Jump to content

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What This Is

[edit]

This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Dear Leader Kim Jong-il

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

Options

[edit]

The following is a summary of the alternative options. For more details and discussions see the sections below.

  1. Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article.
  2. Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided.
  3. No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.
  4. No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3.
  5. None of the above.

How You Participate

[edit]

The alternatives listed below can be ranked according to preference. You are encouraged to respond under each alternative with your signature and timestamp (please use four tildes: ~~~~) giving your order of preference for that alternative, for example:

Alternative 1:

  • First choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 2:

  • Third choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 3:

  • Second choice, comments ~~~~

You do not have to rank more than one choice. If you wish to vote for only one or two, for instance, just respond under those headings with your ranking of those alternatives. Alternatives which you do not rank will automatically be given a lower ranking than those you ranked explicitly. If you do respond under multiple alternatives, and have no preference between two or more, you may rank them with the same preference. Unsigned votes will not be counted.

After May 14, 2005 (UTC), voting will be closed and the results counted using the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method to establish a consensus. If you do not understand what this means, please refer to the article itself and the more general article on Condorcet methods of vote counting. In a nutshell, these approaches seek to find the solution which has the least opposition, rather than the strongest plurality, therefore being the most acceptable alternative to the largest majority of the community by common consent.

An additional comment: Many people seem to overlook the meaning of option #5, none of the above, meaning this poll doesn't count. If your intention is to cast a vote that means this option or nothing i.e. first and only choice, you probably want to vote for your preferred option as your first choice and for none of the above as your second choice. Zocky 18:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question and Our Responses

[edit]

Should biographical entries in the Wikipedia begin with a prefixed style of formal address?

Alternative 1

[edit]

Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article. For instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II...
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI...
Dear Leader Kim Jong-il...
  • Of course. Although I'm not sure that Kim Jong-il can properly be said to have a style in the same way as the Queen and the Pope. This is the quickest and simplest way of presenting the information that someone has a style. It draws least attention to it (as the alternative is a long sentence or paragraph describing a style - which is normally irrelevant to the biographical article). It is also what we are currently doing - a method that has built up over time, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If this is your first choice, please state so in those terms. Whig 08:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear - stop trying to corral the vote.
My intention is only to clarify the vote, not corral it. I take the wording above to mean that Alternative 1 is jguk's First choice and his comments to the other alternatives (unless ranked explicitly) indicate no preference for any of them. This means he will be considered to have ranked them below the first alternative, but not in any preference to one another. Whig 23:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. Maurreen 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First (and only) choice. Keep their formal styles, in particular those used by the press and foreign dignitaries (which therefore means that I do not think any random person who invents a style for himself deserves to get called by it on WP). — Asbestos | Talk 11:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • People are suggesting that my comments don't match my vote. I disagree. My definition of "formal style" is that in my comment above, and under this definition my comments agree with the vote. I don't believe that if Sollog were to start calling himself "his most bodacious mesiah" that would count as a formal style, as noone else would formally call him that. However, since I don't actually believe that a vote carried out in this manner will achieve anything, I'm not particularly fussed how my vote is interpreted... — Asbestos | Talk 11:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm removing my vote, because I worry that if this wins people will take this as mandate that all manner of random people should have an arbitrary "style" in front of their name. This as policy will merely shift the focus of arguments on to whether any particular case counts as a formal style or not, and such arguments are not much better than the ones that we were having before (which didn't really exist until this pope nonsense). I believe that common sense should generally prevail, and that common sense ought not be bound by an ambiguous wiki-wide policy. At this momement, without my vote, options one and three appear to be perfectly tied. Without a significant influx of votes on one side or the other, I can't imagine that one side will really have the majority needed to make a real consensus, and without a consensus the idea of making this official wiki policy ought to scrapped. — Asbestos | Talk 15:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth choice. Changed again. The arguments against have convinced me, and few other formal publications would refer to them in this way. This would be my bottom choice, were it not for the POV-magnet of option 2. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and only choice. Again, this is a non-optional, non-issue. The rest of the world does it, why shouldn't we?? Bratschetalk random 13:16, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Though I might think Kim Jong-il is a nut, that is the title he uses as the North Korean leader, and we have to show that. Zscout370 (talk) 14:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ok, this is now my third choice. There are some people who deserve titles, and some that do not. This choice will have to blanket everyone with titles. Zscout370 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth choice. Jonathunder 15:00, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. Note that some votes like that of Asbestos and Jguk are not really for this option: a vote for this means that "any random person" does get a style. Instead, styles should be mentioned rather than used (Use-mention_distinction). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:24, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • First choice . BTW the Kim one is wrong. He may use that, but the diplomatic world doesn't. We have got to use the official diplomatic one, not the 'makey-up' one of a dictator used by his supporters. FearÉIREANN 18:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not as if Kim Jong-il doesn't have diplomatic relations with China, and in any case, all styles are in some sense 'makey-up' -- the relevant issue is that a substantial number of people undoubtedly do use his formal style. Whig 09:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those voting First and only choice should read below. Whig 20:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor is not expected to know the style policy. Copy-editors who know the policy can enforce it by making appropriate changes to entries. This is going to be a large job if we have to do every US Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, Councilmembers, etc., where the honorifics are not typically prefixed at present, but we'll have to do so if this option wins. Whig 09:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. The more I think about it, leaving the title, eg "Pope John Paul II" or "Queen Elizabeth II," seems more normal for an encyclopedia. Do we even need to mention the style "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty" or "Dear Leader" if there is a separate article on the office itself? --User:Jenmoa 01:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is my Fifth choice. Titanium Dragon 09:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I changed my mind, I should probably explain why. I thought about it and realized that despite the fact that choice 2 will cause tons of edit wars, it is better than this because in reality it will deny the title to most people. For instance, the Pope is a controversial figure, as is the Dalai lama, as is the president of the United States. As such, such people would not get their styles, and would instead have it mentioned. This will, in the end, be much like 3 for commonly visited pages. Option 1 will seem POV; no encyclopedia I've ever read does it the way that Wikipedia policy is currently claimed to be. I might add that a single editor actually CHANGED the Wikipedia policy on this; originally only honorifics were mentioned, but he added styles to the list in order to support himself on the JPII article so he could add His Holiness to the beginning of it. I don't like this, and don't like this "policy", and it smacks of POV. Many will see it as a justification of their viewpoint. As such, choice one is unacceptable to me. It looks terrible, too. Titanium Dragon 10:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absurd justification. The Pope may be controversial, but the fact that his style is "His Holiness" is not. As far as a single editor changing things, there was considerable discussion of this issue at various locations. john k 22:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I've heard him referred to as the Antichrist a great deal as well; they certainly would dispute his style of his holiness. Titanium Dragon 21:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question does not pertain to the article title but to the text of the biographical entry itself. This survey seeks to establish whether there is a consensus for beginning biographical entries with a style of formal address, or whether such styles should be mentioned later in the body of the article in some or all cases. Whig 09:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting me, Whig. I am changing my votes in light of this. Second choice. One-dimensional Tangent 21:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. This presumes that style means the style applied in diplomatic circumstances. Noisy | Talk 10:43, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. -Hapsiainen 11:00, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. My reasoning against styles and honorifics is here; it holds. Styles and honorifics are inherently biased. They are unnecessary. But if they are to be used at all, they must be used consistently. — Ford 20:58, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • First choice - however, this does not mean that Wikipedia should acknowledge as valid any titles which crackpots claim for themselves. If I start up a new group of lunatics who address me as Her Wonderfulness, I do not think that a Wikipedia article about me should begin with that title. FearEireann made a good point above about the distinction between a title used by the diplomatic world, and a title used by an individual and a few followers. Ann Heneghan 21:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth choice. Dogmatically imposes a convention that contradicts established writing styles. Undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, and is likely to provoke more edit wars. BTfromLA 00:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice. Even if we're wrong, it's better that we're consistently wrong than to allow further edit wars over who is controversial. Zocky 16:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choiceGeni 12:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. James F. (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. TreyHarris 20:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. patsw 21:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC) It's just Wiki-silliness/Wiki-anarchy to treat honorifics in a way other than the non-Wiki world does.[reply]
Excuse me for butting in, patsw, but isn't that exactly what you're endorsing? Far as I can tell, zero English-language encyclopedias, academic presses or reputable news journals follow the guideline you've voted for. I simply can't understand how folks are claiming that this is the way "the non-Wiki world" handles this. The exact opposite appears to be true. BTfromLA 01:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some confusion in that this option requires the prefixed style, not just the honorific. Under every alternative we would continue to use the honorific of Queen. The style of Her Majesty would also be required to be prefixed according to this alternative (and according to the current Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). Whig 04:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. JYolkowski // talk 01:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth choice. "Styles" and "honorifics" associated with an office or position should generally only be mentioned in articles about the office or position. Paul August ☎ 02:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. Use all formal, i.e. diplomatically used, styles. Str1977 09:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Trödel|talk 15:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth Choice. violet/riga (t) 16:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • '4th BrokenSegue 22:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last choice. I have not seen a single encyclopedia that starts an article on the pope with "his holyness" and it doesn't seem very nuetral to say that it MUST be that way in wikipedia. CDThieme
  • 1st choice — Dan | Talk 22:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ninety-third choice. I don't consider this vote to be valid: it's too complicated. --Carnildo 20:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice Though I attach the condition that I agree with FearÉIREANN...when I say all styles, I mean all styles generally recognized by the press and international diplomatic corps. This does not include "Dear Leader". --MikeJ9919 23:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. Or, if you prefer: not a choice I like at all. I'm partly with Carnildo (a few lines above) on this -- the ranking system is too complex. That aside, WP is not a howto manual; why should it make an exception for letter-writing to the nobs? And even if it were (or so far as it is) a howto manual, diplomats will know this stuff anyway and won't have to be told; few non-diplomats will care; most writing and conversation gets on very well without this stuff (indeed, much better, as it's uninformative filler at best, grovelling verbal flatus at worst). I've no particular objection to provision of this so-called information somewhere within the article to benefit trivia-hounds and those few other people who want it, considerable objection to any rule by which its conspicuous provision is compelled. -- Hoary 06:50, 2005 May 13 (UTC) PS for clarity: fifth choice. -- Hoary 05:08, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • First choice where the style has international validity - the "diplomatic" test is key here, making the style's use (not just its inclusion) an objective matter. (Unclear whether this criterion counts as an exception, as in Option 2, or merely a clarification; reading the comments, I think there's a fair bit of confusion on this. Also have to say I am completely baffled by the voting system - what's wrong with single transferable vote?) Vilcxjo 11:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I don't understand how the "diplomatic test" will change anything. Whose diplomacy? Where internationally? Any given country or a set of countries? UN? What do we do with styles in countries that ara not in the UN? Zocky 13:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication of your question is that different bodies of diplomats might adopt quite different standards. It would probably require an experienced diplomat to comment authoritatively, but I'd be surprised if (for example) a government writing to the Queen but failing to use her style would be left in any doubt (no matter how subtly it was conveyed!) that they had failed to follow proper form. However, none of this is intended to elevate diplomats as such to being the ultimate arbiters of the matter; rather it is to suggest that (in the vast majority of cases, even of quite controversial figures) there is an established mode of address which it is improper (and POV) deliberately to omit. Vilcxjo 16:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice Maltaran 18:46, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. JRM · Talk 19:57, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. JamesMLane 06:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2

[edit]

Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided, for instance:

Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader...

If you choose this alternative, please specify the rule or convention by which you believe exceptions should be carved out; should formal styles be mandatorily prefixed in some biographical articles, optionally in some cases, improperly in others?

  • This is a non-option. Someone either has a formal style or not. There is no possible controversy here - it is just a case of looking for and supplying reliable sources as to whether someone does or does not have a formal style (in the way that the Queen and Pope do). Because of our (unwritten) policy that disputed info must be backed up by a source to be included in an article - alternative 1 already achieves what is sought here, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 2. Whig 08:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear - stop trying to corral the vote.
  • Second Choice Though I voted for the first option, if people are truely offended with the title, or with a situation like that of Kim Jong-il, then this will be a better option. Zscout370 (talk) 14:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. Jonathunder 14:59, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. Incidentally, per Zscout, I am "truly offended" by the use of the style "His Holiness" in reference to a Catholic Pope. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:26, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Third choice. BTW you may be offended, but that is a POV and wikipedia doesn't do POVs. The issue is - is that their style? Whether some people like it or not is irrelevant. FearÉIREANN 18:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • With the Pope, he is address by most Catholics and national leaders as the Holy Father. As Jtdirl pointed out, only the North Korean people call Kim Jong-il Dear Leader. So if people do not like the first option, then that is why this is my second choice. As long as the style in included in the article, perhaps in the first few lines, I will be happy. Zscout370 (talk) 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. I don't like this option unless someone can come up with a NPOV way of carving out the exceptions, but I prefer it to having to use the prefixed-style in all cases even in extreme cases. Whig 21:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First choice. I believe this can work with the Compromise Proposal submitted below. Whig 04:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Third choice. The compromise proposal doesn't seem to work very well from the comments that it's received, maybe it can be improved but unless someone can come up with a better wording, my vote is changed again. Whig 03:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this would be my fourth choice; I would imagine from the controversy surrounding most prominent figures that this would actually be a lot more like 3 than 1. I can't really think of anyone important who isn't controversial; for instance, the Pope is controversial. This would probably result in the least offense, because only very inoffensive people would actually have styles. This will surely result in edit wars, but I prefer it over method 1 simply because I find alternative 1 totally unacceptable. Titanium Dragon 09:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I see the Pope as being a controversial figure, and thus he would be denied his style under this vote - I can site dozens if not hundreds of people who call him controversial. Thus this option is far superior to option 1, because only obscure people would have styles prefacing their articles, as most people are controversial if they are important enough to have styles. Only the unknown or the totally inoffensive would get their styles in this case; others would be as if in alternative 3. Slightly inconsistant, but I think better for the NPOV appearance of Wikipedia, as no encylclopedia I have read prefaces names with styles. Titanium Dragon 10:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Benedict XVI, like most political leaders, has said and done many controversial things. That he is pope is entirely uncontroversial. john k 03:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue; there are people who dispute it. And it is not as if it is disputed that Kim Jong-il is in charge of North Korea; in fact, there are likely fewer people who would say Kim Jong-il is not leader of North Korea than who will say Benedict XVI is not the Pope. Given the example of Kim Jong-il, I see the Pope's style as being at least as controversial. Titanium Dragon 21:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 3

[edit]

No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. For instance:

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty, is...
Pope Benedict XVI, formally addressed as His Holiness, is ...
Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader, is...
  • This is nonsense. Why say "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom..." when we can just say the much shorter "Her Majesty Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom...". This option (I can't bring myself to say "alternative" 3 as you can't have more than 2 alternatives) will just make articles look naff. Also, it's a wholly artificial construct, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 3. Whig 08:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote. jguk


  • Second choice. Maurreen 08:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Jonathunder 14:46, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Second choice. (updated ranking) While I am not too unhappy with this form, I am convinced by several other voters that putting the style later in the article would be better and more standard for encyclopedias. (not that it will matter under Condorcet voting) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:53, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I've never seen this style adopted in any printed encyclopaedia or any news source (respected or otherwise), jguk 17:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right; most encylcopedias don't include styles at all! But it does make it more complete. Titanium Dragon 10:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reluctant second choice. It is also wrong to say people are addressed that way. There are a number of methods of address in different contexts (Her Majesty, Your Majesty, Ma'am, Your Holiness, His Holiness, Holy Father, Most Holy Father, etc). The correct term is styled, because it is an official formal style (ie, His Holiness, Her Majesty, His Excellency, the Right Honourable, etc), not an address that we are talking about. It is an important difference. FearÉIREANN 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changed my mind. Now Fifth choice. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 03:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. The examples given should not be taken as formulas that must be followed precisely, so long as the formal style is provided in the introductory paragraph as prescribed. So the comment by FearÉIREANN above that we should use the precise term styled does not require a different convention than this one. Whig 21:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Second choice. Whig 05:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm persuaded that this option seems too prescriptive and it may be better to consider some other convention, like providing the style with the office rather than in the biographical article itself. Whig 03:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather compromise for Alternative 3 than support an indeterminate outcome. Whig 20:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, Whig. My reluctant vote was reluctant for different reasons but it sets my mind a bit that we will be careful to use correct terminology in practice. (Thanks, BTW for all your hard work, Whig.) FearÉIREANN 21:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Neutralitytalk 22:50, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. See above.--ghost 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. Don't waste intro paragraph space on a relatively minor point. Flyers13 00:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC) First choice. Flyers13 01:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice -- note, in particular, that a person's style may change throughout their life. -- Karada 12:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice -- Jonik 15:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice -- Zscout370 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth choice. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:45, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only choice. It is (mildly) POV to use styles such as "His Holiness" instead of mentioning them. However, should their use prevail, I think they should at least be italicized to make it absolutely clear that they are styles, not descriptions by Wikipedia.--Eloquence* 16:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • First and only choice -- These prefixes smack of elitism. But they are a part of describing what some people (e.g., their subjects) call these elites. Therefore, the prefixes should be mentioned, but after the core name of the individuals. Somebody above talked about this being "Americo-centrism", but it's really about precision. Most people around the world will not call Queen Elizabeth II "Her Majesty", and shouldn't have to, as most of us are not her subjects. It is just plain wrong to grant these elites a prefix to suggest that everyone on Earth should refer to them in that way. It's wrong and these elites don't deserve it. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Those voting First and only choice should read below. Whig 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. --User:Jenmoa 01:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is now my Second choice; not all articles should require the inclusion of a note on style at all, but this is preferable to options 1 and 2 by a long shot. Titanium Dragon 00:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. CDThieme
  • First choice. This is better because I think it's ridiculous that EVERYONE have their style at the beginning of an article. Here in New York, at a formal gathering, our local legislators are introduced as "The honorable..." but that would look ridiculous in an article.Morris 11:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Option 1 wouldn't mean that as they are not the type of styles that is being spoken about. Similarly, despite what Whig has put, we would not say The Honorable Governor Jeb Bush, but just Governor Jeb Bush - nor would we start a Wikipedia article on a British Law Lord "The Noble and Learned Lord...". Generally speaking the US does not have honorifics (I think there may even be a law against recognising such styles) - so Option 1 would have very little impact on articles on US citizens. It is only those people which really do have formal styles that would have them, jguk 12:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is true few Americans have HONORIFICS. However, due to the way YOU unilaterally changed things, we now (hopefully temporarily) include STYLES as well. Judges in the US are formally addressed as "Your honor". Maybe you don't understand the difference between an honorific (such as Sir) and a Style (manner of address)? "His holiness" and "Honorable" are both styles, not honorifics, and both would have to be put in, before their names, if option 1 was put in place. He understands it better than you do, it would seem. Titanium Dragon 12:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear what sort of styles are being talked about. Also there is considerable overlap between "honorific" styles and styles! jguk 12:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Currently people are fighting back and forth about making "The honorable" the first words of the Hillary Clinton article. It is true, she is introduced that way, but it sounds silly, and I've never heard her called that, except to introduce her formally. There is no definative rule on the matter, but I would not put "The honorable" in the same category as "Her royal highness". Morris 02:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Both Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair are political office holders. Therefore, if it is improper to style Hillary Clinton as The Honorable then it is equally improper to style Tony Blair as The Right Honorable. Please see my Compromise Proposal below, as it may be a solution to the current deadlock. Whig 03:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choiceThird choice Would still be messy and inconsistent, but at least it's not openly POV like what we have now. Zocky 12:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Viajero 15:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. --Quasipalm 17:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. —Brent Dax 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third First and only choice. Tracking the correct terms of address for all the various offices and nobility would be a nightmare. Honorific titles that apply to officeholders would have to be added and deleted from hundred of entries every years as elections and appoinments change the titles. (for example, all members of the U.S. Congress, all governors, all state representatives, etc, are due the honorific title of The Honorable). Most honorifics only apply to living persons, requiring yet more maintenance. Better to have none. More encyclopedic too. Other encyclopedias do not use the titles at all. In the case of Queen Elizabeth II the discussion of the honorifics that apply should go into a general article like "English monarchy", since they would be the same for any king or queen. -Willmcw 14:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. RSpeer
  • First and only BrokenSegue 04:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third. A bit rigid, but at least it keeps the style out of the title. One-dimensional Tangent 05:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. One-dimensional Tangent 21:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In any article, statements always ought to be edited as necessary to conform with what can be cited as factual or disputed. Whig 09:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above vote was made by a user who was not logged in, and may be forged. It will not be counted unless authenticated. Whig 12:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 4

[edit]

No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3. Please specify the convention you prefer and explain why you think it is preferable.

  • First choice. Maurreen 08:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Articles should probably include the formal style, but that need not be mandated. It shouldn't be used in front of the name, but anywhere is OK.
  • Second choice would be exactly what Maurreen proposes above. Jonathunder 14:48, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • I can't see how this "alternative" will help. Option 1 is the quickest, simplest and easiest way, and has the benefit of being the one we currently use, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 4. Whig 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote.
Whig's not corraling anyone. If you choose not to vote, it's your loss. But then don't whine if you lose.--ghost 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. In agreement with Maurreen also. The use of style might be treated as an "interesting fact" in a biographical entry. Probably mentioned in the initial paragraph (after the first sentence), but not automatically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:49, 2005 May 7 (UTC) (updated ranking)
  • Fifth choce. Unworkable, illogical and impractical in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN 18:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how a different convention than Alternative 3 (such as including the style in the body of the article possibly other than in the introductory paragraph) is necessarily unworkable, illogical and impractical. Whig 08:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. This option would allow the formal style to be given elsewhere in the article than the introductory paragraph, for instance. Whig 21:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First choice. I think Zocky makes a good point below. Whig 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While it's a good point, but I'd rather not prefer an indeterminate outcome. Whig 20:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth choice. I can't think of a better option.--ghost 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Fifth choice means you think that this is your least preferred alternative. Your statement above that you "can't think of a better option" suggested that some clarification might be necessary. Whig 11:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I.E: I agree with Maureen and/or Ford's interpretation. Titanium Dragon 10:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is now my First choice. Titanium Dragon 00:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice: Biographical articles should by default NOT include styles, as these are normally tied to a person's office, position or award, not the person as such (e.g. Tony Blair was NOT born Right Honorable). Except in exceptional cases, styles should be described in the articles about offices, positions and awards that they are used for. Zocky 12:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third choice. I think the correct rule is really "would be called by the majority of people", or something similar. I do worry about edit-warring, though. —Brent Dax 23:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Styles are disallowed in article titles, but may be placed in article text as editors see fit (subject to the normal NPOV and dispute-resolution processes). Simple, NPOV, and flexible. One-dimensional Tangent 05:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third choice. My alternative to option 1 would be to have a separate paragraph called Style of address which would indicate the diplomatic, past and informal ways of addressing the person, and why each applies. Noisy | Talk 10:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. The honorary titles should be in a special section later in the article, or they should be in the article about that post, award etc -Hapsiainen 11:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Articles may describe the honorific or style, but must not employ the honorific or style, must not be required to describe it, and preferably would not describe it at all. It is generally trivial information added by sycophants. — Ford 20:40, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • First choice. I endorse the interpretations of Zocky and Ford, above. BTfromLA 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and only real choice. Such titles tend to be transitory and non-permanent, tied to a job, office etc. rather than the person themselves. Also such honourifics have the potential to be POV and controversial. If they are important they should be mentioned in the article, but they should not be attached to the name directly. Rje 00:56, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Note that Rje does vote a second choice, despite calling this "first and only"; I believe from side correspondence that it is his intention to rank two, but simply to emphasize the strength of the first choice ranking. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:56, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Then he should probably list #5 (none of the above) as his second choice and his current second choice as third. Zocky 18:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As unsatisfactory as I find most of these options I feel that alternative #5 is merely sweeping the problem under the carpet, I think that that option would merely result in the issue cropping up again in a couple of months. I changed my vote on this alternative to "first and only real choice" in the hope of avoiding further confusion. Rje 23:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
The above vote was made by a user who was not logged in, and may be forged. It will not be counted unless authenticated. Whig 12:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Styles and honorifics should by preference go into the articles about the offices rather than persons. If there's only an article about the person than the styles and honorifics should be treated in a NPOV manner by mentioning them later in the article. -Willmcw 23:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Two hundred sixty-second choice. I don't consider this vote to be valid, as it makes it too hard to figure out the winner. --Carnildo 20:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice. I think I'd rather have nothing or a note somewhere towards the bottom than awkward statements in the first paragraph of the article. john k 22:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice, it won't hurt to mention the style in a section about that person's current office, but I wouldn't expose it much more. Dejan Cabrilo 23:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. Agree with Cabrilo above. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice Vilcxjo 11:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. The whole style should be mentioned at the start of the article, with the actual article title in bold. For example: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This would be consistent with not including honorifics like Sir in the title, compare: Rt Hon Sir Edward Braddon PC KCMG. The title should be as simple as possible. --bainer 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Don't put them before the name, but there's some room for case-by-case decisions in whether to put them in the lead section. Some title not in general use, like an absurdly laudatory title for a leader of a minor religion or political movement, might not be important enough to be mentioned in the lead section. Some extremely fringe-y honorifics might not be worth including in the article at all. JamesMLane 06:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Do not employ these styles, as to do so is to be unusually and unnecessarily obsequious, to no informative end. Such etiquette trivia may be worth a passing mention somewhere, I suppose: if the interested minority can't be expected to go off and buy Fantasized Social Climbing for Dummies, then how about chucking it all into an article on Prefixed honorary titles? Such an article might have a certain bizarre fascination. Or, if WP must supply this info for each office, then stick it somewhere inconspicuously far down the article on that office, and not near the top of the article on the chauffeured personage who happens to occupy the office at any given time. -- Hoary 14:39, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • Second choice. I'd go for Maurreen's approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 5

[edit]

None of the above. You may rank this choice first or after any alternatives that you find acceptable. If this alternative wins over all others, the survey results should be set aside and the question should be given further discussion or ultimately archived.

  • Oh great - anarchy! jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 5. Whig 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote.
Whig's not corraling anyone. If you choose not to vote, it's your loss. But then don't whine if you lose.--ghost 23:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This option means "this vote doesn't count", not "anarchy". Zocky 13:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third choice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • A deeply reluctant fourth choice, only because one if even worse. FearÉIREANN 18:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. While I think it would be a shame if this alternative wins, I consider the use of prefixed-style to be POV in at least some cases, and if used with exceptions subject to endless disputes over when it is and is not, therefore those options are undesirable to me. Whig 21:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fourth choice. If exceptions are clearly made with an unambiguous NPOV method (see Compromise Proposal below), I prefer that to setting aside the survey. Whig 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final results

[edit]

The survey is now closed, and new votes will not be accepted nor may existing votes be changed, as the deadline has passed. A more complete analysis with conclusions and a follow-up ratification vote will be posted shortly, but as people may want to know what the final results are sooner rather than later, I thought it would be helpful to provide the final results as they have been counted.

A given set of preferences can be designated in preference order like A>B>C which means that A is preferred to B, and B is preferred to C. If there are multiple votes that have this set of preferences, we can provide the number first, like 5:A>B>C. If 6 voters chose B as their first and only choice, their preferences can be designated like 6:B>A=C which shows that B is preferred to both A and C, where A and C are equally ranked with one another.

The final results for this survey can therefore be described as follows: 

5:1>2=3=4=5
1:1>2>3=4=5
2:1>2>3>4=5
1:1>2>3>5>4
1:1>2=4=5>3
1:1>2=4>5>3
6:1>2>4>5>3
1:1>2>5>3>4
6:1>2>5>4>3
1:1>3>4>2>5
1:1>5>2=3=4
1:1>5>2>3=4
1:1>5>4>3>2
1:2>1>4>5>3
2:2>1>3>4=5
1:2>1>5>4>3
6:3>1=2=4=5
1:3>1>2=4=5
1:3>1>2>5>4
1:3>1>5>4>2
1:3>2>1=4=5
1:3>2>1>5>4
1:3>4>1=2=5
1:3>4>1>5>2
2:3>4>2>5>1
1:3>4=5>1>2
1:3>4>5>1=2
2:3>4>5>1>2
1:3>4>5>2>1
1:3>5>1=2=4
1:3>5>4>2>1
1:4>1=2=3=5
1:4>2>1=5>3
2:4>3>1=2=5
1:4>3=5>2>1
3:4>3>5>1>2
4:4>3>5>2>1
1:4>5>2=3>1
1:4>5>3>1=2
1:4>5>3>1>2
2:4>5>3>2>1
1:5>3>1>4>2
1:5>4>3>1>2

Without creating all the matrices out by hand for the purposes of getting a quick count, we can use a handy online calculator to tally these results by selecting Beatpath Winner and pasting these values into the form as the list of ranked ballots.

With 73 valid votes counted, Alternative 3 was preferred 39:33 to Alternative 1 (53.4% strength), Alternative 1 was preferred 37:28 to Alternative 4 (50.7% strength), and Alternative 4 was preferred 35:30 to Alternative 3 (47.9% strength). Dropping the weakest defeat to resolve the cyclical ambiguity, Alternative 3 was most strongly preferred. Alternative 2 was preferred only to Alternative 5, leaving Alternative 5 defeated by all other options.

Explanation of "Weakest Defeat"

[edit]

Because there is a cycle (3>1, 1>4, 4>3) above, the final result seems ambiguous. However, all sets of preferences are not equal. Only 47.9% of the total ballots cast expressed a preference for 4>3, so 52.1% of the total ballots either preferred 3>4 or had no preference between these alternatives. Since a majority do not mind if Alternative 4 does not defeat Alternative 3, we drop that comparison from consideration. What then remains is 3>1>4, with the largest number of ballots satisfied by this outcome.

A more complete description of this method can be found at the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping page.

Ratification

[edit]

The survey results have been calculated, and the winning alternative is now being subjected to ratification in order to establish whether or not the prescribed convention should be adopted.

Please go to the Ratification page to approve or reject this convention.

Discussion

[edit]

Any discussion relating to the survey itself and not intended to indicate a preference for a particular alternative should go on the Talk page.

Comments on Whig and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

[edit]

FYI, please note that comments are now invited on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. In both instances, the request is to ask them to calm down, leave this issue alone for a while and contribute constuctively elsewhere on WP. Incidentally, I have offered to do the same if they both agree. Kind regards, jguk 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles&oldid=1063388506"