly, the only consensus over your guidelines I can envisage would end up with something that simply gives a list of facts about the countries, and states the ways that are used to refer to them (but would that be a guideline? In fact what use would it be?). It’s a rule thing too – you don't seem to get it. Look back at earlier comments on NI (and Scotland) rather than Wales - if that helps --Matt Lewis 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sooo, because many British describe themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish (and foreigners describe them as such, aswell), Wikipedia should reflect this; even though it differs from the others countries of the world. Begrudingly, I'm starting to accept this (as it is what is, not what I want it to be). GoodDay 18:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I'm sorry, but referring to other people's comments (and I wasn't actually referring to mine) as "completely bonkers" and implying they don't know what they're talking about is uncivil. You should be able to voice your opinions (and they are only opinions) without resorting to that. I'm not actually disagreeing with most of what you say, but ranting at those who may disagree with some of it is not helping. We all have strong opinions, but it's best to stay polite. -- Necrothesp 09:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Matt, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the desirability of having a Manual of Style guideline on this matter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk • contribs • count– 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You just take it all so lightly!! You cannot mean that all people who are against having guidlines (like me) should 'agree to disagree' with people who are for them (like you)? That would mean keeping things as they are! I expect you just mean me and you - but I'm arguing the points, not you (and it's one you should understand that I am serious about) - so I will carry on, point by point, 'til I decide to stop! --Matt Lewis 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Facts

The facts are that nationality, in the strictest sense when relating to the United Kingdom, is British. I may be an Ulsterman, for example, but that is not my nationality - it's an ethnicity. Citizens of the United Kingdom all have one thing in common: they are British - whether they like it or not. --Setanta 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if they have 2 passports? MurphiaMan 06:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Begrudingly, I'm starting to accept these English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish terms. Even the international community uses this terms, in place of British. GoodDay 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A passport is not the be-all and end-all of citizenship. A passport is merely a document which offers proof that a country has accepted a person as a citizen thereof.
To answer your question though, MurphiaMan: yes - Citizens of the United Kingdom all have one thing in common: they are British - whether they like it or not... even if they are citizens of other countries as well. --Setanta 03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Should anyone admit to some bias here? As someone else pointed out, being pro-'British' is as loaded as, say, being pro-'Scottish'. It is a deep political feeling for some to actually be British - perhaps that needs pointing out more. Life has been lost over this, after all. --Matt Lewis 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin

Since this example was raised, I've just had a quick glance in the talkpage archives. It seems the only point where this came up was briefly here: Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 2#Nationality and not generated much discussion there. However the opening description subsequently changed again - my guess is as a result of a merger of various texts due to discussion here Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 3#Informal review II: content which seems to have been about how to sum up Darwin's scientific contribution and nationality wasn't raised one way or the other.

And that's it it seems, unless there was a revert war that didn't leave a single trace on the talk page (or I've overlooked if it did). Certainly the point hasn't come up in the formal GA and FAC process. But I think this is probably because most people don't regard this as a yay or nay issue for FA status, especially if a wider edit war hasn't yet reached the article. Timrollpickering 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are we now?

Well my summary is...

  • The subject of British (etc) nationality is complex and controversial. Strongly-held diverse views have been expressed above. The people of the UK do not have a simple view of nationality, with opinion polls indicating that most of them think they are some combination of British plus Scottish/Welsh/Irish/English.
  • There is a school of thought which says that we should use "British" as the nationality for all citizens of the UK. This has some merit in being simple, verifiable and having a meaningful legal status in the UK and internationally. However, it is unlikely ever to achieve any kind of consensus. Also, some of the subjects of Wikipedia articles strongly dissociate themselves from "Britishness".
  • There is another school of thought which says that we don't need a guideline at all: we just discuss it at the article level, if necessary, and reach consensus there. The argument against this is that consensus at the article level can mean "which POV can last longer in revert wars".
  • If we don't go for either the ubiquitous British or no guidelines at all options, there are some clear-cut cases where we might reach a consensus. For instance:
    • People who have associated themselves with a particular nationalist cause (eg Sean Connery - Scottish)
    • People who have dissociated themselves from a particular nationalist cause (I think Peter Green is an example of someone who doesn't like "English" and is therefore British).
    • People whose lives have been too complex to assign them to anything other than British (maybe John Martyn: born in England, lives in Ireland, speaks with a Glaswegian accent.)
    • People primarily associated with national sporting teams.
  • That then leaves a lot of people who don't fit into those categories. Here, again, I think there is a division of views. Some would argue that if someone is born in (for example) England and spends most of their life there, it is obvious that we call them "English". The contrary view is that nationality concerns how "people prefer to describe themselves" and that, without any direct verifiable evidence of their preference, we should default to the legal nationality of "British".

Is this a fair summary of the arguments and the possible options and choices? Bluewave 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this. I was going to attempt a summary but am glad that you've beat me to it. I think you've captured the essence of the discussion so far, and would point out that each of the cases you've identified as matters upon which consensus might be reached are all reflected in the current version of my proposed guideline which is indicated above. There is one more issue – whether the debate should be widened to whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality". I think it would be preferable to try and achieve consensus on the existing cases (ie, the UK situation first) before moving on to that wider issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk • contribs • count– 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Generally agree, but some for small niggly points (e.g. chosing to be British to the exception of ENG/SCO/WAL/etc. is as much choosing a nationalist association as the other way around). Would add the complexity of Ireland - If we go with all from the UK being British, then logically anyone 1801-1922 from the 26 counties is "British" - that ain't going to go down, as well as being historically retrospective. Also, the complexity of Northern Ireland doesn't bode well for a policy of labelling people from NI as "British", nor is it accurate or verifiable, they could just as simplistically be labelled "Irish" if we are to use legal nationality. (While I'm mentioning retrospecitive histories, "British" as we mean it today is quite new. Even on Britain, Scottish/English is historically the stronger identifier, both internally and externally.)
Finally, Jack's suggestion to widen the debate on whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality" is a back door argument to label everyone British by blanking other arguments out. The very fact that we cannot reach agreement on this point is down to the fact that legal citizenship alone, in the case of the UK at least, is a dud. --sony-youthpléigh 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree on the main points listed, although with sport there may be a few clarifiers needed.

1). If I remember correctly the FIFA rules "fix" a player's national team at the adult level so it may be possible that some players have played for multiple countries in their career.
2). What do we do for players whose career straddles changes in the teams? The only UK related ones I can think of involve the two Irish football teams - the pre partition team carried on as an All Ireland Belfast based team until the 1950s when FIFA made it become Northern Ireland only; a new Dublin All Ireland team was founded in the 1920s and became a Republic only team in the 1950s and there are players who variously played for both and for pre&post (football) partition teams (the Home Nations were not in FIFA between the wars). (And it's possible the solution found may be a precedent for, say, the various Yugoslavia and successor teams.)
3). Then there's "diaspora" players like Greg Ruzedski - again shall we just take the country they play for?
4). What do we for sports that are generally played individually - Andy Murray has been a source of particular revert wars and even arguments over how "official" some Scotland vs England match he was once in counts.
5). What about people who are notable in more than one field - e.g. Ken Maginnis who's both a very prominent supporter of the All Ireland Rugby Team (so "Irish") and a prominent Ulster Unionist politician (so "British")?
A couple of others:
6). With regards "where they've lived all the time" I think this is going to be a very messy rule of thumb, especially as studies have also found most non-white people living in England regard themselves as "British" and see "English" as an ethnicity.
7). What about politicians - is it best to use which level the politics they operate at (with exemptions for those in one constiuent country only parties)? Timrollpickering 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Is this a fair summary of the arguments and the possible options and choices?" No - Only because unfortunately you ended with the line "we should default to the legal nationality of "British" - and that is all some people want to read!!!!! To be honest, I don't feel you were strong enough about political feeling, especially bearing in mind that some people clearly genuinely feel it shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of rules. Now isn't that just the story of discontentment? There is one particular guy (from Belfast) here who is fervently pro-British - do we need all this? And regarding sport, all I will say is that it's just not cricket! Are the lazy-minded pedants going to sort the ECB out too? I haven't got time to explain everything - it's up to people to look into things properly. --Matt Lewis 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt. You seem to be objecting to my summary on the basis that, if you extract one phrase, out of context, it argues for particular point of view. The summary was supposed to include all the main points of view that have been expressed and you might have picked out "we don't need a guideline at all" or "it is obvious that we call them English". With regard to the politics, I (perhaps naively) thought the focus of the guidelines should be on the political feelings of the subjects of Wikipedia articles, not those of individual editors. Bluewave 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed the bitter irony! Your summary covered a lot - but the real problems here to me are the clear dismissal of politics by some who want to just push this through, and also that some people are focusing singularly on sentences that seem to fit in with a possible guideline - and it can't work like that. You final line was a gift - check out the response! I just tried to bring those two points out - sorry if I sounded rude. Summaries can include emotive language when about emotive issues - and, politically, this is an emotive issue. --Matt Lewis 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Northern Irish is a special case because of the different laws pertaining to nationality and citizenship.--Vintagekits 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • It may well be that a person's legal or "cultural" nationality may not correspond with the country that he or she plays a sport for. In such a case, it should be made clear that while the person is of a certain nationality he or she plays for one or more countries.
  • The proposed rule that states it's acceptable to put down "Welsh [etc.]" if a person is born there and spends most of his or her life there may be a little vague, but it seems the best that can be formulated at this point. It legitimizes a practice that many editors adopt. If better evidence of nationality (e.g., a newspaper article) turns up, the attribution can be affirmed or amended and the evidence cited in a footnote.
  • Sony-youth, by raising the question whether the debate should be widened to considering whether "nationality" should mean legal citizenship or "cultural nationality", it certainly wasn't my intention to covertly "label everyone British by blanking other arguments out". I was merely taking up a point that another editor had raised, and as you can see from my earlier remarks I actually felt that we shouldn't try to deal with that wider issue right now.
  • I'm not sure about the Northern Ireland issue, which seems to be a special case. If either "British" or "Irish" is felt to be unacceptable as a default in the absence of evidence, perhaps people from that region should just be described as "from Northern Ireland".
  • Matt, you are quite happy to permit editors to insert "English [etc.]" as they wish – and as Bluewave has stated in his summary there may be consensus for editors to do so where there is sufficient evidence such as birth and long residence in a particular place. But you appear to be objecting to the use of "British" even when there is no such evidence. Really, you can't have it both ways. And calling people "lazy-minded pedants" doesn't help one way or another.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk • contribs • count– 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much with Jack here (I think).
  • English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish if a person is known to have expressed a particular preference, although if born and brought up elsewhere I think "XXX-born" should be added (e.g. "Scottish-born Welsh").
  • English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish if a person (has) lived almost all their lives in one country and is not specifically known to have expressed a preference to be known as British.
  • British where a person (has) moved around and is not known to have expressed a preference for any particular ethnicity or anyone who is specifically known to have expressed a preference to be known as British.
-- Necrothesp 11:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
These are quite subjective don't you think? Judging how much someone feels one thing or another. Asking if they have moved around much. (For verifiability they also default to "British" in all but the most exceptional circumstances also.) I (think I) get what you mean, but it kind of puts us where we are right now, doesn't it?
How about just codify the current observable consensus (based on how people edit articles), rather than trying to make one up here: for people from the UK is an exception to the current guideline. Use Britsh/English/Scottish/Welsh/(Northern) Irish as agreed on an article-by-article basis. --sony-youthpléigh 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's subjective. It can't be anything else given the subject. The problem is that there is no agreement or consensus. It's all very well saying that this should be done on an article-by-article basis, but that won't stop the people who go around changing the nationality in every article they can find on a British person to their own perception of what that nationality should be. I am merely laying out my own opinions on the matter and the way I write articles, which is, I think, a fairly balanced way of doing it. -- Necrothesp 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
One other problem - Cornish. IIRC the current consensus has been that people from Cornwall are to be described as "British" not "English" but I can't remember where this is set down. (And has there ever been discussion on how Orkney & Shetland are covered - I've read that some consider being called "Scottish" even worse than being called "English"!) Timrollpickering 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's not necessarily accurate for everybody. I'm Cornish, but I would give my "nationality" as English. It's generally only Cornish nationalists (a small minority) who object strongly to the description. -- Necrothesp 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh for Pete’s sake! I'm having what "both ways"? That’s just a lazy and wild stab to discredit me – it’s not related to anything – it’s just a ‘suggestive’ stab! How flippin dare you suggest I have something against the word 'British'! Have you read "anything" I have written? A single word?? I have CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY objected to anyone creating guidelines because we need individual flexibility of national expression in the UK! It's how we get on here! As I have said before, I myself happen to be incredibly proud of being both Welsh and British (for very personal reasons) - the point is that I decide I can be this – and I decide when I use British and when I use Welsh - and I won't accept any disparate group of people ratifying anybody’s 'guide' for me to follow – because guides refer to rules. It's the same for people I know who are just Welsh etc – they don’t want to be told how to do it. Did you know that WP founder Jimbo Wales actually wanted to remove all the ‘rigid’ political info boxes – because he knew the disagreements they stir cannot be dealt with by guidelines? His philosophy is to use balanced text in the article, and to leave it to us. I’ll tell you now - the UK citizens most happy with your kind of guidelines would be English Conservatives and NI Protestants (and you have support here), the ones the most against would generally be the burgeoning Scottish nationalists, and NI Catholics. Wales is pretty mixed, and the word ‘England’ (and especially the use of it’s flag) has grown in marked popularly in recent years – everyone in the UK has remarked on that. There is nothing any self-important people here can do to change the reality of being a UK citizen! Any WP guidelines would have to be about consensus, but you simply won't find it across the UK on nationality! As life has to go on, we incorporate (on the whole) each others notions, labels and views on a "flexible" day-to-day level. Over a number of posts now, I have given quite a few examples of the complex nature of the UK (supporting a consistently clear argument) - all of which you have studiously ignored. But even a war of attrition cannot be won here! (I hope anyway – my dystopia is a Wikipedia that’s 100% canards, colour and cant – and there’s no one left who’s wise enough to know!).
I must also defend my tone of voice, as you highlight it. I have to say first that I find your guideline proposal a personal affront to my national identity – as you are (ultimately) trying to structure how I can express myself. It’s implicit, but you can’t hide from it. Regarding my “lazy pedants” comment, isn’t it lazy to keep having to admit how little knowledge of the UK you have? Where is your research? Some wisdom and knowledge of politics, history and world affairs would go not amiss either. Nationalism and national identity are hardly trivial matters! I also feel that you (as the creator of this proposed guideline) have given very little time to properly understand my contributions – yet you do refer to them. And it is fair to say pedant, because you tend to pick out convenient little details (or even admonish the tone) rather than focus on the points that are raised. Such a structure as the UK is awash with little details, which will sometimes contradict each other – you could probably go on forever cherry-picking certain useful ‘facts’- but they will never build you an acceptable guideline! People don’t use complicated details to describe their nationhood – they generally use passion! And these guidelines are about how people can describe (in a single word!) a nationality, are they not? Also, you cannot deny that you have consistently made it clear that the very neatness of your numbered box of 'guidelines' is more important than any matter that has, so far, been held against them! You just can't seem to accept that a flexibility of expression is needed by UK citizens - however annoyingly untidy it may seem to impatient passers by. Saving writing all that, I thought maybe ‘lazy pedant’?
And, by the way, your new fancy multi-coloured signature takes up 7 lines of code on my edit box. If we ever needed a guideline - jeez! Sorry – I just can't be monosyllabic about this (and I’m not able to do false politeness) – this is not a WP status fantasy to me – it’s about my Britain - it's eventful past, it's troubled present, it's uncertain future - all the things you choose to ignore, and I care passionately about. I also find Wikipedia a terrifying prospect for the entire world. Hasn’t anyone noticed that half of us here are barking mad? --Matt Lewis 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out in my previous posts on this matter, Originally, I felt British was the correct term to use, period. However, common-usage backs English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish (as I pointed out, even the International community uses these). It sure is a balancing act, to say the least. GoodDay 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Matt, what happened to trying to work with others toward consensus? Others here seem much more willing to listen to others and actually work out a compromise. Your voluminous, over-emotional, and often uncivil commentary has driven me away from this conversation, and perhaps it has others too. You might want to rethink your approach in the future. --Melty girl 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - hi! Hi - I just wanted to say what lovely people you all are and how nice it is to be here! Er, I don't think we need guidelines here really. ok? ok - thanks for listening to me - ok? ok, er, bye.. bye. --Matt Lewis 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, keep these comments on your personal pages. GoodDay 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Use Welsh, Scottish etc. You don't need to add British because that's inherent in those nationalities. At least just use one or the other, both is just unnecessary. And Jacklee, given Ioan Gruffudd identifies himself very strongly as a Welshman, for what it's worth I think he'd think Welsh was the way to go. 121.220.58.198 09:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Matt:
  • On tone – I disagree that your strong feelings on the subject justify your tone. The way you write does not assume others are talking about the matter in good faith and tends towards stifling discussion. And it deflects attention from the focus of the discussion, exactly what you counsel against.
  • On guidelines – no one has said this is not a complex or controversial issue. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a guideline on it. What are guidelines for? To record consensus and compromises, and to provide guidance for editors who need assistance with certain issues. Not all editors who edit biographical articles about UK people are themselves from the UK, and there will be some UK editors who feel they need guidance on the matter as well. Will there ever be complete consensus on the issue at hand? Probably not. But as Bluewave has summarized above, one compromise is to have a guideline recognizing that some editors have a preference for indicating "Scottish, [etc.]" when there are sufficient grounds for this attribution, and for indicating "British" when there aren't. We will have to agree to disagree on the need for guidelines on this matter.
How do you like the new streamlined signature? :) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"Record compromises"??! You are talking like this is some kind of international peace treaty! I honestly wonder where some of you guys are coming from! The rule of VETO in this case MUST apply – if a significant group of people feel like I do (believe me I’m not alone) then a tiny group of disparate ‘computer owners’ cannot be allowed to push a guideline through – even if they get over 50% in a tree house vote! Too many people take WP far too seriously for political guidelines like this. Remember Jimmy Wales on nations! Also remember WP on consensus – “Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day”.
Didn't I answer "agree to disagree" before? Talk about war of attrition! (I get the message though - you refuse to read me due to tone, and you're prepared to begin at your own beginning ad nauseam)
Anyone see the Crying Game on TV last night, by the way? The (Northern) Irish protagonist allowed himself to be called Scottish the whole film by the gay cross-dresser he was falling in love with. Just a thought. --Matt Lewis 16:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice how the (Northern) Irish protagonist wanted to shield his identity from the the gay cross-dresser he was falling in love with? --sony-youthpléigh 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course. But why? What was Neil Jordan saying about identity? --Matt Lewis 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That those of us that care about our celtic nationality are totally gay?;-) MurphiaMan 07:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point JL (even more streamlined!) - from memory there certainly were a couple of points that people agreed on, e.g.
  • A member of the Westminster cabinet should be called "British"
  • Anyone with an expressed British/English/Scottish/etc. identity should be put down as that.
  • The 26 counties should be Irish (or, in some notable cases, Anglo-Irish e.g. Duke of Wellington)
I'm sure there are more. Maybe start with these. --sony-youthpléigh 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
When I read a line like “A member of the Westminster cabinet should be called "British"” I suppose my personal problem is I find that kind of language unsuitable here (even if it wasn’t phrased that way in a guideline). Like WP founder Jimbo Wales, I think that WP just isn’t the place for this kind of detailing. It might come down to what we want WP to be – I personally hope to god it will never see itself as an authority on theses matters.
Also (just as an extra thought – not meant to be part of my direct argument) I bump into quite a lot of young and old internet-users who haven’t fully understood the “Wiki” nature of WP – which does scare me. At the moment, WP is filling the top of the screen with (pretty anonymous) quotes describing it as the greatest encyclopaedia ever – there is not much that explicitly explains to people dropping into a page that it maybe (or is often likely in certain political matters) contaminated. (or to go further, with bluff, bias and lies!).--Matt Lewis 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice'n'all that your musings on Wikipedia are ... ummm, back onto topic - since it's clear that many people do want guidance on when to use "British" and when to use ENG/SCO/WAL/IRE (as I wrote before, I'm not one of them), would you agree that one thing everyone agrees on (as demonstrated by what happens in fact) is that members of the UK central government (or whatever kind of language you do find suitable) should be called "British"? And so, this could be drawn up into a guideline at least. Or is it just guidelines that you don't like (as a matter of your own personal policy)?
To draw up a line that was said to you earlier, maybe you might considerer chilling your tone, Matt, when dealing with other editors. If you make life uncomfortable for those you are supposed to be engaging in collaboration with then there's little likelihood that we'll have any Wiki in this 'pedia. --sony-youthpléigh 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything I say is relevant - in a roundabout way! Try and envision the wisdom of having no guidelines on this matter at all (kind of like we always have been doing..) – it’s the clever idea I’m trying to get across. I’m trying various methods of doing it, but it seems to be a bit over the brainbow, like one of those difficult IQ questions – and some people consequently won’t acknowledge it, however many examples or tacks I use. --Matt Lewis 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm for the wisdom of no guidelines (as I wrote above in a non-roubabout way), others want guidance. It's give and take, Matt, working with others. What I'm suggesting is that we start with the things that we agree on. --sony-youthpléigh 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just curious. How many guidelines do we have on this subject? GoodDay 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the argument for having no guidelines. It seems to be based on the view that UK nationality requires great flexibility, but I am struggling to see what this flexibility means. If it refers to the complexity of nationality issues in the UK, and the corresponding difficulty in drawing up meaningful guidelines, I would argue that this is a reason for having guidelines: only with guidelines will there be any sort of consistent approach to that complexity. If, on the other hand, it means that individual editors need the flexibility to make their own decisions about people's nationality, in the absence of citable sources, then this sounds like even more of a reason for a guideline! I'm obviously missing something, here - what is it? Bluewave 15:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
(- -----) ;-) Matt Lewis 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And I'm trying to understand the 'resistance' to using British for all British biographies. Keeping in mind that English, Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish are used (and sourced), the cry that British usage is offensive is a lame excuse IMHO. GoodDay 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree, which is why it is pointless to even discuss this further. Simple fact is that we have a lot of emotional wrecks and POV-pushers on Wikipedia in relation to this subject and generally they must be included in any consensus. It's an absolutely ridiculous position, which leads to countless edit wars and other problems, but at the moment the absence of a solution is the only way we can move forward.
I will never give support to any guideline which gives an Anglo/Britannocentric view of the constituent countries of the UK and as such I will never back any guidelines which institute special treatment for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish identities. Plenty will not support use of the word British except where absolutely necessary. It's not something which you, or any of us, will ever solve. --Breadandcheese 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Great second paragraph, Breadandcheese - summed it up really well. RE first parag (if I understand it correctly) - I think these 'countless edit wars' we are told of are a bit of an exaggeration (in my honest experience) - and the almost-surreptitious, highly-unfair, very un-WP and intrinsically-prejudiced 'source' proviso (for each home nation) that actually holds the proposed guideline together, must be dealt with head-on, as it’s always there. The real (main) other problem should be given a name -'Northern Ireland' (you mentioned anglo/Brit-centricism in the second parag). For me the crazies around are the ones who crave the neatness of a comfortable fix! 'POV' is kind-of 'built-in' with this issue, unfortunately.
For me, the vibrant union of the UK works the way it works – so the differences of approach brought about by diversity are not an untenable situation - more an expected, and expedient one! The whole union has always been a juggling act - it's the way it is. The only fully 'neat' solution would be to end each of the individual unions! (which for the record, I’m personally not a huge fan of, all things considered)--Matt Lewis 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC

[edit] Where do we go from here?

Breadandcheese, I hope I'm right in summarizing your position thus: while you disagree with providing special treatment for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish identities, you recognize that many editors will not support use of the word "British" either except where absolutely necessary. Therefore, you generally agree with Matt Lewis that a guideline is futile.

Where do we go from here? I have two suggestions:

  • We could continue the discussion to see if a compromise guideline can be achieved. However, I think it is clear that some of us are of the firm view that no guideline is desirable.
  • We could insert into "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" a short guideline simply stating that apart from situations where there is evidence that a person wishes to have his or her nationality stated in a particular way, there is currently no consensus on the issue, and in the case of the UK provide a link to a non-official essay that summarizes possible options (e.g., "British", "British from Wales [etc.]"; "Welsh, [etc.]") for editors who would like some views on the matter.

The upshot of adopting the second suggestion is that no editor can justify reverting an edit (for example, reversing the insertion of "English" in place of "British") made by another editor on the ground that there is "consensus" on the matter. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That’s not a terrible idea, Jack – though I first thought that such guidelines are a bit 'wishy-washy'. But I can understand why some people who don’t understand the UK might look here for guidance (though I maintain that researching via the relevant WP links is better!). And it would give the state of play, though I doubt 'consesus' is used that much as a reason for changes - most people I feel are correcting to what they personally feel is 'right' for the article! I wrote a very long ‘Points Against’ that was a bit like an essay. I didn’t post it here as things have quietened down so much - and it was very long! It seemed a bit churlish as things stood - and this page is getting pretty big as it is! I was thinking of posting it on Wikimedia (with just a link from here) – but Essays might be better still. Somebody could do it for the ‘For’ arguments, and they both (including any others too of course - could be linked from a note of sorts).

One part my Points Against (pasted below) did offer the idea of a partial-guideline – but it still has intrinsic problems! Perhaps something even simpler (like you suggest) could work, though? I’ve copied the relevant part below. I had earlier questioned whether ‘Style’ is the right place for the guideline, anyway.

BUT PROOF OF FAILURE,

  • The related ‘non-sovereign nations flag guideline’, after saying we ‘should’ use the sovereign flags, ended up saying how people have (and will have) different ideas in the UK! It is very wishy-washy too – I’m surprised (and worried) that it got through! It is in prose, rather than point form, and it’s reasonable to see it as a pointer to what is most likely to develop here (in order for the proposal gets passed). Why show bias and risk offence with something like that? Even at best, it could only be something like;

THE ‘WISHY-WASHY’ APPROACH

  • ‘People have strongly opposing ideas on the relative importance of labels such as UK, Britain, British, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English. Consensus has consistently not been found for a point-by-point guideline.
  • In the event of not being able to choose which label fits best in a new situation, we recommend looking at what others have done in similar situations, and/or to consider using the relevant Discussion page to ask for help. If still in doubt, consider leaving it open for someone who has a better feeling for it, or deferring it to someone else. You can always post a request in Discussion for the label to be inserted. Please respect other people’s points of view! It is okay to ‘Be Bold’ and make your choice, but remember that disagreement may arise.
  • Before changing an existing label, it is wise to have a solid grounding on the subject (the UK and it’s ‘constituent nations’). Repeatedly changing an expressed consensus to your own preference is strongly discouraged. This behaviour can lead to action being taken by Wikipedia, where all related interaction is considered.’

IS IT WORTH IT?

  • It’s a kind of notice of affairs, non-directing guideline, and fair warning of the rules (I don’t know them in detail). Like a more rigid guideline though, it would only have merit if it didn’t step on anyone’s toes. It’s ADVANTAGES could be that it discourages further shenanigans in here (though this isn’t guaranteed of course), it is somewhere to go for confused people who are looking in ‘guidelines’ for help, and it’s a chance to simply offer a few words of advise on WP. It’s DISADVANTAGES are that it can be seen as contentious in itself! It mentions the labels (ascribing them value), it makes people hesitate, it makes it an issue, it highlights the negative word ‘disagreement’ (or whichever word is used here), it’s a bit anti-‘be bold’ (the WP philosophy for contributing), it’s a bit ambiguous in places (what constitutes a ‘similar situation’? or a ‘grounding’?), and it’s a bit ‘heavy’ - when few problems actually occur as things stand (sudden conflicts can happen anyway, of course - guideline or no). It also brings up the issue of exactly when consensus in a discussion is reached, and whether it is 100% valid – these are hard things to formulate (though someone who better knows the rules regarding arbitration etc would improve it here).

WHERE TO PUT IT (IF NOT IN STYLE)?

  • An appropriate place might be the rather empty (and controversial in itself?) ‘Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)’. If it had to be in Style, ‘Manual of Style (The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) - related biography articles)’ would be to follow the style of a group of examples already set, such as on Russia and China - though none of them currently include details on constituent nations.--Matt Lewis 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

(Deindent) For what it's worth, here is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations says in this area:

The exact definition of a "state", "nation" or "country" is often politically divisive and can result in debates over the choice of flag. For example, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are referred to by the British government as "countries" within the United Kingdom [3]; the Canadian government recently recognised the Québécois as "a nation within a united Canada.";[4] and the United States recognizes many Native American tribal groupings as semi-independent "nations". Some people may feel stronger identification with such entities than with the wider state of which they are a citizen, and editors sometimes choose, for example, to use an English flag rather than a British one. Such choices can cause debates, or can sometimes mislead if the editor's own political bias is the motivation for the choice, and does not represent the views of the article subject.
In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right. This is partly for the sake of consistency across Wikipedia, but also because a person's legal citizenship is verifiable, whereas "nationality" within a country can be porous, indeterminate and shifting; an English person's passport describes them as "British", for example, not "English", and being English is a matter of self-identification, not verifiable legality in most cases. Many editors, however, feel that the UK's subnations in particular are an exception, most especially in sporting contexts, and disputes are likely to arise if this sovereign state maxim is enforced in articles on subnational British topics.

...and of course the reverse applies as well as some of the examples linked show.

In terms of whether we need guidelines or not, I think frankly something has to be set down covering the UK, not least because so many Wikipedia policies (let alone consensuses) use terms like "country", "nation" and "nationality" without always covering set-ups such as the UK (which is not a unique situation) and individual pages are often left with these arguments that do often drift into how the terms are basically applied. Then even when something has been sorted, someone comes along and changes it "in line with other relevant pages", then others start changing those pages to try and fit everything their way. Currently Tim Henman is described as "a former English tennis player" in spite of the fact that in international tennis the country one plays for is "Great Britain" - these seems to be an overspill of debate about Andy Murray (see Talk:Andy Murray (tennis) for long threads) and note that neither page is currently consistent with Greg Rusedski who is currently just "a former British tennis player". Leaving it to individual article consensus isn't really working since a) a lot of the time consensus seems hard to reach; b) even when consensus can be reached the whole can of worms gets reopened when a biography of another person in the same field becomes an edit war; and, most importantly of all, c) the overall presentation of the information across the encyclopedia is diminished and the reader (who we're doing this for after all) is left confused as to how it all works (and keeping to the tennis examples, this is particularly messy for a sport where in the tournaments that get the most attention in the UK the players play individually but where there are also team tournaments, so it gets very silly when the teams players play for aren't clear). It's clear from a lot of editors that there is both confusion and frustration over the way this debate goes round and round in circles. The point of guidelines and style-guides is to aid people writing so that things are consistent and to avoid having the same fight time and time again. It's not about trying to impose rules of "nationality" onto people. Timrollpickering 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave and Timrollpickering's recent comments. The reason why I raised this point for discussion in the first place was because I had been using the attribution "British" in some articles, and another editor reverted them on the basis that there was "consensus" the other way, which I couldn't find any evidence of. As regards the use of a veto in discussions, that is not my understanding of how Wikipedia works. I quote from "Wikipedia:Consensus": "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. ... [A] course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority)." [Emphasis added.] Matt, you are probably right that there are other editors out there who agree it is preferable not to have guidelines on this matter. But none of them have chosen to participate in this discussion, even though notice was given on several WikiProject talk pages. Perhaps in future the issue might be reopened for further discussion (see "Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change"), but I think there is consensus at the moment that there do need to be guidelines. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I understand 'why' some editors prefer using English, Scottish, Welsh and Norther Irisih, it would be soooo much easier to simply use British (particularly for related articles like 2007), sooo much easier. GoodDay 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
GoodDay, I agree with you, but if there are a significant number of editors who prefer the alternative then I'm willing to accept that, until there's evidence of contrary consensus. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we would be wise to take counsel from the flag debate as quoted above, and I think Timrollpickering and Jacklee make very valuable points too. And I would suggest that it is a bad sign that this discussion has reached the low of debating whether a guideline should be put in place at all. The very length of this page and the recurring nature of the debate itself clearly indicate that guidelines of some kind are called for. It is extremely unWiki-like to suggest that the answer is to have no guideline, and it seems disrespectful of those who are trying to solve this very real problem to push to have no guideline at all. I would encourage everyone who's been spending their valuable time trying to problem-solve here not to waste much time debating the unhelpful no guideline suggestion. --Melty girl 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, good points, and I'm being won over to the "guidelines" side (actually won back - way, way back in time I wanted a British-Irish MOS, and would still advise liasing with the WP:IMOS on this as that is an established MOS that guides language use in Northern Ireland and the 26 counties prior to 1922 and post independence). The problem, I see is what GoodDay comments on - "it would be soooo much easier to simply use British" - yes, so much easier, but we are not in the business of air brushing reality just because it easier to forget the facts. There are, however, things that we can agree on. Timrollpickering points are very enlightening - if a person is known for something which is on a UK(or GB)-wide basis then "British" is better. So, Tim Henman is a British sportsman, but David Beckham is an English sportsman. Likewise, Gordon Brown is a British politician, but Jack McConnell is a Scottish politician. (I am a little touchy about this however, since in my experience Henman is much more a star of England's eye - not to mention the "English tennis player wins/British tennis player loses" fiascos!)
I would also support the use of constructions like this in the info box:
Flag of the United Kingdom British Citizen (English)
These type of construction almost won consensus before. I only just noticed that the wording in passports in "British Citizen", not simply "British". I don't think it co-incidental, we are not the only people to have argued over this. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for the "British Citizen" constuction on passports (instead of blanket descriptions of all people as "British") was to overcome the very same difficulty that we are having here. Dealing with reality has it's advantages - other people have usually encountered the same problems before. --sony-youthpléigh 13:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Flag of the United Kingdom UK Citizen (English) is less loaded -- and shorter. --Melty girl 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Can go with that too, or Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom (English). I would not link to mix the two, like: Flag of the United Kingdom British (English). --sony-youthpléigh 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"British Citizen" means something specific under British nationality law: "UK citizen" does not. I would caution against making up terminology, even if it is less loaded. Bluewave 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There aren't citizens of the UK? Well, in that case, Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom (English) is good. --Melty girl 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that you can't describe someone as being a citizen of the UK...just that it's not a meaningful designation of nationality! "United Kingdom (English)" looks fine to me, but I suspect the really difficult thing to get consensus on is whether a particular person is "United Kingdom (English)" or "United Kingdom (British)" in cases where there is no citable reference (eg membership of a national sporting team) to suggest which is appropriate. I did a quick straw poll of some friends at the weekend and despite the fact that all of them have spent most of their lives in England (and Britain, of course) they were pretty evenly divided between those who think their nationality is "English" and those who say they are "British". I'm not suggesting my friends are representative of all the subjects of Wikipedia articles, but I think this is one of the central difficulties of resolving UK nationality. Bluewave 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
We could of course just avoid nationality all together. So, outside of clearly agreed cases (such as British politician, English sportsman, like above - if that is agreed), we just avoid mentioning nationality on UK articles. This, I think it the advantage of "British Citizen" - that it is actually defined, but avoids latbelling nationality. We could add the constituent country greatest association. So, Billy Connolly is a commedian from Scotland, and his infobox says:
Flag of the United Kingdom British Citizen (Scotland).
In the case of no clearly attributable constiuent country, use United Kingdom. --sony-youthpléigh 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Minor capitalization thing occurred to me -- shouldn't it be Flag of the United Kingdom British citizen (Scotland)? Also, I think your point about calling people "British citizens" as opposed to simply "British" is a sound idea. It emphasizes that legal citizenship/nationality is being discussed, not necessarily cultural identity/consituent country. --Melty girl 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I could give a more one sided landslide (although just as annecdotal and unscientific) - during the summer I worked for my college's clearing hotline (for admissions) and the proforma we used asked for enquirer's "nationality" without us giving any clarification about legal vs cultural vs loyalty vs what-someone-tells-you-you-are. Apart from international enquirers, every single response I took down was "British". Timrollpickering 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If the hotline dealt with admissions to a college, then by implication any fool could tell that the real question was: "Are you a UK citizen? If not, then are you an EU citizen?" So the significant answer would be "British", as that is the person citizenship. --sony-youthpléigh 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I've certainly heard Scots give their nationality as Scottish when it was obvious that the question being asked was "are you a British citizen?" In fact, I once heard one get very wound up because he couldn't understand "Scottish" wasn't a valid option on the nationality field of a customer service database - he simply couldn't accept that his nationality was British. So while it might be obvious to most of us, it's not a given that the response will be the one we expect. -- Necrothesp 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Considering some of the other question produced ambiguous answers that took time to extract the correct information (and many callers were stressed) I doubt every answer was a logical thinking through as to what I was asking the information for. Timrollpickering 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If the flag guideline is impressive then why not copy it's style? A few paragraphs explaining the nature of the UK, describing it’s nations, showing how people have gone about things, and ending up on a warning that with the UK ‘many editors do things differently’ and ‘disputes are likely to arise’! I’ll go for that!
PS. Aren’t flags a bit silly by the way? Wikipedia never used to have all this bumph! The union Jack is such a notorious (right wing) and technically ambiguous (no Wales) symbol too! Flag waving - never really liked it, and I’ve got a lovely big red dragon on mine too.
PPS. I thought we realised that ‘British’ is a clear nationality in itself to many (NI unionists esp). It deserves equal footing on the bias front! It’s probably the biggest single reason there are no guidelines! --Matt Lewis 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
(Dare I repeat it), Sooo much easier to simply use British. GoodDay 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Union Jack (Flag) is "notorious" and "right-wing"? What are you on about? Since when has our national flag been right-wing? Apart from in the opinions of the obsessively PC or obsessively nationalist brigade of course, and they're a tiny minority. Although I do agree with getting rid of flags from Wikipedia - I loathe these silly infoboxes that seem to be springing up everywhere, turning a serious encyclopaedia into what looks like a kids' project. -- Necrothesp 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I talking about? Certain groups were always comfortable with the Union Jack - the armed forces and royalists in particular. But you can't hide that on the streets it was used as a 'nationalistic' symbol for years (in the pro-white, pro-right way). Embarrassingly, they were not always quite the tiny minority we’d like to believe (and plenty of racism is still around). That bad image was part of the reason why the St George flag has been reclaimed the way it has been recently - though, in my opinion, that was mostly down sporting pride and a growing need for more lucid English identity. The Union Jack didn’t fit – and always had that unfortunate ‘skinhead’ stigma to it. --Matt Lewis 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Union Jack is a 'hate symbol'? GoodDay 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a common 'hate symbol' - but it does have a stigma due to the way it has been used. Tourists see a lot of it - but we don't exactly fly it outside our houses. A lot of us did in the 1977 Silver Jubilee, but the last (gold?) Jubilee went largely unnoticed in all but the most royal-loving areas. Times change over the years. --Matt Lewis 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree on the info boxes though - I far prefer prose-like text, myself - and they can look 'child-like' too - you're right. I think I like writing - if it's got to be done (and WP isn't going anywhere, unfortunately), I think using prose, rather than lists, is the way to do it. You can always add the other side when it comes to prose. --Matt Lewis 16:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::Again, the Union Jack is a hate symbol??. GoodDay 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Union Flag is any more a hate symbol than, say, the French Tricolor is a hate symbol because of its use by the far right, and that's still embraced by the French people. Far right groups will always use their national flag - that doesn't make it a hate symbol in the eyes of the majority. It's true that the Cross of St George is increasingly seen in England (although that too has been identified with far right groups, probably more so than the Union Flag), but that's more a response to the increasing use of the Scottish saltire and the Welsh dragon, Scottish and Welsh devolution, and the feeling of a growing number of English people that we are the only one of the three nations of Great Britain who are not "allowed" to express our loyalty to our country without being accused of racism and the other unpleasant aspects of nationalism (and the extremely annoying claims that there's no such thing as an English nation, as opposed to the increasing recognition of Scotland and Wales as nations). It's not a reaction against the Union Flag, but an expression of Englishness and a reaction against growing Scottish and Welsh nationalism and anti-English sentiment (e.g. the number of Scots saying they'd support any team that was playing football or rugby against England - no English person I know would reciprocate that unpleasantly unsporting sentiment).

I also, incidentally, don't think it's true that the Queen's Golden Jubilee went unnoticed - the coverage and the crowds were huge! Maybe we didn't have street parties and the like universally (although I believe there were plenty of them), but that's because the country is a very different place from what it was in 1977 - we just don't generally do that sort of community thing any more. And as my school insisted on doing maypole dances in 1977, thank God I say! -- Necrothesp 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this part of the reason for the resistance to using British in these bio articles? Many editors see the 'Union Jack' as a symbol of hate? or domination?GoodDay 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
'Domination' is an interesting word - I'm writing a new section attemping to list just the 'against' points of view (which hasn't been properly done yet). I've got an interesting point on how the word 'Britain' (which the Jack, of course, represents) can be perceived... got to get it finished first (its got quite long!)! --Matt Lewis 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Cardiff in 1977 bunting was up and down every other street. Honestly, with the Golden Jubilee, no one round here celebrated (visibly at least) at all. we haven't lost that much sociability! No-one wanted the bunting, and no-one wanted the fervour. I can see certain areas of England (some in the East End of London maybe?) still going for it though.

PS. I love the English, I just don't want to see them win anything. --Matt Lewis 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But I'm talking about British not English. GoodDay 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
RE 'the English... winning' - the above was to Necrothesp (re his cheesed-off comment on the Scottish! The Welsh are a bit like that to!). --Matt Lewis 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This Arbitrary Break sub section is a pain. All this 'flag talk' belongs at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (flags), not here. GoodDay 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion

Hi, all. Now that the discussion on the matter on this page has concluded, I've prepared the draft of a Wikipedia essay on the matter entitled "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (people from the United Kingdom)", incorporating some suggestions by Matt Lewis. Views on how the essay may be improved are welcome on its talk page. I also suggest adding the underlined sentence indicated below to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)":

The opening paragraph should give: ...

3. Nationality.

3a. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Note that there is presently no consensus as to how this guideline should apply to people from the United Kingdom.
3b.Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on the essay's talk page in which the view was expressed that calling the essay "Manual of Style" was misleading as it suggested the guidelines are official when they aren't, the essay has been renamed "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom". Its shortcut is WP:UKNATIONALS. Comments are still welcome on the essay as well as on the update to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" proposed in the box above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a look soon - try and turn my mind back! I pretty much abandoned my essay too-long and unfinished - well done on getting yours done (not to say I'll necessarily approve course..!). I'll dig mine out and refresh some of my thoughts on it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost two weeks since I posted the above notice about the essay, and there have been some useful comments on ways to improve it on its talk page. As there haven't been any objections to the proposed modification to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" indicated in the box above, I'm going ahead to make it. Of course, discussion on improving the essay can continue on its talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on draft essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom"

The discussion had been briefly moved to the essay's Talk page - but is now continuing here. For reference, the original discussion of late 2007 is in the section above ^ (still on this page, but 'block archived'). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Guideline page line

The sentence (or two) appended to the Guideline page has to be 100% right. Given the importance of the page it has to be 100% consensus too!

Having said that, it's up there as a 'work in progress' at the moment - so we need to get to work on it! I am not happy with saying there is '"presently" no consensus for the UK' as there has never been any, and IMO there is no evidence to suggest there ever will be. National identity has been an intrinsically (and expediently) flexible thing for us, as I have argued. I've chaged it to "there is no consenus for the UK". --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving the following 4 comments up to here (hope you don't mind, Jack)--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As the editor who prepared the draft essay (based partly on suggestions by Matt Lewis) and amended "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" to refer to it, the reason why I said "presently no consensus" was because I'm an optimist. Sure, there's no consensus on the issue now, but who's to say there won't be at some stage in the future? Why is it POV to suggest that consensus might be reached among Wikipedians on the matter in the future? But it's a small point; I've no objections to "presently" being dropped.
The essay deals with the UK situation because it arose out of a discussion relating to an article on a UK national. I'm happy if other editors wish to provide examples that might expand the applicability of the article to other countries. But perhaps it would be better to try and agree on the article in its present form first, then start a separate discussion on whether and how it should be expanded. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just done that above, Jack - made seperate discussions! You've answered some of them together. I'm trying to get things going again, and to avoid confusion with your essay's Talk page (it's not a 100% fair consensus unless the discussion only goes on in here IMO. Too few editors seemed to notice the talk had been moved - though you did indicate where people could comment, I know.) It's about an official guidline page, remember.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Why is it POV to suggest that consensus might be reached among Wikipedians on the matter in the future?"
- Jack that's self-evidently 100% POV (especially on Guideline page!) - you've got to let that go! You shouldn't just say 'why?', when I've written so many thousdands of words now trying to explain it - I know I've been completely ignored on the matter, but you don't have to rub it in!!! There has never been consensus on this intrinsically flexible matter, and it is only your POV that there will be. Let's stick to simple hard statements, and logical lines.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm letting that point go! The inclusion or exclusion of the word "presently" is not a biggie to me. I thought transferring the discussion over to the essay's talk page seemed a good idea since there is no consensus on the issue so this Manual of Style won't (ever?) deal with the issue directly, but of course am fine with it continuing here if other editors think it appropriate. For discussion purposes, you might want to have two sections: one on whether the essay is all right as it stands, and another one on whether it should be extended to other countries. At the moment the subsection you've got on the second issue is buried in the midst of other subsections about the current essay. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we can brainstorm these issues alongside each other, now you've got the basics down in your essay. I don't think changing it to be wider than the UK (if we do) will be that hard. It's could be mostly just wording, with the UK as a principle example(?) - lets discuss in the subsection!--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is currently an essay. Can that change?

I've added a line to say the link is currently an essay - if we ever get it right there maybe another place available for it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can it, or the guideline, mention other 'areas' (states, nationalities, countries etc)?

I have changed the Guideline page line to: "No consensus exists in some areas of 'Nationality', such as with people from the United Kingdom. There is an essy on people from the United Kingdom that could be used as a guideline for similar collective states, or for areas with disputed rights."

I think the essay might be best expanded(?) It may not be as hard as it seems - and others can add any worthwhile details of examples over time, perhaps. It is UK-centric at the moment simply because Wikipedia is US/UK-centric.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this will be all that hard to convert. UK can be the principal (or first) example within it. It could develop over time, but it's creation could be just a wording issue. What do you think? I notice Melty Girl has changed my edit above to someting similar, where she has kept the mention of other 'areas' (only less explicitly) - perhaps they can be referred to in the essay? Just an idea. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is possible anymore within the essay - it has developed into too detailed a guide.
However, I do think the main guideline "nationality" point should mention complexity and diversity in some way. (not just point to the UK - or the UK talk pages, as it's doing now). Some short 'be aware' line maybe, that suggests searching the column to the right? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know we should be trying to avoid an overly US/UK-centric approach on Wikipedia generally, however if there are specific problems relating to particular areas or places I don't see a problem in trying to address them as long as you are clear about the scope and limits of what you propose. There are definitely a host of recurring problems relating to description of nationality for people from (or linked with) the United Kingdom. If we can find a consensus for these specific problems then that is a positive practical achievement. If the solution can be used to inform other attempts to solve problems relating to different states or even to provide a basis for universal policy then that would be all well and good - but even if it cannot be used thus then nothing is lost and it is still worthwhile.
The particular difficulties I've encountered relate to living or relatively recently deceased people, so I'm not so concerened with the historical aspects of the discussions (although I recognise their importance). My position is support for the principle that for people whose passport would say "British Citizen" then "British" should be the default descriptor, while "Welsh" or "Scottish" or "English" can be used in cases where:
  • It is uncontested that the subject considers themself Welsh or Scottish or English and is widely known as such (eg. the Sean Connery scenario). Or,
  • There is substantial uncontested evidence that the subject's family were from one particular constituent country and the subject has been associated solely with that constituent country for most of his or her life.
I don't want to get into the debate about Ireland and Northern Ireland because I know of the complexities involved and do not feel I have a level of knowledge sufficient to add anything definitive.
I've only just become aware of this discussion so please try to forgive me if I touch on ground that has been covered previously by participants. Indeed I would add the small criticism that it has been quite hard work to find and follow the debate even though I was previously involved in similar discussions elsewhere on Wiki (eg. Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_11#Nationality). One clearly needs to be a keen and connected Wikipedian to be sure of being alerted to such events. And even when you come across a reference that leads you to part of the discussion, the trail of separate articles and talk pages is convoluted for a relative amateur like me.
I want to end on a positive note.I think this is a worthwhile effort and I hope a consensus does emerge.
Circusandmagicfan (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

[edit] Northern Ireland

This bit has been recently edited - it's another part we have to get right before its shown to the world, really.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The main sentence on NI currently reads;
The majority of people from Northern Ireland are also entitled to Irish citizenship, on the same basis as people born in the Republic of Ireland.
Perhaps a further line of detail could come after it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
People of Northern Ireland are also entitled to Irish citizenship, on the same basis as people born in the Republic of Ireland.
Every citizen of Northern Ireland born prior to 2005 can apply for Irish (Republic of Ireland) citizenship. They can have their existing British passport anulled, or hold a dual citizenship. Every baby born in Northen Ireland since 2005 must have at least one Irish or Northen Irish parent, before being accepted for Irish citizenship (regardless of whether they are registered as a British citizen first, and apply to become Irish - or a dual citizen - at a later date).
Current revision (or compression). It can't be that hard at all, but every time I look at this, I go away with a slight headache!--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Last line since corrected to "- or a dual citizen -".--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leading on from the message Matt left on my talk. The real trouble of going into any depth of discussing joint citizenship in Northern Ireland is the difficulty in comparing UK and Irish nationality laws. While effectively they are identical, in approach they take very different forms. The Irish system is based on entitlements (e.g. an Irish citizen is a person who is entitled to ...) whereas the British system is more descriptive (e.g. a British citizen is ...). I am an Irish citizen because I am entitled to do things that only an Irish citizen can do. Matt (I presume), you are a British citizen because you are. The Irish system applies in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as it does in the Republic. It doesn't matter if you were born north or south of the border.

It was not until 2001 that both jurisdictions were made completely equivalent, but this was retroactive. (In most circumstances it wouldn't have mattered anyway, as the changes applied to jus soli only - citizenship by descent, including "from birth", applied to nearly everyone in Northern Ireland anyway owing the the messy way that partition came about). The current situation, regardless of the legal differences between the two systems, is that a Northern Ireland person is both British and Irish citizen "by default" (in citizenship, not identity). If they want to give up one or the other you need to explicitly apply to do so in writing to the relevant British or Irish authorities. The British-Irish agreement explains the situation as it is without the legal fuss:

“ [The two Governments] recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland. ”

Finally, there appears to be some confusion about the parental restrictions. A change was made in 2005 (requiring a constitutional amendment). Before then the Republic had an unlimited implementation of jus soli. Changing this only brought the Republic in line with the rest of Europe (the UK had made a similar change in 1982). In fact, it was the question of Northern Ireland that finally forced it. A Chinese citizen, temporarily resident in Wales, was advised to give birth in Belfast so that her child would be an Irish citizen, and so she (through her child) would be entitled to permanent residency in the UK. Describing the post-2005 parental restriction is meaningless, the previous absence of it being the more notable thing. --sony-youthpléigh 01:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I get it now, but we have to get it right in terms of help for the guideline - so people are aware of the different nationality labels exist in NI. How about this?
"Note on Northern Ireland nationality (British, Irish and dual citizenships)
Northern Ireland: British, Irish and dual citizenships
People of born in Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship by default (Irish citizenship being a fundamental "entitlement", that extends to all of the island). This automatically allows for 'dual' British and Irish citizenship. Unequivocal 'single citizenship' can be applied for from the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Consequently, Northern Irish people can be British-only, Irish-only, British while flexible on becoming Irish, or explicitly both British and Irish".
Please ammend if incorrect. I can see the ambiguity stems from the 'entitlement' nature to Irish citizenship law.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"of" in "People of Northern Ireland" is really "born in" - hence the Chinese woman. Strictly it is "with a parent born anywhere in Ireland". But immigrants to Belfast etc would not qualify. I'll change to "born in" above anyway. Unless the 2005 change has affected that.Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not 100% confident over this part to be honest - If you make the change in the essay, maybe it will stick. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean - I've removed "Grand" above. Here's the official site. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith?

I consider it to be borderline bad faith that the creation of this new 'essay' was not notified to the relevant WikiProjects. That failure casts into severe doubt the motives for this. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea was borne more out of naivety (in my opinion), and couldn’t initially be stopped - so a reasonable 'consensus' for someone to try an essay eventually came about when discussion had petered out (no one complained) – though there was certainly no consensus for it to be prematurely displayed, as it has been. The motivation was essentially to make Wikipedia a ‘simpler’ place! I’ve always argued this motivation was unfairly anti-diversity, and intrinsically pro-British.
The talk is (and has) been going on in the above Talk page (it was only briefly in here). Please contribute – there is much in the essay that needs to be looked at by members of the various home nation Wikiprojects (eg. the tone, the examples of use, even the validity of the whole exercise). A lot of my own revisions to it could be innappropriate - I still don't mind if the whole thing goes, though I can at least accept some kind of way through it now, which I didn't originally. Perhaps if it sticks, it should only ever remain as an essay - albeit a high-profile one - which might not be decided is right anyway. Everyone should know about it, for sure.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The essay grew out of an extended discussion on the issue on the talk page of "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)". All the relevant WikiProjects were notified of this discussion, and I believe a number of members of these projects participated. Subsequently, after I had completed the first draft of the essay, I posted a further notice announcing it on that talk page. Perhaps I should have thought of also posting fresh notices on the talk pages of the WikiProjects, but it simply didn't occur to me to do so. I figured that anyone who had been interested in the matter would have been watching the "Manual of Style (biographies)" talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've placed announcements on all the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is categorically not bad faith - one should assume good faith per policy anyway!
Personally I like this essay. I think something about WP:MOSFLAG ought to be mentioned too however. Other than that it gets the thumbs up from me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
-- And something about people from the pre-Acts of Union times (i.e. Shakespeare is always English, not British!). -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Will amend the notices I posted in the WikiProject talk pages. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This essay doesn't seem to address anything before 1800

The UK was formed in 1801. We have quite a few biographies about people that lived in Great Britain before the formation of the UK, and many of those articles are subject to the same debates as mentioned in this essay. For example, many days were wasted debating whether Mary Wollstonecraft was "British" or "English" (or even "Anglo-Irish"). Perhaps something could be mentioned about how to handle people from Great Britain as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting a brief 'Timeline' here - with examples for each main 'era' (43AD onwards). I'll create a discussion for it on the main biog Talk, when I've done it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your latest updates to the essay:
  • I feel the relevance of the subsection "Celtic heritage within the British Isles" is doubtful. It's very interesting, but are we now suggesting that people ought also to consider using the appellations "Irish Gaelic", "Scottish Gaelic", "Welsh", "Manx" and "Cornish"? If so, this needs further discussion.
  • The idea of having a timeline is good, but I feel it may be a bit confusing for people trying to find an answer to, say, the question "How should I refer to Emery Molyneux, who lived in England in the 16th century"? Perhaps it would be better to rearrange the table in the following form, so that editors can identify an appropriate appellation to use according to where in Britain a person is or was from and what era he or she lived in:
Part of British Isles Date
(CE)		 Events Suggested appellations Example
Whole 43–500 Roman invasion of the Celtic tribes of Britannia. "Britain" is often used to refer to "Britannia". "Ancient Briton" or "Brython" (not "British") Boudica
Scotland 500–1707 Consolidation of Scotland "Scottish" or "Scots" (the Scots are a composition of various ethnic groups, including the Picts and Gaels) Robert the Bruce
1707–present Unification of Scotland with England and Wales See "Modern-age naming methods in use" Angus Purden
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I look at it, it's more about showing what people do do, rather than advising them about any specific way to go. What is 'appropriate' is often a mix. The examples show that people already do use Cornish and Manx - I'm just documenting that, rather than suggesting it should be done. The article has loads of caveats. It was never going to be simple, or all that short. (Scottish and Irish gaelic, Welsh etc are only languages - not sure what point you made there).
I'm trying to infuse a little flavour, just to show people that the UK is involved, and not simple - it shows them what they are up against better than only bullet points can, imo. If it was easy to find the appellation that they needed, they would hardly need to consult a guide, after all!
The actual 'Celtic' issue is crucial to the UK (it means nothing to some, but to others it means everything). Remember Scotland in 2010! The cliche, or joke, by the way, is that Anglo-Saxons are cooler, and the celts are warmer (so to speak). It's hard to explain something which can be so meaningless on one hand, yet in certain situations can mean so much on the other (not least politically).
I'll look at your suggestions for rearranging the timeline. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize that "Scottish Gaelic", etc., are languages, judging from what you mentioned in the essay, but it is possible also to use at least some of them to refer to "nationality" in the broadest sense of the term (e.g., "Cornish" and "Manx"), and I was using them as examples to seek clarification on why this matter was referred to in the essay at all. Flavour or not, I think something more needs to be explicitly said to tie the discussion about the Celtic heritage in the British Isles with the nationality issue, otherwise it is rather confusing to the reader. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the essay itself

The stated intent is having a standard way of doing things, eventually arriving at proposed rules conventions. The use of such descriptives is implicitly ambiguous and varies by context and circumstance, IMHO. An acceptance of things like that, from Whitman's Leaves of Grass:

     Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I do.
     I am immense. I can contain contradictions.

So can the UK (I have no say here). And so can Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents 0.010197 GBP worth. Notuncurious (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two minor objections

  • "Under British law, these four countries are an equal union" - that's entirely inaccurate. An 'equal union' implies equality of parts, but that has never been the intention - the intention was to form an entirely new country where the constituent parts were irrelevant - British law represents the equality of individuals and parliamentary constituencies, not the equality of four countries.
When did the intention for a new country occur? Scotland always had its own laws anyway. Certainly Scotland expected to keep being Scottish when the union was formed (ie no specific subservience to England - Catholic issues etc excepted). Regarding British law, is there nothing on equality over the countries? If it says equality for all individuals - you could say that amounts to the same thing. The word 'Union' is in the 'UK' - surely it must be mentioned in the law somewhere - even if it's very old law (as a lot of law is). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The number of minority language speakers are presented as a percentage in some constituent countries and not others. Seems to be no real justification for this omission. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added the Scottish percentages, I'll look at Cornish and Manx. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A title change? Bring in historical use?

The current title is Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I'm not sure it fully covers it any more. A small change would be:

Example: "Nationality of citzens of the United Kingdom".

I think "of" is stronger than "from", and "citizens" is more defining still. Alternatives could be along the lines of:

Example: "Nationality and the United Kingdom"
Example: "Nationalities of the current United Kingdom"
Example: "Nationality labels within the United Kingdom"

I think "label" is preferable to "identity" (which is broader than just nationality).

Historical use:

On the other hand, the article has become of more historical use (which I think is great, and gives it a lot more purpose) - is there an argument for changing the title to fully cover this? (as someone has suggested in an edit note). Keeping to "people" (or "peoples"?) rather than "citizen" might be better in this case. We don't really need to mention 'people' at all, of course.

Example: "Nationality labels of the United Kingdom"
Example: "Guide to nationality labelling and the United Kingdom"
Example: "Guide to nationality labelling throughout UK history" (or some such title)
British Isles?

If we use the useful "British Isles" it would have to include Ireland - which may not be such a bad idea, given the historical cultural cross-over.

Example: "Nationality and the British Isles"
Example: "Nationality and the British Isles (including the UK and Ireland)"
Example: "Guide to nationality and the British Isles"
Example: "Nationality within the British Isles"
Example: "Nationality labelling within the British Isles"
Example: "Guide to nationality labelling within the British Isles (including the United Kingdom and Ireland)"

An advantage of using the "British Isles is that it would cover any future changes to the UK - as the British Isles will always remain.

Stay concise

Ireland already features in the guide - would it become too complicated to fully include it? Bearing in mind, of course, that we must keep the guide as consise as possible - as it's meant to be an 'easy to use' guide to the currently-used (and most apposite choice of) label usage. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I have made this page in my user space - Nationality within the British Isles (including the United Kingdom and Ireland). It is essentially the same page, but covering the British Isles. Feel free to edit it and comment on it. It needs better maps, and some details on Ireland etc. (also the probs below still need addressing) --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of resources:
Wikipedia articles that link to the Brtitish Isles page
Talk:British Isles/name debate
British Isles naming dispute
If using the "British Isles" is going to cause too much offence (which I personally think is as silly as renaming the Irish Sea), but if it does, I would suggest "Nationality labelling within the United Kingdom and Ireland". Only the geographical term fully defines it, though.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with the necessity to include the Republic of Ireland - as well as Mann and the Channel Islands - in the page, as it is quite artificial to discuss Northern Ireland without reference to the Republic and artificial to refer to the United Kingdom without reference to Northern Ireland (and indeed Ireland as a whole). It's the wider area that's confusing for people and thus, while "United Kingdom' covers most, it doesn't cover everything. However, I would avoid using the term British Isles (I largely agree with your comments on the BI page, BTW), at least in the title. I'd go for, "Nationality in Britain and Ireland" or similar - aside from any other reason it would not risk alienating many Irish editors. --sony-youthpléigh 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Irish editors! Problem is they way I react to bullying - I don't know if I can bite my lip. I'd rather use British Isles, as it is simply the geographical term designed for this very use. What appeases the anti-BI Irish, is set to offend others (not that some of them seem to care about that!). From the beginning I have argued for no weight either way (especially towards 'British') - it's almost as impossible as I originally thought it would be (when I said a guideline is totally foolish). I just think it's so bloody immature to apply 'weight' to a geographical term like the British Isles! They call it their "future" - what morbid stupidity! I'm going to dream of every pub being an Irish pub tonight. Where does the madness of nationality end! How about "Nationality in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Ireland"? There is always "Nationality in the British Islands and Ireland" - which is in effect the same as your "Nationality in Britain and Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It think it's time for an essay title change. I suggest either:

  • Nationality labelling of Ireland and the United Kingdom
  • Nationality labelling of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom
  • Nationality labelling of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

It's alphabetical. Any comments? Which of these is best: 'of', 'in', 'within', 'and' etc...? I'm leaning towards 'of' - it seems to cover the chronological aspect the best.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts here? Perhaps people could state their own preference? (even if it is not to change the exisiting title). If the essay is to include Ireland at all (and I can't see how it cannot now it's chronological) I feel this needs to happen soon.
How about "Nationality labelling in Ireland and the United Kingdom"? Proving the curtailed names don't matter - it is short and sweet. I don't mind "Nationality labelling in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" either (including the word British word might be useful to some).-
Can a title be long? -
"Nationality labelling guide for the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including England, Scotland, Wales and the British Islands)"
Can anyone argue with the last one? Maybe this is one large subject that demands one large title! I favour adding "labelling" but it doesn't have to of course.-Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Ireland

OK, some Ireland detail has been brought in, so I'll address that as a possible start towards a new "British Isles"-related essay title. The Anglo-Irish section looks like it could be fine to me (though maybe a touch too wordy, as it stands?). The row below it I think needs work though:

Date (CE) Event Event-related nationality Example of use
1607 - mid-1600s Flight of the Earls, Plantation of Ulster The Gaelic order in Ireland collapses following protracted war with England and central English authority is consolidated in Ireland. A hundred thousand English and Scottish settlers are "planted" in Ulster to ensure a quash resistance in the province, sowing communal differences that underly the modern conflict in Northern Ireland. English, Welsh Scots Irish

Does it need both events? (the plantation event seems to deal more with nationality labels). It needs to be made clear under 'Event' that it's in Ireland. Is the 'Event-related nationality' Ulster-Scott? (Why then Scotts-Irish? - is that used instead?) It needs an 'example of use' added.

Scotland

I find this row on Scotland confusing - it needs wiki-links to follow (I can't find "south of Forth") and needs to be fully self-explaining too. Does it need all those examples?:

Date (CE) Event Event-related nationality Example of use
300-1200 (excluding Galloway c. 900-1230s ) south of Forth before 1200s British or English/Anglo-Saxon/etc (depending on culture) British or English (depending on culture) Run of Alt Clut, Owen the Bald, or, Cuthbert of Lindisfarne, Heathored

Also, can someone fill out the bit on "Gaels and Picts" in the Scottish row above this - just a line or two of detail will do (nothing too much). Does that row need so many 'examples of use' too? - do any of them duplicate?

I'm sure we can make it work, providing we always remember it's ultimately a usage guide, and not specifically about the histories.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical accuracy?

The article currently talks about Wales becoming unified with England under the Tudors in the 16th century. A large part of South Wales was annexed during the Norman Conquest and its aftermath (eleventh century) however, and there was much fighting and conquest in the Northern area under the reign of Edward I (End of 13th/start of 14th century). Witness the many castles built along the North Welsh coast during this period by both sides! Historical documents relate to Llewelyn ap Gruffudd, known as the "Prince of Wales" - whose title was given to Edward I's son Edward II to indicate his new belief in his 'overlordship' of the Northern Welsh lands (Gwynedd in particular)...lets not ignore the mediaeval side of British history if we're going to discuss inter-nationality conflicts, surely? The reign of Edward I is particularly significant in terms of Anglo-Welsh and Anglo-Scottish conflict!! --Etherella (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Matt. Bearing in mind, as you said, that the essay is ultimately intended to be a guide to editors on how to refer to the nationality of people from Britain and Ireland and not an article about the history of the British Isles, have you (and other editors, of course) given thought to my suggestion above to convert the timeline into a table according to location within the British Isles and date? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Removing) Celtic heritage

Why was the Celtic heritage and usage table removed? DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure myself. I found this edit to be unconstructive and significant to warrent discussion first. I'm inclined to restore it. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I made the edit you're referring to. I pruned some parts of the article mainly because it was duplicating information in other pages, and that the information in the other pages was better and more up to date. I added references to the articles, so no information was lost. For example the celtic heritage table is replicated in the Celtic nations article, etc. Bardcom (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe you removed alot of context for readers though. There is no harm duplicating stuff here from mainspace articles. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jza84, thank you for your response. I don't understand your assertion that a lot of context is removed? Much of the information removed provides background info on the history of the UK, and it's culture, etc. This information is not necessary here - this essay is to help people decide how to assign UK nationality to people in articles. There was far too much non-essential information duplicated for such a simple topic. The big danger with duplication is that if information is updated (for example, census information on Gaelic speakers - as was the case here), only the main article will get updated, and the duplicated information will fall out of date, etc. Bardcom (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the essay back to where it was before this edit - initially because I thought too much was done all at once, and I also have issues with the reasons for it.

  • I’m not sure the 'content fork' argument works here - it is more info to update - but as this essay is a ‘form’ of guideline page, it is surely perfectly fine in this case. The essay needs to cover the contexts for sure - we've found it's impossible without doing this. Certainly it is not in an ideal state yet (espectially the history parts) - I've put requests here for help, maybe we should look elsewhere for help too.
  • The term "British Isles" needs to be properly included in the essay, though personally I'm happy now to remove it from the prospective new-title list (as some Wikipedians will always argue for its removal). But the edit in question made only one single “See also” reference to it – and to what is ultimately the name-dispute page - not to the main “British Isles” article. This essay is about covering the terms, not removing them - we can't remove it from the essay. Regarding the "losing context" argument Jza84 mentioned above - I would agree, and add that the new 'linked context' here is a biased one. I think we should work on the representation of the "British Isles" term, rather than choose which page/pages to link a footnote to.

The reason the essay got so involved was because avenues kept appearing that needed to be covered. Eventually we will cover it all properly - and if we can't do that - then it is simply a bad idea to have at all (which was always my tough line on it from the start). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I've reverted your undo of my edit - no consensus was reached here first. My undo is based on a couple of points. Content fork is a perfectly good reason to remove the Celtic history section, and it is not relevant to the primary purpose of the essay. You can make reference to celtic heritage where required, if required, but I did not see any where in the essay that required this section. I was tempted to remove it altogether. You also say that the term "British Isles" needs to be properly included in the essay. This would be a mistake as you would be mixing a geographical term with a political discussion, and the term is contentious. Creating an essay that tries to include Ireland in a discussion on nationalities of the UK could be construed as reckless trolling. Bardcom (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've revert your change Bardcom per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You removed massive amounts of text without discussion or a good rationale. Please acheive a consensus to remove this. I'm not satisfied with the reasons you've given so far. The material restored is very helpful. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've explained why it was removed, and I responded to other concerns. Your comments contain weasel words designed to exaggerate the issue. I did not remove massive amounts of text in the way you suggest. I merely removed duplicated text. Nothing is lost. And I linked to the appropriate articles. Also, you say that no good rationale was given. On the contrary, this appears to be your opinion, whereas the fact is that I did give a good rationale, and you have seen it and already commented on it. I replied to your concerns and received no response in turn - instead you chose to undo the edit. This isn't how wikipedia works, and it is rude behaviour. In the interests of having a discussion, can you help me understand why the contexts are required to be in the essay and why redirects aren't better? Can you also help me understand why it is even necessary to have a detailed Celtic history section at all. It is not even referred to in the article. Rather than knee jerk reactions, please try to remember that my edits were made in good faith, to improve the article, and do not deserve two reverts without arguing for their inclusion. Bardcom (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What policy are you alluding to that states "duplicated text" should be removed? You seem to object to "British Isles" and "Celtic heritage" but you've removed far more, including historical examples of nationality. Where is that table found elsewhere on Wikipedia?
Your edits were made in good faith, but with a negative impact I believe. Please also remember to assume good faith yourself. I'm not satisfied with your reasoning still for such a massive edit. The text was very, very helpful, I believe. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you keep saying very very helpful, but not once have you or Matt actually pointed out why it was required for this article. I directly asked you the question already, and you have yet to respond. You are correct that I object to the article being expanded to include the British Isles, reason given above in response to Matt as you should have seen already. It is a contentious term and is not required if you are only talking about the UK. My changes improve the quality of the article. It keeps the article short and to the point. You have yet to make your case as to why the information removed is required to be in the article beyond vague assertions of "very very helpful". You have yet to make your case as to what point is not being made by the article if the information is removed. I await your response. --Bardcom (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, your large reductive edit is not an immediate consensus! I also am not happy at all with your rationale: I've fully explained above the questions you are re-asking here. What do you think of my reasoning? It is wrong to say no-one has addressed your concerns - I (and Jza84) have taken the time to do so.
I do not agree that you have fully explained the questions I asked. The essay is a manual of style on how to phrase the opening paragraph for people in the UK. Great! The version of the essay I changed had grown over time and needed trimming. Why does it not make sense to refer to other articles rather than duplicate them? The closest I've seen to a reason is helpful, and I believe in the long term it will not be helpful. Bardcom (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Only a handful of people in my experience would choose to see Ireland's inclusion in this essay as "reckless trolling"! Please don't bring the OTT language of the "British Isles debate" into here!! It became apparent that we needed to cover the UK choronologically - people simply kept requesting it! It them became a "primary importance" of the essay - it's now chronological. There was no other reason than demand - and the histories of "the UK" and Ireland have simply crossed paths. The is the place to show how it has been detailed - with even a space to say what happened. Perhaps you don't think that space is enough? (it's flexible).
In my view, trying to force fit Ireland into an essay on Nationality of people in the United Kingdom *is* trolling, and *is* reckless. If you are familiar with the ongoing debates, you would already know this. Since you obviously do, it begs the question on why you think it is necessary. You say that people simply kept requesting it. Can you point me to some of these requests please - I can't find any on either this talk page or essay talk page. Bardcom (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has 'forced' anything! Ireland simply was part of the UK - and historically speaking that's simply an empirical truth. It doesn't mean that 19/20 century people like Oscar Wilde have to be called "British"! This essay has simply become a chronological guide! Why shouldn't it? You go on about "good faith" - why do you contest my statement that many requests have been made for a historical use? I will now spend some of my valuable time collecting them all together for you, so you don't have to bother looking - gee thanks. Why would they not be made!? In retrospect, it was guaranteed (though I myself didn't foresee it going that way at first). You need very good arguments to stop a clear natural process like this! You might not like the past, but you can't change it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can also comment in the section on a title change that would cover Ireland.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that an essay covering more than the United Kingdom is appropriate. I believe the essay should focus on being a short sharp article on the United Kingdom. Bardcom (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But ignoring all historical biogs, obviously! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom, a point of communication; UKNATIONALS is an essay, not an article. Please be mindful of that distinction. I also await your response to my queries on what policies you are alluding to. Certainly, Wikipedia is not censored, so your objections at certain terms as a justification to remove parts of an essay are nullfied per policy. Again, where is that table found elsewhere on Wikipedia? I'm with Matt Lewis on this all the way I'm afraid. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Jza84, stop trying to put words in my mouth. I never alluded to any policy, it's common sense and good practice to not duplicate information in several places. Also, please no personal attacks - you imply that I am trying to censor this article. I am not, and your attempts to make me look like the "bad guy" are in bad faith. Please behave. This essay, while not currently being promoted as an article, is also not being promoted as a short personal point of view essay. Several authors have worked on this
In addition, the table you refer to more aptly belongs to the article Celtic nations and I propose to move it there. It is a useful table. This table was only added to the article by Matt in Feb, and is unnecessay - as is the entire history lesson.
You have also ignored the questions I asked you above. I am still awaiting your response. Why is it necessary to duplicate information when a link and suitable small quotations can make the same point. Why is the celtic history section there at all? Who are the people that asked for the article to be expanded - where are the references? Bardcom (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's about context. Stop shouting that you are being "ignored", and just read a few things instead. This is a chronological guide and I'm now tediously compiling the "proof" you have lazily demanded that people have requested a historical use here! --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Examples of consensus for historical use:
I can remember an earlier comment (from last year I think) that specifically stated the need for historical use – but it no-doubt didn’t use the keyword I’m searching for: I’m not going to trawl through for it. I have found these (using "historical" as a search, and spotting some others as I went):
  • This essay doesn't seem to address anything before 1800. Perhaps something could be mentioned about how to handle people from Great Britain as well. Kaldari (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • lets not ignore the mediaeval side of British history if we're going to discuss inter-nationality conflicts, surely? The reign of Edward I is particularly significant in terms of Anglo-Welsh and Anglo-Scottish conflict!! Etherella (talk)
  • The particular difficulties I've encountered relate to living or relatively recently deceased people, so I'm not so concerned with the historical aspects of the discussions (although I recognise their importance). Circusandmagicfan (talk)
  • This does not include the many times in debate it has become clear that we have found that the problem with the term “British” was that it needs its historical context explained!! To pick one of many: “Problem 4: Historically "English" and "British" were often used interchangeably” Timrollpickering
  • The idea of having a timeline is good, JackLee
  • And something about people from the pre-Acts of Union times (i.e. Shakespeare is always English, not British!). -- Jza84 • (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why was the Celtic heritage and usage table removed? DuncanHill (talk)
Contributors to the history elements have been:
Matt Lewis, Sony-youth, MurphiaMan, Deacon of Pndapetzim, JackLee (in Talk) (and possibly others).
Maybe one or two of these did not originally want it (I don't know) - but they've all accepted it. Also, if someone says this: “I think this is a worthwhile effort and I hope a consensus does emerge.” I think it constitutes is a thumbs up. It’s a lot of people (12 unique editors), considering the total amount in the debate (which is fairly low). You are the first one to kick up such a fuss against it! (rather than want to edit it). I would presume there are many not mentioned who are perfectly fine with the chronological element - including those who have simply read the essay and not found reason to comment.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland (law making powers?)

(moved from article's Talk)

"Scotland has always had its own law-making powers". This is not true; Scotland has always had its own separate legal system (see the entry on Scots law) but as that article makes clear, from 1707 to 1999 it shared a legislature with England, i.e. the Houses of Parliament in London passed laws for Scotland. Since the statement is irrelevant it might just be removed rather than corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.134 (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed line to "Scotland has always had its own legal system", rather than remove.

[edit] I know it's just an essay but...

  • ...the first two sections ("Constituent countries" of the UK" and "Timeline (with historical examples)") read like something from the main namespace rather than the Wikipedia: namespace, and make the sort of assumptions and omissions that prick the same sensitivities that presumably motivated its writing. What would the essay lose by simply deleting all those sections?
  • ...real examples are best. Irish Murdoch and George Best are much more illuminating than Muira McClair.
  • ...does the essay relate only to modern people? For example: is Clive of India English or British? His article is silent on this.

jnestorius(talk) 06:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.
  • You will need to explain what you feel the "assumptions and omissions that prick the same sensitivities that presumably motivated its writing" are! This is a kind-of 'cross-over' essay re namespace, as some essays are. It's a bit early for it, though, I would agree.
  • I agree real examples are the most illuminating, but there are times when it is best to make up a name! The essay is principally for people who have little or no knowledge of the UK (and consequently Ireland). Perhaps the greatest difficulty is making it right for people who have it though!
  • The essay has made inroads in the history of the UK (and consequently Ireland) - it certainly needs improvement. Perhaps the Clive of India editors felt he was better represented without a nationality title? Maybe this could be some kind of guide for them?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a good test of the usefulness of the essay would be whether it helped to assign a nationality for Clive of India. Bluewave (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Helps you mean? As this is a page that exists (and not all do) - I'll give it a go. The essay says research - on the net and talk pages etc. He seems to be an Englishman who brought British rule to India (BBC - "Clive engineered British rule in India"). "British" might seem appropriate, but like the essay says - the Talk should be read.
Following the guidelines in the essay then, I added "a [[[British]] diplomat who" to the Clive of India introduction. Lets see if it sticks! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good plan! I'll watch Clive of India with interest! Bluewave (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Ireland

Why is there an edit war developing over how to present Republic of Ireland? The dispute? Republic of Ireland -VS- Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Subjects" of the crown as "nationality"?

This unreferenced line has been re-inserted:

British citizens are also subjects of the British Monarch and may be referred to as "subjects"; some do not prefer this faintly archaic usage — as above, it should be checked in each case.

It needs a reference found for it at very least ("See also" is the place) - but does it really relate to the "opening paragraph nationality"?

I've removed it again - it needs discussion. In an edit note, someone has questioned "even post-1982?" and the "fainlty archaic" qualifier suggests "checking" it in each case - but that suggests "subject" it is a suitable word for the "opeining paragraph nationailty"!! Surely it is not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving the sections on names etc

The current 1-23 (as of Oct 26th 2007) seem to be broadly on the same subject (names and pseudonyms etc)- and I'm sure are best kept together. I notice the last entry amongst them was September 27th - a month ago now. Is it time to Archive them as 'February 2007 to September 2007' - or are they still too alive? We have a quite a long page here now! --Matt Lewis 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone any feelings? - I don't want to just jump in and do it (I wasn't part of any of it), but my PC's a little slow! --Matt Lewis 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is now over 330K and a pain to come back to. As it now has some new posts at the beginning, I'm going to select some earlier sections and just archive them (everything unchanged in over 6 months). I'll do it on Sunday night 3rd Feb (UK time). If I see any new dates, I'll keep the topic they relate to in. Any objections, or anything to keep? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this page definitely needs archiving. I wonder if some of the discussions should go into "Categorized contributions" rather than be archived by date? I'm thinking in particular of the extended discussion on nationality of people from the UK. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've archived 21 sections. I archived the old 'Honorific prefixes', even though it had a couple of comments a week ago (but nothing since). I only kept 'Lead names' of the old stuff. Cut and paste anything back if needed.
Sorry Jack - you got in too late! I don't mind if you want to create cats, it might make sense here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it, the page is still big (260K!) - so maybe you can archive all the UK stuff together, when its over perhaps (I've still got to comment, sorry).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amendment to "Subsequent uses of names" section

How about:

"Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind or are not addressed by their surnames (such as in Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures); in those cases refer to specific Wikipedia manuals of style and/or address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced this is even needed, but it's certainly not acceptable as currently written. First, Icelandic people do have surnames. Second, I'm not sure about Vietamese people -- perhaps you (or someone else) could elaborate on what the naming practices are, because given your repeated misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "surname", I'm not sure whether to take your word for it or not that Vietnamese people do not have surnames. Last, the second phrase makes no sense whatsoever: you're amending an MOS guideline by telling people to consult an MOS guideline. Huh? You need to make specific style prescriptions for the specific exceptions you're talking about. --Melty girl (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
" First, Icelandic people do have surnames." - And they are not called by their surnames. - I thought this was clear.
"Icelanders formally address others by their first name. For example, former prime minister Halldór Ásgrímsson would not be addressed as Ásgrímsson or Mr. Ásgrímsson by another Icelander; he would either be addressed only by his first name or his full name. The cultural meaning of an Icelander's last name is not that it is a part of one's name, but a short description of who one is. Halldór is Ásgrímsson — a son of Ásgrímur. Legally, it is a part of his name. Culturally, it is a definition of who begat whom, even if that definition is seemingly vague."
And to add Wikipedia articles about Icelandic people (Halldór Ásgrímsson) subsequently use given names - I.E. Halldór

Also, Vietnamese people have family names, but just like the Icelandics, they are usually referred to by given names. I.E. Ngo Dinh Diem is called Diem, and that is his given name

The examples of the Vietnamese and Icelandics are people who have surnames but are not referred by their surnames. The Javanese are an example of a people with only one name (most of the time).

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments, I assume that this has been given the green light :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? There is no consensus here. There's only two comments: one's a no, and I'm not sure what the other one is. And my no has specific comments you've failed to address. Wait for more comments. Even if you end up adding something to the policy, the wording needs improvement, as this prescription is very vague as currently written. --Melty girl (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
1. There is no other comment.
2. I concede that I didn't address the other part, so: "Last, the second phrase makes no sense whatsoever: you're amending an MOS guideline by telling people to consult an MOS guideline. Huh?" - This a general guideline, and the other guidelines are specific. We have more general MOS guidelines, and we have specific MOS guidelines for various subjects. We expect people to familiarize themselves with general and specific guidelines. At most this should be amended by providing a link to a list of manuals of style. That should be enough; the user ought to figure out which MOS applies to which subject. We should expect our fellow Wikipedians to figure out what the wording means. In case the MOSes do not exist, the "and/or" makes it clear that one can research conventions OR use the MOS, OR use both at the same time.
3. By the way: "because given your repeated misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "surname", " - And they are no longer there. Those misunderstandings were understandable, but now they are not there, they are no longer relevant.

See, when I make a comment, if I get a response I figure that there is still a debate. I have addressed all of your reply, and so if you still oppose this I would like another comment with more rationale. Also, do not worry if other people do not come; they will come when they want to. If you want more people to come, use the Village Pump or use Request for comment.

Anyway WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I thought there was another comment, but now I see it was just you. That means that there's only you and me so far and we don't agree. That's not consensus for your proposal. My objections stand if I don't retract them. Just because you make a subsequent comment and I haven't responded doesn't mean that you now have consensus. BTW, I put a note at WP:BIOGRAPHY, because this affects thousands of articles, and for some reason, we haven't gotten much traffic yet. (If we don't get any though, you don't have consensus.)
2. I disagree strongly with your assessment of expecting editors to figure out what you mean. I think you should say what you mean. The other parts of this guideline give specific guidance. If you're not going to provide specific stylistic guidance, then maybe this amendment isn't needed in the first place.
3. I understand what you're saying. Your previous misunderstanding was cleared up, and that's true. But given that there were so many, more might logically be expected. And since you didn't provide sources, I let you know that I wasn't sure whether to take what you said at face value.
--Melty girl (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Repeated/Followup/Additional comments still imply that a position hasn't changed. On AFDs, for instance, if an article changes during the course of an AFD, older comments are no longer relevant, and the people who made the comments will have to post again in order to affirm or reaffirm their positions. If a conversation gets to a point when both sides are informed, have already debated, and concluded that they agree to disagree, then one will assume that the position holds even with a lack of responses.

2. I'll tweak the sentence a bit so that people understand which statements refer to which groups..

"Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in Javanese cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures); in those cases refer to specific Wikipedia manuals of style (See to search for specific manuals of style) and/or address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

The thing is, so far there aren't any actual manuals of style for any of the groups listed. But, my point is that one should check manuals of style for different cultural groups when they come or if they are there. Even if the manuals of style do not exist, one should still check for the cultural conventions of the specific cultural groups. Anyway, I will bring up the idea of the creation of a Vietnamese MOS.

3. The sentence is there to supplement the phrase "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." in the Style Guideline template. This proposed sentence is asking people to treat the "subsequent naming" part with common sense and with occasional exceptions.

Anyway, as an aside, since the Javanese name article doesn't have formal academic sources, I'll see if I can find any. This CNN article mentions "Bhabr, like many Indonesians, uses only one name," so I know this is true: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/indonesia.plane/index.html?iref=newssearch

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence should simply state "in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture" as that is what the (so far non-existant) specific style guides are going to say anyway. There's no need to reference non-existant style guides as that is only going to confuse people. Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the specifics are important, and your suggestion takes the proposed amendment in an even vaguer direction than it already is. We need to know a strong reason to exempt certain cultures from being written about by surname. Your suggestion basically tells editors that if in their judgment, people aren't addressed by surname, then no need to do that. Well, no one calls me simply by my last name in America; maybe they'd put "Ms." in front of it, but they'd never call me, a woman, simply my surname. Yet, that's the formal writing style of this encyclopedia, even as it is not mirrored in spoken language. Therefore, by this weakened standard, many editors may become confused. Your suggestion as worded throws the entire guideline into question. We need to know which specific cultures would never even write formally about people and call them by surname; and then we need to make specific suggestions for how they should be written about. The rest of this guideline gets very specific about exceptions; so should this proposed amendment if it is to be added. --Melty girl (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be solved by using the words "formally addressed." A typical American is formally addressed by his or her family name, while Vietnamese, Icelanders, and many Indonesians are formally addressed by their given names. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
But I would never be "formally addressed" simply by my surname, as I wrote above. It has to be about formal writing, as in encylopedias, journalism, history texts, etc. --Melty girl (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Would "as addressed by formal writing" or something similar work, then? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence now looks like this: "Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in Javanese cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures); in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture"

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As there are no responses and no relevant objections to this, this will be posted on Christmas day (25th) if I receive no further input. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am waiting until 5 January to compensate for any holiday breaks. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The text above looks OK, but the issue is that we're not talking about how someone would be addressed (second person), rather how they would be referred to (third person). I suggest: "In some cultures, people do not have surnames (such as in Javanese cultures), or are not referred to by their surnames alone (such as in Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures); in those cases refer to the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture (e.g. their given name)." - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I must repeat my objections to such open-ended guidelines. This guideline does not specify which cultures are covered, and makes no specific rule for what to do in these unspecified cases. The rest of this MoS page is completely specific and gives specific rules to apply. Please come back with specific rules for specific instances, i.e. "In the case of Javanese culture, people do not have surnames; therefore, refer to people by x. In the case of Icelandic culture... do y." And if you don't know what the specifics should be, then either find a WikiProject to help you, or don't try to write the rule at all. --Melty girl (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I will attempt to address your concerns with a suggestion in the discussion below (which I noticed after posting the above comments). - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-biographies

In non-biographical articles, would it be proper to use academic titles, e.g "according to Dr. Smith, this movie misrepresents science" or "Stan Smith, Ph.D. says this movie is really bad". Or is it just "Stan Smith says..." Doesn't seem to be right. Thanks! Dreadstar † 07:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A more apt example may be an article on a documentary film, how are the partipants academic titles that are relevant to the movie presented? The documentary says "featuring Dr. Smith, specialist in foot diseases at the Mayo Clinic"...would it just be "Smith, specialist in foot diseases...". Dreadstar † 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any problem with including academic titles within articles about other subjects as long as they're relevant. The rules about academic titles here only apply to the first line of a biographical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, much, Necrothesp! We're having trouble with an editor who apparently is seeking to skew an article towards a certain POV and so wants to leave out their titles because he believes they are an "appeal to authority" in order to "lend false credibility" to the subject - but to me, to leave out their proper titles, which are relevant to the subject at hand (a documentary film with fictional aspects intertwined), seems to be really pushing a pov. Dreadstar † 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent reference pseudonym proposal

Please see the Pseudonym_guideline_wording section above for a new proposal that no one has commented on. --Melty girl (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify footnotes?

Is it appropriate to wikilink words in footnotes? Or would that be terribly messy? What conventions are being observed?

Certain things used to reference a fact (such as the WP:CITET templates) can be used to wikilink author name, and occasionally the book title or the publisher name. But in the case of providing footnotes, is it apprpriate to wikilink words in such a text? Thanks, Ekantik talk 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the forum to answer this question. I would go to a page about footnotes instead. --Melty girl (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent reference cultural conventions proposals? Which one is better?

Okay, I now found two versions of the same proposal:

  • Version that was made by me from a previous discussion: "Please bear in mind that, in some cultures, people do not have surnames of any kind (such as in Javanese cultures) or are not addressed in formal writing by their surnames (such as in Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures); in those cases address the subject according to the naming conventions of his or her culture."
  • Robert KS's version: "When referring to people from cultures that do not use surnames or are not addressed in formal writing by surnames, subjects should be addressed according to the respective naming conventions of their cultures."

Which version ought to be used? Why is each version better? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Please bear in mind that" is irrelevent fluff--I took a razor to it out of editorial preference for conciseness. The rest was just rearrangement of the sentence after removing the examples which I feared might multiply unrestrainedly. If there is a fairly short but complete list of applicable culture scenarios, I would have no problem with including it. I'm just opposed to having a few examples presumed to be representative, but to which people keep adding, and adding, and adding... I don't know what User:Melty girl's rationale was for removing the guideline entirely. The guideline seems reasonable to me. Robert K S (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Her edit said "Subsequent uses of names - removed completely vague new clause, bc this is supposed to offer specifics -- please continue discussion on talk page) (undo)" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Robert, you should read the above discussion about this proposal for the full background. This is my problem with both current proposals: they're not specific. The rest of the guideline gives specific rules with specific exceptions, with specific rules for dealing with those specific exceptions. Any proposal that says "some cultures" basically gives users a way to disregard the entire section that precedes it. Get specific. Say something like in the case of "X and Y cultures, surnames are not used. In the case of X, refer to the people by x, and in the case of Y, refer to the people by y." And so on. Don't leave a door open for unknown potentialities to come through. Propose rules for specific issues, and prescribe specific fixes for those issues. Neither of these proposals gives an actual rule for how to handle anything, and the second one doesn't even specify which cases are being governed. --Melty girl (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, we should begin to assemble a table of cultures and their naming conventions. It might get a bit tricky because creating hard and fast rules might require an absurd amount of specification. News reports quoting opinions of Afghani individuals often remark that only one name is given for a person being quoted because "some Afghanis do not use surnames". But some do; and moreover, the rule wouldn't necessarily apply to Afghanis as a whole (no such single culture uniformly exists) but rather to certain specific tribes or clans or villages. Robert K S (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone on the planet isn't notable for a biography in Wikipedia. There is no need to get so broad. As specific issues arise, then we should write guidelines specifically for to address them. Don't add vague, wide-open guidelines -- they are not true style rules. Instead, identify a specific area of confusion, ambiguity or contention and write a rule for how to handle specifically that issue. Your proposal is too vague to warrant adding. Everything else in the guideline tells of a specific issue and then provides a specific rule for it. Vague escape clauses with no prescribed rules are not style guidelines. If one cannot prescribe specifically how to handle, for example, Icelandic subsequent referrals, then one is not equipped to write the rule for that issue. If you want to write that rule, then work with Wikipedians knowledgeable enough to work out an actual guideline beyond, "do what the culture does." Because if that was enough of a rule, then we wouldn't need any of the existing rules in this guideline -- we'd just do what the culture does. But of course, it's not that simple... --Melty girl (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO, we should trust our users to make proper judgments. Many guidelines are meant to be open-ended and/or very general. IMO, the average person ought to understand that the statements refers to atypical, non-Western cultures and that he or she should research the culture before considering how to address the person. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're not going to provide any specific guidance, then no guideline is needed. Let users use their judgment then. The MOS is for style rules; if you have no actual rule to prescribe, then nothing needs to be said. On the other hand, if you want to get more specific -- like the rest of this guideline is (though you won't acknowledge it) -- then I'd be supportive. But I'm not to join consensus for adding something vague that undermines all the specific rules that come before it. (P.S. In the future, you might want to reconsider saying "atypical, non-Western cultures".)--Melty girl (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it 100% appropriate to refer to "non-Western cultures" as "atypical" in the context of EN, Melty Girl. The "typical" involve people from Western (United States, Western Europe, Latin America - and whatever definition for "West") cultures. I am not judging whether they are more or less "correct" - It is that the typical biographical article is about a person from a Western culture. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it's "appropriate"; it's unnecessary. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I came to this page looking for confirmation that we were allowed to handle Icelandic names correctly according to their culture, and the rules as currently presented direct people not to (even if they know better). That's a problem. We need to acknowledge that exceptions to the surname-only rule exist and that WP respects them. I agree with the criticism that it's better to clearly identify what the proper handling should be in those cases. So I suggest:

"For a person who does not have a surname (such as in Javanese cultures), or whose culture formally refers to people by their given names rather than their surnames alone (such as Icelandic and Vietnamese cultures), refer to the subject by his or her given name in subsequent references."

This does specify when the exception applies (even if the list of examples is not exhaustive) and it does specify exactly what to do in that situation. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely better. A few questions: are you positive that publications in Iceland refer to people by given name? I'm not doubting you -- I'm just making sure, because I don't know much about it. If so, I am comfortable with the way you've written this for Icelandic bios. Are you familiar with Javanese and Vietnamese publications? If not, I would prefer that they not be included at all; when editors with expertise in specific cultures come by, they can add to the Icelandic clause. In this case, I would suggest something like the following that does not leave the door open for assumptions about unspecified instances:
"For subsequent references to Icelandic people, whose culture formally refers to people by their given names rather than by their surnames alone, refer to the subject by his or her given name."
BTW, I'm not sure we ever need to say to refer to someone without a surname by their given name -- because you can't refer to someone by their a name they do not possess. --Melty girl (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no first-hand knowledge of Javanese or Vietnamese naming customs (only what's stated in those articles), but I'm certain about standard Icelandic usage, in which surnames are considered mere disambiguators. (Some Icelanders have adopted the use of family names, but they are in the minority.) My concern about specifying "For... Icelandic people..." is that there are at least two others already mentioned, and the list could grow. A single rule that describes the usage (with examples cited) is more comprehensive:
"For a person whose culture refers to people formally by given names rather than surnames (such as Icelandic, Javanese, and Vietnamese cultures), refer to the subject by his or her given name in subsequent references." - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to restate my concerns more clearly. I object to the proposal for two reasons:
1) You yourself say that you don't know anything about Javanese and Vietnamese names. I don't know about them either. The only other person who weighed in on that was very unclear in getting his ideas across and therefore I don't feel completely certain that he knew what he was talking about. Therefore, until someone with knowledge can weigh in, let's leave it out. WP is a work in progress, and other cultures can be added later. Let's stick to what you are certain of. We can probably safely add Malay names and some Indian names as per Jacklee (below).
2) I will not join consensus for an open-door rule. When you say, "for a person whose culture refers to people formally by given names (such as...) ..." you are not making a specific rule for specific cultures; you are instead giving a rule about the entire planet's cultures that's too open for interpretation and guessing by editors and thus ripe for misunderstanding. This is not a good idea. Let's be specific as to who the rule applies to.
These are the two differences between my wording and yours. For now, I suggest that we specify Icelandic, Malaysian and some Indian names, and allow other editors with specific knowledge add their cultures to the rule later. If you want to research Vietnamese and Javanese cultures, then we could add them too if they definitely should be added. Otherwise, let's leave them out (until such time as they can be confidently added) and shut the open door wording.--Melty girl (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
On Icelandic names, see "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Iceland-related articles)". Editors may wish to note that the same rule applies to Malay names and some (but not all) Indian names. I think, though, it does make sense to refer to "given names" (or "personal names"), the idea being to advise editors not to refer to such people by other names such as patronymics or matronymics. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not ready to jump with both feet into the fawning absorption of a foreign culture into the English Wikipedia. What one Icelander calls another is immaterial to the style of the English Wikipedia. What an Icelander is called in mainstream English-language publications is what should determine the style. If that's the given name alone, the same as used within Iceland, fine. The Icelandic Wikipedia can set its own style. Similarly, people who live in Munich can spell it München in the German Wikipedia, but we don't have to in the English WP. Chris the speller (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether it would it be wrong for editors to correct the names used in articles if mainstream English-language publications have got the names wrong. I think not. For instance, the first President of Singapore was a Malay gentleman, Yusof bin Ishak. Malay persons do not have surnames (his name means "Yusof, son of Ishak"), and are referred to by their given names (in this case, "Yusof"). It would be wrong for the Wikipedia article to refer to President Yusof as "Ishak" or "Bin Ishak", even if a number of English-language newspapers did so. I don't see why respecting how foreigners' names are correctly set out equates to "fawning absorption of... foreign culture[s] into the English Wikipedia". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the statement about "absorption of a foreign culture into the English Wikipedia", I don't know what the word "foreign" is supposed to mean with regard to Wikipedia. Surely the English Wikipedia is an English language Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia for a particular country or culture. As such, it has to find a consensus between people who speak English from a range of countries (who all probably regard each other as "foreign". Perhaps we should therefore take more of a "world view" than would be the case in, say, a British publication writing for a British readership. Bluewave (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. When I referred to "foreigners", using Chris's terminology, what I had in mind were people whose names do not conform to common Western naming conventions. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The culture of Iceland is not "foreign" to the English Wikipedia. Most Icelanders speak English in addition to Icelandic, and the English Wikipedia is as much "theirs" as it belongs to whatever culture Chris considers himself a part of. When they refer to each other in English, they use given names not surnames, and it is not "fawning" for Wikipedia to follow suit. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other MOS concerns

Shouldn't these guidelines be expanded a bit, beyond mostly just covering Lead paragraphs and naming conventions? It seems to me that adding general guidelines on Section headings, use of footers, deprecated use of Infobox flags, etc., would also be useful and help promote greater bio standardization.

For example, I've come across many stub and start-class biographical articles having a section called "Biography", instead of "Early life" or "Personal information": certainly a redundancy to title a section "Biography" within a biographical article — this seems to be especially prevalent in articles about actors and musicians, apparently because of imdb's format. I propose MOSBIO should elaborate more on the article structure and section headings, such as stating that "Early life" or "Personal information" should be used, avoiding use of the section title "biography" within a biographical article. JGHowes talk - 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've always thought it utterly pointless to include a section within a biographical article headed "Biography". I also dislike "Personal information" - what does that mean? Isn't all information about a person "personal"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed. Want to start sketching out some proposals? --Melty girl (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Several of such articles use the heading "Personal life" to describe a person's romantic affairs. I also agree that this convention is redundant, but what would be an alternative heading? "Love life"? Ekantik talk 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
JGHowes criticized "Personal information," not "Personal life". --Melty girl (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but on some articles, both terms are used to describe the love life of the article's subject. :) We definitely need a proposal that suggests appropriate headings for such sections, assuming that subjects' love lives have any notability anyway (Jennifer Lopez, Tom Cruise, etc). Ekantik talk 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You're missing my point. "Personal life" is an appropriate title for such a section, because it means private life as opposed to public career. "Personal information" is a more vague term that doesn't mean the same thing. --Melty girl (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the proposal recently added at the bottom of this talk page. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial "endorsements"

I'm having a discussion with an editor who seems to think that mention of a persons' commercial endorsements should not take place in a BLP article. Examples of this sort of thing would be at Britney Spears, Britney Products, Beyonce (products), and Jessica Simpson (products). Considering that commercial endorsements etc. are mentioned in the articles of certain persons (there may be more, I don't know), this editor objects to an edit at Shilpa Shetty that similarly mentions Shetty's endorsement of a vodka brand. The editor thinks that - as per Wikipedia policy (????) - such endorsements cannot should not be mentioned in BLP articles unless there is something notable about the endorsement, such as a controversy that arose and so on. I could not find anything in WP policies or this MOS to support this idea. Comments please? Ekantik talk 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, not all such deals merit listing because they're too trivial, but that would have to do with the size and visibility of the campaign. If it's a blip in their career, then maybe it shouldn't be listed, but if it's a major, highly-visible campaign then it's simply a part of their career. Even though it might make me cringe each time I see some rich celebrity shilling for a product, that doesn't make it not a part of their career. Whether they're selling a piece of music, a movie or a clothing line, it's all part of the same game. Endorsements are probably not the main focus of most celebs careers though, and as such shouldn't take up a disproportionate amount of space in an article. (Then again, there are celebs like Victoria Beckham.) --Melty girl (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with your views. I would just like some further clarification. Obviously we do not need to list trivial details, but do have any thoughts about the notability of such campaigns? Many of the products listed at Britney Spears, Beyonce etc do not have a source reference, does this have any regards to the notability of that campaign? If there are no source references, is it appropriate to remove those mentions from the article pages? In the case of Shilpa Shetty there are two source references, is this enough to prove the 'notability' of a campaign? Must there be a controversy in order for the campain to gain "notability" and a mention in Wikipedia? Thanks, Ekantik talk 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that a subject only need be notable for inclusion in WP. From there, you want to leave out trivial facts about the subject. Therefore, while a controversy might increase the significance of an endorsement in a celeb's career, it is not the only way for an endorsement deal to be significant. About sources: technically, according to policy, I think only those facts which are likely to be challenged need citations, though in practice, anything without a source could be removed by someone else. One citation is enough to substantiate something -- but substantiation doesn't make something non-trivial. So basically, if an endorsement gets a lot of attention, whether that's controversy or just positive notice, and it is significant to a celeb's career, a la Michael Jordan and Nike, then it can be included; in addition, like any other fact in an article, it should have a source. If a source in a reliable publication cannot be found, then it probably is trivial, since no one has apparently found it important enough to write about. Still, the fact of a source doesn't mean it might not be trivial. That's my take... I hope this helps. --Melty girl (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Armenian) ethnicity used in lead sections

Discussion at Talk:Alan Hovhaness has indicated that the ethnicity of Armenian and Armenian-Americans is being added or deleted from the lead sections of the subjects articles against MOSBIO policy. Ethnicity has been added to lead sections without demonstration of relevance, indicating either a pro-Armenian agenda or an unfamiliarity with policy and pracice. Worse yet, ethnicity has been removed from articles entirely, not simply moved from the lead to the body of the article, indicating an anti-Armenian agenda. Either way the quality of articles covering topics related to Armenia need improvement. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia#Armenian ethnicity in lead sections.

The question for this page is whether there is a general rule: Do you remove ethnicity from the lead and then start discussion or do you start discussion first? Hyacinth (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have probably been answered in some way already, but for the record there is 'general' rule in Wikipedia on this, which is broadly:
If the revision you are making is likely to be problematic (even if it's a correct change) it is wise to explain your action first in Talk. In this case, state clearly that your revision is per WP:MOSBIO ('WP:NAMES' is an alternative choice, and might look better). Definitely make the change - the discussion can come after that. If an 'edit war' occurs (or is underway) then you may have to allow for an incorrect page to stay up, while discussion goes on. Manual of Style (MOS) are just a collection of WP:guidelines and not hard rules (as is everything on Wikipedia but WP:policy), but you can get support if people are ignoring consensus.
You can always explain, in this case, that ethnicity can easily be mentioned later on (even or in the opening paragraph, providing there is a sufficinetly weighted and properly sourced reason for notability) (refer to WP:weight, WP:verify, WP:notability). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline on awards, honorary doctorates, etc.?

I notice that some biographical articles have lists of awards, honorary doctorates, and the like which veer perilously close to being cruft. I'd like to see a definite policy/guideline on the propriety or otherwise of including such. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing even vaguely cruft-like in listing awards such as honorary doctorates as long as they are not listed after the subject's name in the first line (apart from postnoms for official honours, major fellowships etc). They are facts. However, I don't think they should be in an actual list, but part of the text. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current status?

Is it appropriate to mention a person's current status in the lead paragraph? I have this edit in mind. Obviously a BLP article by definition will change according to the fortunes of the article subject, but since Wikipedia is an ongoing project that reflects current information also, is it appropriate to mention a person's status in the Lead? Ekantik talk 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By status you mean professional or occupational status--i.e., what the person has been publicized as doing at the moment, especially useful for performers and others in the entertainment industries whose projects change from year to year. I don't know if there is a guideline on this, but lacking one, I can see pros and cons. Pro: it informs the reader that the person in question is currently professionally active, and in what. Con: it can be ephemeral, subject to frequent revision, it is not particularly encyclopedic inasmuch as it may place undue weight on the most recent activity to the detriment of the broader overview, and may go unedited for a sufficiently long time so as to become outdated and give innacurate information. I don't see any pressing reason why such information needs be excluded from the lead provided it is worded so that it will never become inaccurate with the passage of time. I.e., rather than "She is currently...", use "In 2008, she..." Robert K S (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a guideline on this: "Wikipedia:Lead section". I quote:
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.
Therefore, the primary issue is not whether a person's "current status" should be in the lead or not, but whether the information has been included in the body of the article. If it has, and it is an important point, then it should be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise, it should be omitted. I would imagine that most changes in people's occupational status would be important enough to warrant mention in the article and thus in the lead, and agree with Robert that terms like "currently" and "recently" should be avoided in favour of more precise phrases such as "In 2008..." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's where you come to "Otherwise, it should be omitted" that I no longer see correspondence between your interpretation of the guideline and what is actually written in the guideline. The guideline states that the lead should be able to serve as an encapsulation of the article as a whole. It does not state that the purpose of the lead is limited to such an encapsulation, or that information in the lead needs be limited to information also found elsewhere in the article. Robert K S (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. That's not been my experience of how this guideline has been interpreted, though. In the past, when I nominated articles for promotion to Good Article status, I was advised by (presumably more experienced) reviewers that the lead should not contain any information that does not already appear in the article. This seems to be what the guideline is getting at, as these other passages suggest: "The lead section summarizes the article"; "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Perhaps this is an issue that needs to be raised on the guideline's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is fine. It should summarize the article. There's nothing prohibiting it from also adding one or two other bits of information found nowhere else in the article. Very many article leads, even of articles called good or featured, do this. Robert K S (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "Sir" and "Dame" discussion

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.
"#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)

[edit] "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 [5] and MIT [6] 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" [7]. 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:

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:

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: [8]. 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)

[edit] "Sir" and "Dame" discussion - arbitrary break 2

Here's a list of transfers (London Gazette: no. 32280, page 2719,.) 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" [9], whereas knights keep their "Sir" [10]. 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: [11]. 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed expansion of nationality-in-lead guideline

The guidline governing nationality in the lead currently reads as follows: "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" This indeed covers "the normal case", but I think with just a few extra lines for this item we can clarify the issue for a great number of articles over which disputes have sprung up or are bound to do so. My proposed revision to the guideline is as follows:

Nationality

  • For persons who were citizens or nationals of only one country in their lifetimes, that country should be named in it common adjectival form.
    • "Louis Pasteur was a French chemist and microbiologist..."
  • For persons who were born in one country but became notable after immigrating to another country wherein they were eventually naturalized, both countries should be mentioned. The two countries should not be hyphenated together, as this usage may imply ethnicity but not necessarily nationality. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
    • "Joseph Conrad was a Polish-born English novelist."
    • "Marie Curie was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship."
    • Not: "Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American bodybuilder, actor, businessman, and politician..." While not incorrect, the subject's birth nationality can be specified at the cost of one extra word: "Austrian-born American".
  • For persons who held citizenships in more than two countries in their lifetimes, or whose nationality is vague or excessively complicated by shifting political boundaries or changing leadership that resulted in changes of country names, or other circumstances, nationality should be omitted from the first sentence of the lead, and the details of the subject's nationality should be elaborated later in the article.
  • For leads that do not explicitly state the person's nationality, but correctly imply a single nationality through some other fact, the details of the person's birth and citizenship may be saved for later in the article.
    • "George Walker Bush is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America." (American presidency implies American nationality.)

Motivation for the upgraded guideline: At present a number of articles use hyphenations for nationalities. This can introduce confusion that can be easily cleared up. "Peter Jennings was a Canadian-American journalist and news anchor." Does that mean he was born in Canada, or he was born in the U.S. but one or both of his parents was from Canada, or did he just have a Canadian somewhere in his distant ancestry? Adding "-born" is a small price to pay which turns a phrase potentially misconstrued as an inappropriate ethnicity name-check into a nationality. There is also the problem of editors motivated by ethnic boosterism who insist on "claiming" biographical article subjects by including otherwise irrelevant ethnicity information in the first sentence. While this problem is limited in scope, it results in violent edit-warring. This problem would also be alleviated by clarification of when it is appropriate to use hyphenation of nationalities and when such hyphenation can be misconstrued as ethnic claiming. Finally, the issue of complicated nationality is another source of editor conflict that I think could be easily alleviated by a clear guideline. I'm looking forward to discussion on this issue and reworking of the above proposal to everyone's satisfaction. Having some consensus on these issues would be very helpful. Robert K S (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I always use "x-born" when someone has emigrated to another country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So how would the Gerry Adams article read? Or Ruth Kelly? MurphiaMan (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there controversy with either of those figures? I guess the implication is that Adams might be called British (because he is a British subject) and Kelly might be called Irish (having been born in Northern Ireland). The guideline doesn't speak to those controversies, but I'm up for suggestions as to how it might do so elegantly without opening other "anything goes" cans of worms. I can think of an additional guideline that would clear up a few other cases, and I'm adding it above. Robert K S (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually Adams (only) has an (Republic of Ireland) Irish passport, and certainly does not regard himself as a British subject. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise some good points, but I don't think your proposal sufficiently addresses the difference between nationality and country of residence, and how we should treat both. For example, Jennings's whole journalistic career was in the US, but he only became a citizen two years before his death.--Pharos (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the "x-born" formula, but agree with Pharos that the part of the proposed guideline that reads "For persons who were born in one country but became notable after immigrating to another country wherein they were eventually naturalized, both countries should be mentioned" needs to be rejigged slightly. When we say that someone is German, say, I think what is usually meant is that the person has German nationality and not that he has merely lived in the country for a long time. If the latter situation pertains, in my view it is better not to call the person "German". Instead, the article should mention that the person is a "long-time resident of Germany".
The two above messages are correct that this guideline doesn't speak at all to residence. Current guidelines have never required this of the lead. If you think the guideline should make some recommendation to this effect, please feel free to amend the above proposal directly. Robert K S (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
On a related point, some editors will recall that there was an extensive discussion on whether people from the United Kingdom should be described as "British", or "English", "Scottish", "[Northern] Irish" or "Welsh". No consensus on the matter was reached. I've now drafted an essay with the aim of providing some guidance to editors on the matter: see Wikipedia draft essay ready for discussion above. Comments are welcome at the essay's talk page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
All of this is entirely predicated on the modern situation where (nearly) everybody has a clear nationality backed up by documents. It will be no help at all for older historical figures, who in my experience are the ones who cause the greatest disputes. How does this relate to Jan van Eyck, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Giulio Clovio (look at his talk archives, if you've a day or two to spare), Andrea Meldolla, or Giorgio da Sebenico? In fact such a guideline would give new angles for the partisans to argue about. Even some of your examples are not too clear - Conrad never had any Polish documents, or lived in a Polish state (and, like most immigrants, he may have thought of himself as British rather than English) Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is "entirely predicated on the modern situation"--the guideline as written speaks to all the examples you mention with its third bullet, "For persons... whose nationality is vague... [it] should be omitted from the first sentence of the lead, and the details of the subject's nationality should be elaborated later in the article". (I didn't know that about Conrad, and if his nationality really is controversial in the ways that you mention, you should bring it up at his talk page; having this guideline in place could only help the case for reform of the lead in conformance with a broader standard that would bring more accuracy to all articles.) Robert K S (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Help how? Why? I just don't see it. The draft doesn't begin to cope with the complexities of national and ethnic status that marked most of the Old World except for England and Scotland until a couple of centuries ago. It still fundamentally assumes everyone has a nationality. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't assume everyone has a nationality. (If you think the current wording gives that impresion, then please help to revise it.) It's simply a guideline about what should go in the lead, if the nationality of the person is straightforward and uncontroversial. For those figures with unclear or disputed nationalities, it states that nothing with regards to nationality should appear in the lead, and that a fuller explanation should appear later in the article. The whole point is to combat ethnic "claiming". Robert K S (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't exactly say that, nor do I think removing all mention from the lead is any sort of help in most cases. Passers by will always be wanting to add something to make it look like the other articles. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Passers-by do all sorts of crazy things. It's having clear guidelines that helps the regular editors to have something to point to when they want to maintain an article in a NPOV state. If you don't think the guideline says what it needs to say, please help fix it. Most of the comments so far seem like stymying objections that have no constructive criticism. Robert K S (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about all these contingencies. Sometimes birth place is totally incidental and has nothing to do with nationality, and I don't think this guideline, as currently written, weeds out those incidents. Sometimes a mother is traveling, and gives birth in a particular country, but the person in question didn't live there very long, and thus the birth country is rather incidental, and therefore doesn't belong in the lead sentence. There is no guidance on this point -- it seems like you're always supposed to mention it no matter what. --Melty girl (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Melty girl. That is a good point and perhaps you can edit directly the proposal to try to address your concern. I don't see your concern or any of the others as a rejection of the premise of the proposed guideline, which is that we should move away from potentially confusing hyphenated forms that imply ethnicity and can be used by ethnic boosters to "claim" article subjects. Robert K S (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the Schwarzenegger point, but not most of the rest. I'm strongly opposed to just brushing the matter under the carpet (to a later para) where there is the possibility of debate or confusion - as in my examples above or your example of Conrad. I'm also strongly opposed to "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" - Conrad was only ethnically Polish, just as Michelangelo was only ethnically Italian and Durer only ethnically German - the national states did not exist in their day. I get the impression you're not too used to these issues in a historical context. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: being "opposed to just brushing the matter under the carpet (to a later para) where there is the possibility of debate or confusion". The alternative is to either (a) let an article stay in permanent flux between two or more versions of the lead adhered to by opposing sides of a controversy, or (b) make the full explanation of nationality right there in the first sentence of the lead, placing undue weight on the controversy and giving the impression that the principal reason for the person's notability was a vague or contentious nationality, and not whatever it is that he or she is actually notable for. This is the very problem that I'm seeking solutions to with an upgrade of the guideline. The "don't emphasize ethnicity in the lead unless relevant to notability" bit isn't new. It's part of the current guideline and has been in place for a long time. And, IMO, with good reason: to combat undue weight placed on something irrelevant that's only there because an editor with boosterish motivations wanted to "claim" an article subject. (I believe there's a discussion about just such an episode in one of the talk sections above.) In the case of Conrad, the guideline wouldn't necessarily prohibit mention of his ethnicity in the lead—most biographical sources on Conrad will agree that part of his notability was that he was a Polish author who wrote in English. Again, I think the proposed guideline adequately covers historical cases, but if you disagree, I'm asking you to please help amend the proposal to your satisfaction. Robert K S (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My amendment would be to remove everything except a caution against hyphenated "Irish-American" combinations. If "don't emphasize ethnicity in the lead unless relevant to notability" is in the current text, then very few take any notice of it at all (rightly) in the sort of cases I mention, and it should be removed. Some people try to edit to things like "Titian .... was a Venetian painter" but there is a concensus for Italian and so on in such cases. The vast majority of such articles are perfectly stable - there a just a few cases, especially immigrants to Italy from the future Yugoslavia etc that cause trouble, also some people from the Low Countries, and Central Europe. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your point just above about Conrad is mere causistry. Being Polish is defining for him (in WP:OCAT) terms, but not at all part of his notability. You could read his entire published fiction (I have in fact read most) without being aware of his origin, as it never features in his work. He never wrote for publication in Polish. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, John. I don't think it's "mere causistry", nor is it casuistry. Can you point a biographical source for Conrad that does not mention his being Polish right up front? It's part of his notability. As for deleting all of the proposal, and even parts of the present guideline, I do think that would be taking things in the wrong direction. We rely on guidelines for conformity of presentation throughout the encyclopedia and as an arbiter of content disputes. I want to increase conformity and reduce the number of disputes; weakening the guidelines will do the opposite. It might be more helpful to the discussion if you could word your concerns into the guideline. Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly the difference between defining and notable - Conrad is defined by, but not notable for, being born in Poland. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that my view is that what would be "helpful" is for this proposal to be dropped, or radically trimmed as above. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone comes from a certain region that's a nation today, that's one thing. But ethnicity as such does not belong in the lead. For example, if Conrad had been a Pole of Jewish ethnicity.--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Poland was a nation long before Conrad, and had been a state, but was not one when he was born, nor did it become one again until long after he emigrated. Your point is far too generalized - look at Süßkind von Trimberg he really is notable largely because of his ethnicity, which it would be completely absurd to omit from the lead paragraph or sentence. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously some people, like Süßkind von Trimberg, are notable for Jewish ethnicity. My point is that Conrad is not similarly notable for his Polish ethnicity, but that there is nothing wrong with naming the country he was born in (even though it was not an independent state at the time). If Conrad was Jewish and had the same corpus of writing, I think he should still have the same nationality-description in the lead as he does now.--Pharos (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure: Isaac Bashevis Singer gets the point across in the lead without actually stating it, Marc Chagall is "Russian-Jewish", which is what his Russian identity cards would have said, and is fine by me. Kafka gets "Jewish" into the second sentence, also fine by me. If you want to ban "Jewish" from the lead, I think Project:Judaism should be told! Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not specifically about Jewishness. If Conrad had been a Pole of Belarusian ethnicity, we would have the same situation. The question is, whether someone's ethnicity is relevant to their notability or not. Because otherwise, it's all about boosterism or (in the case of infamous figures) even about racism and xenophobia.--Pharos (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the biggest problem may be just with hyphenation. I know this is a radically simple idea, but what if we just got used to writing with a slash, as "Austrian/American", instead of "Austrian-American".--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any point to that at all! Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your problem with "Austrian-American" was that it is (or can be) an ethnic designator. "Austrian/American" denotes someone who is of both Austrian and American nationality, and is non-ethnic. It is also convenient because you can do it with more than two nationalities; e.g. "Liviu Librescu was a Romanian/Israeli/American scientist".--Pharos (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Who says that's what it denotes? What is Polish/American? It could mean anything, is ungrammatical, and should be spelled out clearly. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, as I've confused you for a moment with Robert K S, when referring to "Your problem with Austrian-American". His problem with a hyphenated usage (which has multiple, ambiguous meanings in normal writing) was that on Wikipedia it links to an article like Austrian-American that is generally about an group living in the US with a distinct ethnic ancestry, not an article about individuals with multiple nationalities/citizenships. "Polish/American" means someone who is both Polish and American by nationality; for example a Polish immigrant to the US.--Pharos (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm Singaporean, and I'm afraid I've never seen the usage "Polish/American" before. It would not be clear to me that there was a difference between that and "Polish-American". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Pharos, I appreciate your suggestion and can see where you're coming from. The slashed usage could at least be wikilinked differently and would therefore have a slightly different implication by virtue of markup. That said, "-born" still gives a lot of extra information at a small cost of an extra word, whereas something like "Romanian/Israeli/American" could still imply that someone was, for example, an American who had a Romanian father and an Israeli mother. The motivation behind the proposal is the reduction of obfuscation and therefore the limiting of the ability of boosters etc. to implant ethnicity into articles inappropriately, and I don't think the slashed form of multiple nationality accomplishes as much in that direction as the guidelines as I've written them do. (Listing three nationalities for a person in the lead is excessive, anyway--it doesn't provide real information about the person, it only obnubilates matters.) Robert K S (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's pity the proposed points aren't numbered for ease of reference. Of the 4 points I see, I strongly disagree with 3) for the reasons given above, and essentially agree with 1, 2 & 4, but think the wording is badly compromised for the reasons I've given above. But then, I also think the current wording (re point 3) in the guideline ("Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" is pretty hopeless); it is necessary to use ethnicity to define some people, like medieval Germans, without it being relevant to their notability. I could redraft the proposal, but to be honest, with a long debate but very little support (no unqualified support I think) in over a week, I think it would be better to start again in the future. But I would support a version I was happy with of course. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long lists of non-notable accomplishments

I continually come across articles about living artists that have the same types of problems, for example Elizabeth McGrath, and Terry Ananny. These are articles with borderline notability that seem to be edited by the artists them selves or someone related to the artist. They are usually advertising style resumes (such as you would find in a commercial art gallery or exhibit catalog) with very long laundry lists of "accomplishments" that don't meet wikipedia's guidelines as to what’s denotes notability. This seems to be heavy "padding" added to make the artist seem more notable than they are. How should this be dealt with? Should the articles be cut back to just what is considered notable in Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Additional criteria - Creative professionals i.e. just list what falls under "significant exhibition", "permanent collections…of notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries", etc? Maybe this guideline should cover that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place for this discussion but if the artist's participation in the event hasn't been noted by a 3rd party source (so: not promotional materials or announcements by the artist or the gallery itself, and not including indiscriminate lists of events such as in local media where the gallery has submitted the notice), then it's probably not notable content. Ripe (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the subject of the article that has to demonstrate notability, not each item of information in the article. But I agree these lists, normally cut'n'paste from the artist's website, are a particular problem with artists. At the same time, as can be seen from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts, exhibitions are typically key in establishing notability for living artists. Some specialized knowledge is also needed to know which ones are significant and which are not. One list, split off into its own article got deleted just recently. The place to address this might be Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style - still draft, but coming along. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this would span several guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. That last one by title and content seems to cover "art", not "artists" for the most part, maybe a change can be made there. It looks to me like there should be a Wikipedia:Notability (artists). I have noted some attempts to create such a guideline but they seem to have been shot down for reason "hey, if you read all the relevant guidelines, this is already covered". The problem is, if you try to rationalize several different guidelines you come up with conflicting answers as to how to handle this. If I, for example, go by Wikipedia:Notability (people), then I come up with a totaly different answer than what Johnbod came up with, a laundry list of commercial gallery exhibitions should be deleted since they are a) not "permanent collections" by definition and b)not "significant exhibitions". I think this should be addressed somewhere (maybe here) because (as seen in the discussions noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts) there is a great deal of confusion as to what denotes notability, and more specifically, what an encyclopedic biography actually consists of. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree at all there is a "totally different answer" - my comment also refers to "significant" exhibitions, and these are what should be kept, though of course the term is undefined. I am saying the same thing, pretty clearly I would have thought. Having participated in the earlier discussions you mention, I came to feel (like many others) that the existing policies (which I think may have been tweaked a bit as a result of the process) did cover the ground well enough. Artists most emphatically fall under the Visual arts project and their articles are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style - I would have thought that was clear enough too. I think the regulars at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts actually have a pretty clear consensus as to what denotes notability, though many passing general AfD editors are less clear. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A related issue that I can't seem to find any better place to put (if anyone can suggest one please let me know)is that IMHO a biography should include a list of the languages that the subject knew/knows and what level of competency he/she had/has in them (e.g. native command, non-native but good fluency, reading/writing ability, etc. This often helps to understand what cultures he/she considered himself part of or related to on whatever level. I have almost never seen anything like this in a biography and yet it seems very important in understanding the person. POR613 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be relevant, but only if the person spoke a lot of languages or they were particularly relevant to their career (for instance, it is relevant if a diplomat is particularly fluent in the language of the country to which he's posted). But it's not something that should be formalised or added as a matter of course. We don't want articles turning into CVs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for further input: Country of birth for people born in states that no longer exist

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Examples would be Soviet Union instead of Russia, Yugoslavia instead of Croatia, and the like. Would I be able to request additional input on this issue on the WP:FOOTBALL talk page, here, please? Dreaded Walrus t c 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors active on this talk page may wish to take note of the interesting discussion that is unfolding at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Defining country of birth". My view is that the general rule across Wikipedia as a whole should be that a person's country of birth should be reflected as it was at the time of birth. Thus:
  • Generally, the place of birth should be referred to in the main text of the article in a form similar to this: "Riga, Latvia, Soviet Union (now the Republic of Latvia)". Note that if there is an article on the specific political entity that was in existence at the time of the person's birth, it should be linked to: ie, "[[Riga]], [[Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic|Latvia]], [[Soviet Union]] (now the [[Latvia|Republic of Latvia]])".
  • If a shortened phraseology is required for infoboxes, it should be the original country rather than the new one, otherwise there is simply a factual inaccuracy. Thus I would suggest either "Riga, Latvia" (note the piped link to "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic"), or "Riga, Soviet Union".
However, Oth pointed out an additional complication: there may be dispute as to whether the occupation of certain countries was legal or not. For instance, Oth says that the temporary occupation of the Baltic States (1940–1991) by the Soviet Union was illegal and not generally recognized, and I'm aware that Taiwan is recognized as an independent nation by some countries, but others regard it as part of the People's Republic of China. I'm not sure what should happen in such situations. Is there any Manual of Style guideline on the issue? If not, should there be? Or is this one of those insoluble issues? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 23:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


A centralized discussion on the matter has now been started at "Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth. All input on the matter is welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to formalise the relationship between MOS and its sub-pages

Dear fellow editors—The idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages.

The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. If consensus has it that MOS-central should bend to the wording of a sub-page, so be it. But until that occurs in each case that might occasionally arise, there needs to be certainty for WPians, especially in the Featured Article process, where nominators and reviewers are sometimes confused by a left- and right-hand that say different things.

Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed structure guideline

I think it would be very helpful for the writers of new articles and for Wikipedia's general consistency to have some guidelines for the structure of biographical articles. This guideline page as it reads now starts that but doesn't follow through with suggested headers and so on. So here's a draft based on existing guidelines and a survey of what existing bio articles tend to look like (and therefore arguably an approximation of existing consensus). - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The structure of biographical articles will vary considerably depending on the subject, the nature of their notability, and the amount of information available. None of the following sections are specifically required, but they reflect the kind of information Wikipedia aims to present, and use of them helps maintain consistency among articles. If a section grows very large, it may be desirable to separate the information into a separate article, linked from that section of the main article.

[edit] Infobox

An appropriate biographical infobox template is recommended. If there isn't a specialized infobox for the subject's profession (e.g. Template:Infobox Musical artist, Template:Infobox ReligiousBio, Template:Infobox journalist), use Template:Infobox person. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes for a list of avaiable infobox templates.

[edit] Lead

As with any article, the lead section (no header) should summarize the most important information about the subject. It does not need to summarize every aspect of their life, but should include:

  1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles));
  2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
  3. Nationality – In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Note that there is presently no consensus as to how this guideline should apply to people from the United Kingdom. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.
  4. The most notable things the person has done. If the subject is notable for many things, this can expand to several paragraphs, but leave details for the body of the article itself.

For example:

RE 'Nationality' - There is no consensus for using "presently" (it's since been removed) and "people from the United Kingdom" is currently just an essay! (and at this point not even introduced as such!). This whole bit is currently being discussed in a section above here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

Most people's lives begin inauspiciously, but this information can be relevant to understanding them. Information which may not be directly applicable to their notability, such as their family, early life, education, and relationships, can be included under "Personal life". Any of these subjects can be expanded to its own section if there is sufficient information about them. It is not necessary to maintain "Personal life" as an enclosing section if these sections are sufficiently developed to stand on their own.

[edit] Career

In most cases, the person's professional life is the focus of their notability, and this section will include the bulk of the information about them. If their career includes several distinct periods (e.g. a politician holding several successive offices, an artist creating in different styles, a writer working in different media, a businessperson employed at different companies, an athlete playing for different teams) these can be presented as separate sections. It is not necessary to maintain "Career" as an enclosing section if these sections are sufficiently developed to stand on their own.

As much as is practical, this section should be arranged chronologically. Whenever possible, notable "controversies" involving the subject should be included in their chronological context rather than a separate section.

[edit] Later life

Similar to information about a person's early life, their activities following their professional lives provide additional context about them. Obviously this section can be omitted for someone who is still young and/or active. If the circumstances of the subject's death are known but unremarkable, the place and date can instead be included under "Personal life", above.

[edit] Influence and legacy

Many notable subjects leave a lasting impact on their field or society in general, even after their death. Describe movements they started or led which continued after their death, or influences from their works which can still be seen in the works of others. Notable buildings or other things named after the subject should be identified here.

[edit] List of works/___ography

For an artist, musician, writer, or other creator, a list of their works can be informative. This section can be titled Filmography, Discography, Bibliography or some other appropriate term.

[edit] Career results

For an athlete or other competitor, a chart of their career record can be included.

[edit] Honors/Awards and nominations

List notable honors and awards (and nominations), along with brief information about what the award was given for.

[edit] See also

List related articles that are not already linked elsewhere in the article.

[edit] Further reading

For a subject about which there is a great deal more comprehensive material available, list a very selective bibliography of authoritative works.

[edit] References

Include a complete list of footnotes and other citations documenting the contents of the article.

[edit] External links

Articles can include a small number of links to reputable external sources about the subject. If the subject has a personal web site, or there is a web site authorized by the subject's heirs or estate, include it as the first link. An official or authorized fan site may be linked.

[edit] Categories

This is a virtual "section" without a header. The addition of categories helps to classify groups of people. For example: [[Category:Scottish authors]], [[Category:German Formula One drivers]], [[Category:Indian religious leaders]]. Include as many as apply, but be sure that they are veriably accurate. Avoid creating new categories.

The addition of a DEFAULTSORT template controls how articles are sorted in category lists. For people this should usually be their last name (surname) followed by their first name (given name): {{DEFAULTSORT:Lastname, Firstname}}.

Comments? Sugggestions? Objections? If this outline is generally acceptable, I'd like to integrate it into the guide for further refinement. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Here are some comments I have:
  • Instead of having "Personal life" at the beginning, I think this section should be called "Family, early life and education" or something of that nature, to show that the section may talk about a person's parentage, childhood and schooling. What tends to get put into "Personal life" sections is information about a person's relationships (spouses, partners, children, past and current girlfriends/boyfriends), sexuality, relatives, religious beliefs and hobbies. I think this should really go to the bottom, just before "See also", as such information is usually not of great importance. If it is significant to a person, it should be mentioned in other parts of the article and not under "Personal life".
  • Following "Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions", the order of the standard appendices should be "See also", "Notes" (containing the {{reflist|2}} template), "References", "Further reading", "External links".
  • "Wikipedia:Persondata" should be added before the {{DEFAULTSORT}} tag. Also, I notice that some people prefer to use {{Lifetime}} instead of {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Perhaps some mention should be made of this?
  • For articles about people in the entertainment industry, it is common for external links to unofficial fansites to be added. I believe this is generally frowned upon because of the unauthorized use of copyrighted images and material in such websites. Perhaps some mention should be made of this.
  • Something should be said about the appropriate use of images of living people, which is a perennial problem for biographical articles.
  • I've always wondered about this but haven't found an answer – should categories be arranged in numerical and alphabetical order (i.e., 0–9, A–Z), or in some other order such as decreasing importance? I've tended to favour the latter, but realize that one editor's idea of whether one category is more important than another tends to vary so perhaps the first rule would be easier to follow. Also, I don't think we should advise editors simply to "[a]void creating new categories"; that statement needs some qualification. New categories which are appropriate should be created.
  • Something should be said about the fact that "Trivia" and "Quotations" sections are deprecated.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a variant of the above structure, which we've found useful all over WikiProject Comics. Rather than use a monolithic format, we break up comics creators' articles in a way that keeps the biographical section self-contained, rather than mashing it up confoundingly into sections that are clearer as standalones.

  • Lead and Infobox
  • Biography
    • Early life and career [a subhead phrasing that connects the two concepts and has tended to dissuade tangential personal trivia]
    • [Various career-related subheads, particularly if the person is known for a specific character or company or time-period subheads]
    • Later life and career [or] Later life (if they essentially retired)
  • Impact (applicable if person has had a notable impact either within or outside of the field)
  • Inspirations (generally applicable for arts and science, but certainly also to the likes business)
  • [Other specific subheads according to subject: Notable public views, etc., that are illustrate opinions and beliefs, but are not in and other themselves biographical]
  • Awards
  • Bibliography (works by the article subject)
  • See also (as per current policy, additional topics of interest not already linked in article)
  • Footnotes [and-or] References (Separate sections when there are general references, such as databases, for which dozens of individual look-ups don't need to be separately footnoted, and one link to the searchable database is sufficient)
  • External links (as per current policy, "for further reading" sites of interest, and also per current policy limited to five or six maximum)

Of course, each different project will have specifics unique to it; an ancient king and a modern-day avant-garde artist, to give two plucked-from-the-air examples, may need adapted versions of the standard structure. Flexibility is more workable to different projects' needs than rigidity. —Tenebrae (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a very bad idea in biographical articles to have a section entitled "Biography". The whole article is by definition a biography. There's no need that I can see to have an umbrella heading for the individual sections on the person's life - they're better standing on their own, since they are likely to take up the bulk of the article in any case. In addition, I dislike a separate section for "Honours and awards" or suchlike. This just encourages bullet points; it is better to integrate these into the body of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this draft is misleadingly specific, and should not be included in guidelines; as an essay fine. At a number of points related to my own main area of intereest - artists - it contradicts both visual arts editors' concensus and the draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Art Manual of Style. Lists of works are discouraged for nearly all visual artists, and a painting infobox will often be preferable to an artist one. These are just examples - I think the whole thing is far too specific. Better to advise people to check out several bios of people in the same field. The comics version above is better, as less specific, & more typical in layout (further reading not so high etc). Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As previously said in "Other MOS concerns" (above), having a section titled "Biography" within a biographical article should be strongly deprecated. Call it "Early life" or "Personal life" or whatever, but it's clearly redundant to title a section "Biography" within a biographical article. JGHowes talk - 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So, discographies and the like are "discouraged"? Meanwhile they're almost everywhere, which suggests a rather weak consensus against them. Whatever; I have no dog in that fight... just making an observation. Obviously some bios will contain features that others don't, but their core contents are (or at least ought to be) pretty standard. The fact that there are conflicting rules being applied in various fields is all the more reason why an effort to establish a general standard would be helpful. I would have expected that to be the first item on WikiProject Biography's agenda, but the sooner that effort is undertaken - meaning that new articles and new editors can get started in a consistent direction - the better. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I perhaps wasn't clear above; I meant (and have amended to) specifically "visual artists", many of whom have produced over 1,000 works. I have no problem with discographies or most other lists of works, though if they get too long, splitting them off is a good idea. Several visual arts biographies' random lists of paintings have been removed or trimmed to those with articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a great start, but each section needs some work, and I wouldn't want to see it incorporated before it's right. I'm psyched that you're initiating this, but it feels a bit unwieldy to discuss. Maybe you could archive this first part of the discussion, then propose it again below, with some of the comments about order, etc. incorporated? I have two other suggestions for your second draft: 1.) Explain where the current guideline would be incorporated (no need to reprint the current sections, just point out where they would go). 2.) Steal language and get inspiration from other guidelines to flesh things out better, i.e. take the References language from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. --Melty girl (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As someone who reads and uses Wikipedia more than writes for it, but who has almost exclusively worked on biographical articles, I'm a little concerned about the first person's proposed outline above, because an article about a person isn't all biography.
Take a Wikipedia entry's section about a person's views, for example. As an analogy, let's say a book about physics has a chapter about one scientist's groundbreaking views. That chapter is about a person, yes - but it's not biographical. It doesn't tell you anything about where that person grew up, or their career path, or who they married, etc.
No one would ever call that chapter biographical - and yet that's what we would be doing here.
The same is true with a list of a person's award. Talking about those awards in the story of his/her life, putting them in historical perspective, saying what the presenters' said of the person receiving the award - that's biographical. Whereas an award list is not - that's an appendix to a biography.
Same with a bibliography or filmography of a person's work. Same with "See also" and "References" and "External links" - these are appendices to a biography. A biography is only one part of a person's entry. --Farpointer (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't all biography, but it is mostly biography, and the article is a biographical one. It seems very silly to take the great bulk (in most cases pretty much all) the article and put it into a single section - "Biography" - and then add sections of comparative weight for lesser items (often just "References" and suchlike). Take a look at some biographical articles - most of them are largely if not exclusively about the subject's life. That may not be the case with some, but it is certainly the case with the majority. No, of course an award list should be added into the article as a list, but to be honest I don't think it needs to be there at all. If the award isn't important enough to be mentioned in its historical context within the body of the article then it probably isn't important enough to be mentioned at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with this either. Painter's articles often have a biography section, before another describing aspects of their work, specific works and so on. Sometimes it's best to mix the two, sometimes not. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weird phrasing

"For objects which are "possessed" by someone, where "possession" expires with them, such as opinions or children, use the present tense for living persons and the past tense for deceased persons. Timeless facts may be expressed in the present tense even if they are in a dead person's article. Or in other words, use common sense."

Just about all of this is extremely weird phrasing. Could someone explain the intent and then we reword? Marskell (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is weird!! I'd never dream of actually using the Manual of Style myself, so I can't comment! It's like the Ministry of Funny Walks.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I use the MoS, and it's generally well-worded. But I can't make heads or tails of this. Marskell (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I better say I only meant MOS (biogs)! I just find it awkward to read. Seeing middle names annoys a bit too! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an awkward passage. My guess is that it is supposed to refer to the tense used associating a subject with people or their beliefs. If it is not written to address that need, then it ought to be -- or removed. To furnish some hypothetical examples of the usage I think it recommends:
  • "Smith has three children."
  • "The late Smith had three children."
  • "Jones believes that eating canned peaches led to Communism."
  • "The late Jones believed that eating canned peaches avoided the triumph of Communism."
Do these examples help? -- llywrch (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. Perhaps the examples should be included in the section for clarity. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with the passage myself. Makes perfect sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have cut it, while noting a change from present to past should be done consistently across an article. I presume it was intended as llywrch writes, but it's so obvious that I can't imagine there's confusion on the point. Marskell (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinte Gleska or Spotted Tail ?

"Sinte Gleska or Sinte Gleśka (pronounced gleh-shka, Spotted Tail)" is how the article on a prominent American Indian starts off, but the article is titled "Spotted Tail." Ida thunk there would have been a Muhammad Ali vs Cassius Clay rule, stating that the name the person used is to be preferred - but no such luck. It looks like "the name by which the person is best known" is the trump card. Any comments? It looks as if I'd have to change every American Indian name if I wanted to do it "my way." redirects, of course, eliminate much of the problem.

Thanks for any input.

Smallbones (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) for full discussion, but yes, based on WP:VERIFY, we would usually defer to the name used to commonly refer to someone in WP:reliable sources. Especially when it comes to "non-English names, this is not meant as an affront, but rather reflects the fact that English WIkipedia is a reference work written in the English language. Both the article itself and redirects should address any other names commonly used.--Marcinjeske (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead names

My apologies if there has been a prior discussion on lead names that I missed out on. Has it become standard to put the subject's common name in quotations, i.e. Joseph "Joe" Smith, even if that common name is simply a general, English short form of the subject's first name? Because to be honest, Joseph "Joe" is unnecessary - ostensibly Joe is short for Joseph. It is also a universal understanding that Bob is Robert and Bill is William, and so forth - "Bill" is not unique to William Jefferson Clinton, neither is "Al" to Albert Gore, nor "Dick" to Richard Cheney. Only if the subject has an obscure nickname, like Craig "Speedy" Claxton does it make sense to put the nickname in quotations. At nearly 2 million articles, thousands of which are biographies, Christopher "Chris" and Edward "Ted" starts to look untidy - throw on middle names and you start to see my point. Why can't they all just be like Tony Blair. Jay(Talk) 00:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support, should we do a clarification about this issue, telling to avoid Craig "Speedy" Claxton? Carlosguitar 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there still support for this? See e.g. Donald Rumsfeld and talk about "Rummy" -- a frequent nickname. MilesAgain (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone propose some specific language? The proposal isn't clear. --Melty girl (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that nicknames have no place in the first line of our biographies, and I would even prefer common names to be left in the infobox. To use Dick Cheney as an example, I would prefer the first line of the article to simply read "Richard Bruce Cheney (born January 30, 1941), is the forty-sixth and current..." as opposed to the current version which includes "Dick" after Bruce. In this instance, the infobox would then simply read "Dick Cheney" as opposed to "Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney" as it does now. Keep in mind Dick is Cheney's common name, and I still believe simple nicknames should remain outside of the intro sentence and infobox. Nicknames, in my opinion, should be explained later. - auburnpilot talk 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. But could you propose specific language for amending the guideline? --Melty girl (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I would favour "Richard Bruce Cheney (born January 30, 1941), known as Dick Cheney, is the forty-sixth and current..." I disagree with restricting information to infoboxes, which are, in my opinion, an optional (and fairly unnecessary) addition to an article in any case. There should be no info in infoboxes that is not in the article. I do agree that nicknames should not feature in the full name at the beginning of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That would work fine too, and I agree with your comments regarding infoboxes. - auburnpilot talk 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this change. Placing nicknames within the full name--properly denoted with quotation marks--is a common practice and a sensible one. It is sensible even for "obvious" nicknames because not all Roberts go by "Bob". Can some pressing and defensible reason be elaborated for this change? Robert K S (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Such a change/clarification is needed because the current wording regarding nicknames/common names is not clear and is barely covered at all. How do we decide which names are appropriate and which are not? I believe standard practice right now is that only common names (Dick for Cheney, Al for Gore, Bill for Clinton) are included, and nicknames such as "Rummy" Rumsfeld are not. Cheney, Gore, and Clinton all refer to themselves by those names, use those names in daily life, and are referred to by those names in the media (common), whereas Rummy is a mere nickname. The current guideline does not give any indication of what should be done in such a situation. My preference is for nicknames and common names to stay out of the initial sentence, but Necrothesp's suggestion above works well too. As you say, "It is sensible even for "obvious" nicknames", but what about the less obvious? - auburnpilot talk 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All this is well and good, but no one has made a proposal for specific wording to amend the guideline. If a concerned party would make one, then this debate would be more useful. --Melty girl (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Nicknames should only be included within the introductory sentence of an article if the subject uses that name in place of their given name" is what I was thinking. This covers the common name (daily use) situations such as Bill Clinton, but avoids giving less known nicknames unneeded prominence. Additionally, this would compliment the naming guidelines, in that Jimmy would be included for our article Jimmy Carter, and Al for Al Gore. Of course, I'm not a policy writer by any stretch of the imagination, so the wording will need adjusting (or a total rewrite). - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my proposal on nicknames:

  • Nicknames that are shorthand forms of given names (given in intro): Johnny Reid Edwards, commonly known as John Edwards
  • Nicknames that are peculiar to the person, and regularly used in formal writing in place of the legal name (given in intro): Richard Bernard “Red” Skelton
  • Nicknames that are peculiar to the person, but are only used in informal contexts (not given in intro): Donald Henry Rumsfeld (no mention of "Rummy")--Pharos (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear-cut to me. The article name should be the name by which a person is known. The opening line should contain the person's full name – not some bizarre amalgam of the two. It is totally unnecessary to repeat parts of the short form within the full form, as in Johnny Reid "John" Edwards – which is given as an example in WP:NAMES#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. We can all see that he's called John Edwards – that's why the article is titled John Edwards. I propose removing this example. That convention is more likely to cause confusion than to lessen it. The uninitiated may think the short form is part of the full name. They may wonder why "John" follows 'Reid' rather than 'Johnny'. I've even seen quoted short forms after 'born' – which is just nonsensical. Let's cut the clutter. If anyone really feels the need to explain that (in this [admittedly unusual] case) John is short for Johnny, let them do so in a separate sentence. Grant (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would apply the same logic to Red Skelton, too. We know he's called Red Skelton – it's not worth cluttering up his full legal name just to ram that information home. Grant (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, shoehorning a nickname into a person's actual name might give the impression that this form is the one generally used – as in Jack "the Hat" McVitie or "Sugar" Ray Leonard. Or would that have to be rendered as Ray "Sugar" Leonard? Or Ray "Sugar Ray Leonard" Leonard? Grant (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would caution against consideration of any proposal the basis for which is reasoning that includes the words "it is obvious" or "we can all see". A major function of the lead is clarification/disobfuscation of nomenclature. To me, it is not "obvious" that Bob is the nickname by which a Robert primarily goes (he may also go by Robb, Rob, Robby, or Robbie; a Charles may go by Chuck or Chas; a John may go by Jack or, to complicate things, may itself be a shortening of Johnathan. That a nickname is used and preferred by the subject himself/herself is immaterial; Teddy Roosevelt hated "Teddy" but it was and is such a common nickname for the person that the lead must mention it. Finally, an English-language reader unfamiliar with common Western nicknaming conventions should not be expected to refer to a lookup table to realize that certain nicknames are proper to certain fuller names. There are many that are less obvious than others. Robert K S (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name spellings in different languages

Apologies if this is in the archives somewhere and I missed it. There's a dispute on talk:Hashim Thaçi over the subject's name. For those who are not familiar with Balkan politics, Thaci is the prime minister of Kosovo. His name is Albanian, and English-language sources generally transliterate to Hashim Thaci. The dispute is whether to include the Serbo-Croatian transliteration (Хашим Тачи) as well. The reasoning behind this (and my personal belief as well) is that he was born in Kosovo at a time when it was a part of the Serbia republic in Yugoslavia. However, as Serbia denies Kosovo's right to secede, there are nationalist implications in including the transliteration. There are Serbian-language sources which use this version of his name, but I don't see any clear guidance in the MOS on how to handle this. Opinions are appreciated. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] MOS, marginal celebrity, fear of stalkers

I've been watching the article DJ Sassy since coming upon it at AfD and essentially helping to save it from deletion for promotional and notability concerns. There have been some subsequent COI issues with the subject's webmaster, but he understands our processes now and has been properly requesting changes. He requests that we remove the subject's birthname from the article and utilize only her professional pseudonym. Evidently, she has been troubled by stalkers. As a celebrity, she is not governed by BLP's policy on respecting the privacy of names. Her name appears in many of the sources used in the article and is in fact the title of the IMDb profile which is linked on the page. MOS calls for the full name. On the other hand, I'm not interested in contributing to a woman's feeling unsafe, and as she is only marginally notable by WP standards her name doesn't seem essential, MOS notwithstanding. I'm not sure how much protection removing her name from the article's body can offer, since it's still visible on the page in the sources. But...

I've gone on and ahead and converted to her pseudonym by their request because it doesn't seem like that big a deal. But I thought to bring it up here for possible review in case others disagree. :) Feedback welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, if she is already being stalked, removal of the information from the artictle will not prevent that stalker. If she is worried that future/potential stalkers may glean information from Wikipedia, I don't think that we can censor verified information that is in other publicly available forums (including links from the WP article) based on fear of potential weirdos finding it on WP first. However, WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information may apply. This topic is probably more properly addressed in the WP:BLP forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 26 May 2008
Thanks for the feedback. :) I did consider placing it over there, but decided this would probably be a better forum in this case as I've done a lot of volunteering on that noticeboard and feel pretty confident that there's no governance of BLP's privacy of personal information here. She is a celebrity whose legal name has been frequently identified in the press and not a private individual. Generally articles I've seen where celebrities have successfully appealed there for removal of birth names have been cases where clear efforts have been made to keep birth names out of press and sources for the birthname have been unreliable. (The example that comes to mind is an outspoken anti-religious commentator who appears in clownface.) I definitely agree with you that removal of the information will not prevent stalkers (I believe she is more concerned about future repetition, not an existing stalker), particularly as the linked sources still contain the name and are visibly displayed. I pointed this out to the website manager, but he and the subject evidently are still hoping for an exception here. I brought it up here as a question of how strictly other Wikipedians felt we should adhere to this styleguide under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)