Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2010 archive

Cardinals

Should cardinals be referred to in Wikipedia in the form "Cardinal John Doe" or the form "John Cardinal Doe"? It has been authoritatively suggested that, in relation to the body of Wikipedia articles, this question should be discussed here, not under Wikipedia: Naming conventions (clergy), which lays down that "John Doe" is the form to use in the title of Wikipedia articles.

• Reuters Handbook of Journalism has: "At first reference Cardinal John Doe. At subsequent references the cardinal or Doe";
• The Associated Press stylebook, quoted by Douglas LeBlanc on Anglicanism out of AP style at the Times?, agrees: "The preferred form for first reference is to use Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop before the individual's name: Cardinal Timothy Manning, archbishop of Los Angeles. On second reference, Manning or the cardinal.
• The religious Publications Style Book of the Franciscan Holy Name Province likewise lays down: "Use the form 'Cardinal John Smith' instead of the older 'John Cardinal Smith'."

At least one book written by an individual Catholic clergyman says that "John Cardinal Doe" is the correct form. There seems to be no corporate manual of style that agrees. On the contrary, an old corporate manual of the Catholic Church, The Catholic Directory (London 1906), quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia (which says it "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general"), states that the correct form is "His Eminence Cardinal ..." - not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ...". And "Cardinal John Doe" is the form normally used on the Holy See website to refer to cardinals. (It reproduces the signatures of cardinals in the "John Cardinal Doe" style, which is traditional for such signatures, just as in the signatures of popes the word "Papa", abbreviated Pp. or PP., is put after the name, as "Benedictus PP. XVI", but the popes are always referred to in the form "Pope Benedict XVI", never as "Benedict Pope XVI".)

The academic source that I have cited rules only that "Cardinal John Doe" must be used, not "John Cardinal Doe". In the interests of brevity, the two press agencies also require that further mentions of a cardinal, after the first, should be in the forms "the cardinal" or "Doe". It might be well to apply this rule also of the press agencies, but for now I am only proposing that, as required by all the cited manuals of style of secular and academic corporate entities, we adopt the rule that "Cardinal John Doe", not "John Cardinal Doe", is the style to use in Wikipedia articles.

The following wording, which others will doubtless be able to improve, may serve:

In Wikipedia articles, a cardinal is referred to as "Cardinal John Doe", not as "John Cardinal Doe". Lima (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that the policy/guideline be adopted when refering to cardinals in Wikipedia articles. -- Scrivener-uki (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Cardinal <name> <surname> is according to the Holy See an informal format generally adopted in non-formal contexts post Vatican II. The technically correct matter remains the pre-Vatican II <name> Cardinal <surname>. The problem with using the modern variant is that it involves constructing a new form for a thousand years of cardinal who were never at the time known by that format. As late as the 1960s formal protests were made to broadcasters in Ireland when reference was made to "Cardinal William Conway". Conway himself, a notoriously tempermental man behind a calm exterior, would blow a fuse if the media didn't refer to him as "William Cardinal Conway". His successor, Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich, was the first Cardinal in Ireland ever to be know widely by the modern form of Cardinal <name> <surname>.

The stylebooks referred to are referring, as style books tend to, to current usage in current contexts. Media sources are not likely to be concerned about a 16th century Spanish cardinal or an 18th century Italian cardinal, or the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin in the 1870s. But Wikipedia, unlike those stylebooks, has to cover not merely modern cardinals, for which the modern version is more common, but a millennium of earlier cardinals for which not merely was it not used but it was highly offensive. The proposed policy would involve reconstructing the form of name of a millennium of cardinals to conform to informal post-Vatican II usage, when the modern form only began to be used widely circa 1963.

In addition while it is not common now, many mediaeval cardinals adopted an entirely different cardinalate name to their personal name. So if one tries to use modern informal and stylebook usage to those names one would have to entirely create names that not merely were never used but which no historian or history follower would recognise. Cardinal Giulio Raimondo Mazarino would not be recognised by anyone. But he is recognised as Jules Cardinal Mazarin or Cardinal Mazarin, never Cardinal Jules Mazarin, for their actually was no name "Jules Mazarin".

Trying to rename a millennium of cardinals to match post-Vatican II naming styles and modern media and cultural usage would be a nonsense. Wikipedia, unlike the sources those style books are used for, is concerned not just with the present but with the past, and it would be absurd to have to make up a form of address that did not exist for a millennium of people that were never known that way. Logic suggests you show the same flexibility that history has produced, and either apply one standard (in which case as the vast majority of cardinals were known by <name> Cardinal <surname or title> it should be in that format) or allow for flexibility to enable people to be entered in the form they are known by, even if means complications where one format was in practice replaced by another, eg, the move from William Cardinal Conway to Cardinal Tómas Ó Fiaich. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Fear Éireann makes many affirmations that are unsupported and, as far as I can see, incorrect. His opening claim about a supposed declaration by the Holy See is an example. In contrast with what he says, the formal use of the "Cardinal X Y" form long predates the Second Vatican Council. I have quoted above the 1906 Catholic Directory, which says this is the correct form in English. Other much earlier books could be quoted, as can be seen in relation to Fear Éireann's claims about Cardinal Mazarin. This cardinal called himself "Giulio Mazzarino" when speaking Italian and growing up in Rome as the son of Sicilian parents, but "Jules Mazarin" when speaking French and active in the French court. Since he is best known for his activity in France (and in French), he is known as "Cardinal Mazarin" or, as in this 1908 book and hundreds of others, as "Cardinal Jules Mazarin". He is referred to in Latin as "Cardinalis Jul. Mazarini" (genitive case of "Cardinalis Julius Mazarinus" ) on the title page of this 1708 book - decidedly earlier than what Fear Éireann supposes to have been the first formal usage of the "Cardinal X Y" form. It is by no means the only source that show how baseless is Fear Éireann's affirmation that using "Cardinal X Y" would mean referring to pre-Vatican-II cardinals in a way in which they were never referred to in their own times.

We are in the 21st century, and should follow 21st-century usage, as defined in the authoritative sources quoted above. Lima (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not because of I have any preference on how to write about Cardinals, but because I don't think we need a rule to cover every situation or every office. I trust our writers and editors to write well formed prose, and creating all these rules to force them to write in one way or another just becomes constraining. I suppose I'm voting for inconsistency, because I think forced consistency is overrated and boring. Gentgeen (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support The form Cardinal Christian-name Surname is the most common in usage now. I don't see any reason to support a form which, while it enjoys some support among editors, has not been shown to be consistent with anything else in the Wikipedia or current general audience media. patsw (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I came here by accident but a comment above, nothing more than an Appeal_to_novelty - "We are in the 21st century, and should follow 21st-century usage" did it for me. Further, in M.F. McCarthy's "Heraldica Collegii Cardinalium" (2000), the forward is signed as Edward Bede Cardinal CLANCY. 79.70.116.29 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on this anonymous editor's remark about the signature attached to a foreword: As mentioned above, cardinals sign as "<Christian Name> Cardinal <Surname>", but are normally referred to as "Cardinal <Christian Name> <Surname>". The question here is how we in Wikipedia should refer to cardinals, not how any cardinal who wants to join our discussion should sign his contributions! Lima (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The normal usage today is Cardinal <Christian name> <surname>. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If John Doe is a Cardinal, then he is most likely to be referred to neither as "Cardinal John Doe" nor as "John Cardinal Doe". Most likely he will be "Cardinal Doe" on first reference, and on later reference just "Doe". For comparison, one usually refers to "General Custer", then "Custer"; seldom "General George Custer". In this respect, encylopedia style differs from news-agency style. The only exception will be in the opening sentence of his own biography; in that case, use "Cardinal John Doe" or "John Cardinal Doe" depending on when he lived. By all means let's debate when the change of style occurred; but that should be agreed at Cardinal (Catholicism)#Title and reference style and its talk page, and then reflected in the MOS. jnestorius^(talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Background on Christian-name Cardinal Surname

A separate section to discuss how the convention of Christian-name Cardinal Surname originated.

• One claim is in the origin of the word, cardo meaning hinge. The two parts connected are the local community for which he is archbishop and the Holy See. You can see this presented in The Catholic Answer Book, Volume 3 and many other sources of Catholic miscellany.
• Another claim is based upon the structure of titles of nobility, where the form Christian-name title surame was used. At some point in the past "James Lord Baskerville" was used as well as "John Cardinal Fisher." The former usage was dropped and the latter usage retained at least until the time of Vatican II. I will try to find a source for this. patsw (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, we still sometimes refer to "Alfred, Lord Tennyson", but I can't think of any other cases like that. Why Tennyson alone gets this treatment is beyond me. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• While I permit myself to observe that the usage may go back to before the adoption of hereditary family names (surnames), when people only had a given name to which might be added, in the case of the nobility, a non-hereditary indication of the territory they ruled over (So-and-so Earl of Such-and-such, So-and-so Cardinal of Such-and-such), I think this question, if pursued, should be moved to another page, keeping this for discussing the style to use in writing Wikipedia articles today`. Lima (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• The style "James Lord Baskerville" hasn't been dropped. It's still correct usage, although with a comma. "Lord James Baskerville" would mean he was the younger son of a duke or marquess; "James, Lord Baskerville" is a baron in his own right or is the eldest son of an earl or above and holds one of his father's baronies as a courtesy title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means discuss this; but not here: use Cardinal (Catholicism)#Title and reference style and its talk page. jnestorius^(talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics

I don't understand why there are separate sections Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific titles. The latter reads as though someone is struggling to make a very specific point, but I for one can't make out what that might be or why it can't be made in the earlier section. I also note that, whereas MOS:HONORIFIC redirects to the second section, there's also WP:HONORIFIC which goes to the first one.jnestorius^(talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

The guideline currently limits the inclusion of post-nominal initials immediately following the bold article subject by reference to only one criterion: to those "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated"—in particular, there is no suggestion that such honors be significant, generally recognized, or otherwise noteworthy. This does not seem reasonable. For example, the the use of "FACSM" (presumably "Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine") in [1] this article revision appears to be consistent with policy. However, the vast majority of significant academics are fellows of much more well-known organizations and articles on those individuals seldom advertise such fellowships in the lede. Does anyone else (a) see a need for some kind of further guidance; and/or (b) have a suggestion for what would be appropriate?

^Bongo_matic 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but suspect that the reason for the omission may be the difficulty of agreeing on what is "significant, generally recognized, or otherwise noteworthy". This sounds like a recipe for pitched battles on talk pages. You might want to do a search of the talk page archives to see if the issue has been discussed before. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also a problem is the current wording. "issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated". This would suggest that if it is a country where the person has lived, that would be acceptable. However, if it is a society such as the Royal Society, unless the person had a "close association" with the organization (not just a fellow, but perhaps a president, member of the board, etc.) then they do not get the post-nomial letters. Following the MOS here would require changes to featured articles such as Charles Darwin and Michael Woodruff. DigitalC (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe your assessment of Darwin's relationship to the Royal Society is correct. If my memory of the Darwin biography I read a few years back is correct, his relationship to the Society and other prominent members of it was close and a significant part of his professional relationships. He clearly qualifies to have "FRS" after his name in his Wikibio, even under the current scheme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing in the wikibio that indicates a "close association" for the Royal Society. What is your definition of "a significant part of his professional relationships"? DigitalC (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't basing my comment on the wikipedia article, but on my memory of a full-scale biography I read. (I'd pull the volume off my shelf, but the Christmas tree is currently in the way.) A quick Google on "Charles Darwin" and "Royal Society" brings up some pertinent facts: Darwin received the Society's "Copley Medal" in 1864, the combined Darwin/Wedgewood family had at least ten members of the Royal Society, that Darwin received a state funeral was due to a request by the President of the Royal Society, Darwin reported his findings after the voyage of the Beagle to the Society, a number of Darwin's letters were published in the Society's Transactions, a good deal of Darwin's correspondance was to and from other Fellows of the Society, etc. etc. Darwin is one of the most significant figures in science in the last millennium, and the Royal Society wasn't just an organization he joined and mailed in his dues every year, it and the people in it were the backbone of English (and therefore European) science, and for that reason his membership is significant.

Now, in what way, for instance, is Stephen J. Press's Fellowship in the Academy American College of Sports Medicine comparable, that his article should include the post-nomial "FASM" following his name? What is his relationship to the organization? Did he publish in its journal? Has he been an officer? Is his correspondance centered around relationship defined or created by his association with the Academy ACSM? If I Google his name with the name of the organization, will significant tendrils of a relationship be found? Or is it, in fact, simply a professional association of which he is a member? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Press is the only Chiropractor who has been granted a fellowship in the American College of Sports Medicine. I would consider this to be a fairly significant relationship. However, I don't consider it to be a "close association". I don't consider receiving medals from a society to denote a "close relationship" either, nor the fact that a society arranged a state funeral. Again, I think my biggest problem with the text is that it is vague. What defines a "close relationship"?

What can I say, we couldn't disagree more. A quick cursory search shows the close relationship between Darwin and the Royal Society, but being the only chiropractor in the ACSM seems to me to be an extremely slender thread to hang a post-nomial on. I think if you want to include it in the article, you must come up with something showing a close relationship, because I don't see that as sufficient. It's not enough to argue that "close relationship" is vague when you're not providing anything that even comes close to being reasonably considered to be a "close relationship." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand (as there are plenty of other good forums to squabble about Press), despite the difficulty of agreeing, isn't it worth trying? How about:

Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by athe country of the subject's citizenship or long-term residence or by a widely-recognized organization with which the subject has been closely associated.

Not that it's perfect, but at least it distinguishes sovereign and private honors. ^Bongo_matic 04:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That would surely include postnoms denominating degrees, which we have long deprecated! It's a difficult call, but I would only include official postnoms (since some people seem to make up their own postnoms!) denominating honours awarded by a recognised sovereign state and a handful of others which are always included (e.g. in a British context, PC [Privy Councillor], QC [Queen's Counsel], DL [Deputy Lieutenant], FRS [Fellow of the Royal Society], FBA [Fellow of the British Academy], and not many more - these are used even in official British government lists). Most countries surely have a small selection of postnominals which are usually used, even in official lists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand why it would "surely include postnoms denominating degrees", as degrees are specifically excluded under WP:CREDENTIAL. While I think the idea of limiting it to ones awarded by sovereign states, I think claiming that FBA and FRS are more deserving of recognition than, say FACS, becomes a question of line drawing that will always be difficult. I think it would be fine to drop all non-official postnoms. But either way, Necrothesp, why don't you propose language? ^Bongo_matic 03:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording proposed would include degrees since they are issued by recognised organisations. My point about FRS and FBA is that they are considered to be official and are included in government lists, whereas other fellowships generally are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The previous language permits those issued by any organization closely associated with the individual, so this is a restriction. As stated, the previous section in the MOS (WP:CREDENTIAL) is dispositive on whether degrees should be included—they shouldn't. If you think this is ambiguous, even the current form should be clarified to say

:Post-nominal letters, other than degrees (which are discussed immediately above), should be included . . .

If you can suggest an objective criterion for determining for each government which domestic fellowships or equivalent are deemed "official", that would be useful. But inclusion on one or more government lists doesn't, in itself, evidence a consistent policy or rationale. ^Bongo_matic 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That wording still leaves the ambiguity as to what defines "closely associated". DigitalC (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, a little bit off-topic, but what is your opinion about the use of post-nominal initials in infoboxes? Somehow many think to be less stringent and then also academic degrees are then included. See for example Michaëlle Jean. It's a huge bunch of Post-nominal initials. Demophon (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The example you cite is clearly excessive and needs to be drastically reduced. Perhaps a numerical limit should be set -- mayeb 3? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the same guidelines as apply in the lede should apply. ^Bongo_matic 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think infoboxes are often used as a way to get round lede restrictions on honorifics and postnominals. Frankly, I think infoboxes should be banned anyway. They're frequently exceptionally messy, poorly done, ridiculously long and only serve to clog up the article and make it difficult to insert additional images. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of married name vs. maiden name for past events

When an article refers to accomplishments of a married woman, should the article always use her married. Or should the use of her maiden name be retained for events that took place when she used that name. For instance, several articles on specific asteroids refer to the discoverer as "L. Šarounová." However, she is now Lenka Kotková. I'm assuming that the asteroid articles use the maiden name because she still retained it at the time of the asteroid discoveries. So which name, maiden or married, should be used in those asteroid articles. Thanks. --JamesAM (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

I'd be grateful if someone can clarify this. The guideline, "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.", seems straightforward enough. However, I recently became involved in a brief edit war on the Craig Ferguson article over his nationality. That he was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, grew up and began his career in the UK is not in dispute. The fact that he now has American citizenship is also accepted. But is it right to call him "Scottish-American"? Most of the rationale seemed to come from his declared love of the country and the title of his autobiography. The same debate has been going on within the Anthony Hopkins article, but some editors seem unwilling to accept that Hopkins (born in Wales) was very well established as a leading actor in the UK for over 20 years before be became widely known outside of it. Does the description of one's nationality reflect parentage, citizenship, country of birth or all three if they happen to be different? Are there formal Wiki guidelines for describing the nationality of people who:

• Were born in one country to overseas parentage but then raised in their parents' country
• Were born and raised in one country but their parents are from another
• Were born in one country, established a career there, emigrated to another but have not taken formal citizenship of the latter
• Were born in the same country as one of their parents

I'm sure there are more permutations, so is this such a minefield that it's solely a question of individual cases? It all seems to be about *when* a person became notable. I've noticed that this debate can get quite heated (witness the Cary Grant article) and I thought it might be helpful for editors to try and achieve consensus for perhaps some more detailed guidelines. Chris 42 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The primary criterion has to be citizenship at the time of the article (obviating questions of just when the person became notable). Following that, it is reasonable to have exposition as to ancestry and natal nationality. In short, try to include all pertinent information rather than have a big argument as to nationality at some point in their life (which can be shown to be variable - a Yugoslav citizen at birth might well now be a Slovene -- easiest to say "Slovene" and then append that they were born in Yugoslavia.) Collect (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, unfortunately questions concerning nationality and citizenship are one of the biggest pains within wikipedia. A lot of people do seem to equate citizenship with nationality in a very rigid way, and there is nothing to be gained in attempting to argue the point with them. If someone is also a citizen of country X then they must also be recorded as having nationality X with equal importance. There seems to be no room for common sense to apply, and wikipedia guidelines do not cover a lot of possibilities that can occur. I'm sure the vast majority of references to Craig Ferguson in the general media and literature would identify him quite correctly as being Scottish. Afterall that is where he grew up and would have spent the majority, if not all of his formative years. Perhaps you might try seeing if you can get away with describing him as a "Scottish born television host and comedian". The term Scottish-American in these circumstances is a bit naff really, but that's wikipedia for you! Ernest the Sheep (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quite correctly as being Scottish"? Surely if someone lives in the US and has taken on US citizenship, it's fair to call them American? The whole thing about one's nationality is that one can change it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually take the view that "nationality" and "citizenship" can mean either the same thing or different things depending on the subject. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the former as either "the status of belonging to a particular nation" or "an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations". "Citizen", meanwhile, is defined as "a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth". If someone has moved to another country at some point in their life, then I would be more inclined to describe their original nationality and add something like "who is now also an American citizen" or "who also became an American citizen in (year)". To me, at first glance, the term "Scottish-American" would immediately indicate mixed parentage if I was unfamiliar with the person in question. Chris 42 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial impression was that the term "Scottish-American" would mean an American who could trace their ancestry back to Scotland. I would not have thought it would apply to a Scottish born and bred person who acquires American citizen as an adult. I would also agree that nationality and citizenship are not necessarily the same thing, although on wikipedia a lot of editors do treat them as equivalents. In my opinion nationality also implies something about identity. Unfortunately it does not seem to be something that can be covered by simple rules. Each subject needs to be treated on a case by case basis, and a degree of common sense needs to be applied, which might not be that easy to achieve on wikipedia. This same issue crops up on numerous wikipedia articles. For example Michael J. Fox is apparently a "Canadian-American". I find the use of these sorts of terms odd, they seem somewhat American-centric to me. In my opinion the fact that Craig Ferguson has recently acquired American citizenship is significant and clearly should be mentioned in the article, but I do not believe it is notable enough in itself that it needs to be feature in the opening sentence. The description "Scottish born" should suffice. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it notable enough to be in the intro? Changing your nationality is a pretty big deal. If Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't American, then he wouldn't be Governor of California. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the view that "nationality" and "citizenship" can mean very different things depending on the subject and circumtances. In Central-Europe, due to frequent changes of border, citizenship and nationality mean and meant largely different things. In spite of this, there is a tendency by certain countries (and editors from these countries) to push identification of people born as their citizens with the ethnicity of the dominant ethnie of this particulary country, even if this is not identical at all with the self-identification of the person concerned, nor with the judgement of people about him. Presenting Hungarians from Transylvania as 'Romanian-born Hungarians' is misleading as it creates the false impression that the person in question at birth had been Romanian, then, at a certain point of his life, he/she changed identity or citizenship. As a matter of fact, Hungarians living in Transylvania do not usually identify themselves as Romanians, but as Hungarians from Romania/Transylvania or as Hungarians with Romanian citizenship, so citizenship clearly differs from nationality. This is due to the fact that sovereignty over the territory on which these autochtonous ethnic communities live changed in history and the country where they live (eg. Romanian or Slovakia) considers and declares themselves as 'nation states', the state of the dominant ethnie. The same way, speaking about Poles born in the Russian Empire or Austria-History until 1918 as a 'Russian-born Pole' or an 'Austro-Hungarian Polish writer' would not oly be misleading, but bizarre as well. In other cases, however, Germans born in Silesia are sometimes referred to as Bohemian-born Germans, which, in its turn, refers to Bohemia as a multi-ethnic historical region and not as the slavic 'Czech' Land after WWII. So, while the expression 'Austrian-born American movie-star and politician' may give correct information, the "Serbian-born Albanian politician" may give a very false one. In these cases, even if it may look a bit clumsy, insatead of nationality, a more than clear reference to citizenship or to country-name should be used if such a reference is needed at all in the lead. In case of Hungarians, I would suggest the formula "Hungarian writer from Transylvania, Romania" or 'Hungarian politician from Slovakia' or similar.Rokarudi --Rokarudi 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, your argument tends to assume readers are incapable of clicking a link, and we shouldn't make that assumption. Take, for instance, Albert-László Barabási. If a reader is confused, clicking on Romanian will lead him to the article on Romania, indicating his birth country. Clicking Hungarian will lead him to Hungary, his country of citizenship. If the links were to Romanians and Hungarians there might be a problem, but there really isn't much room for ambiguity, especially as, lower down in the text, it says he is an ethnic Hungarian.

The second problem with your argument is that the number of Hungarians in Romania with a direct connection to Hungary (citizenship or residence) is fairly small. Most of them, despite speaking Hungarian and identifying as ethnic Hungarians, are born in Romania and hold only Romanian citizenship. Which is why it's appropriate to label György Frunda a Romanian politician in the lead, only identifying his ethnicity further down. He is not, and never has been, a Hungarian politician (see where that link leads for why I say this). 71.192.241.118 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians received citizenship in Romania as the Treaty of Trianon obliged Romania to grant citizenship for Hungarians living in Trasylavania annexed by Romania after WWI. But let us not speak about Hungarians only, speak about "Russian-born Poles" like Adam Mickiewicz or Juliusz Słowacki. All of them were born in the Russian Empire, however, all of them are, rightly, given an Polish poets in the lead. In the life section, it is explained that they were born in the Russian Empire (as Polan was under Russuian sovereignty at that time) Your ideas reflecting the view that "if you eat Romanian bread you are Romanian" is defunct with Nicolae Ceauşescu.--Rokarudi 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to bring up Ceauşescu: if you have a Romanian passport and a Romanian identity card, you are automatically a Romanian, even if you are Kovács Attila of Székelyudvarhely. You are not automatically a Romanian, and no one says you are anymore. (And do click those links!)

As for the Polish example - it may be wise to ask some Polish editors their input. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic titles - proposed change of guideline

The guideline on academic titles (Professor, Dr) says that they should not be used. I would like to know on what grounds this guideline has been erected, and with what degree of consensus. It departs from normal usage in at least some countries (specifically the UK, probably also some other Commonwealth countries) where substantive academic titles are normally used when writing in non-scientific contexts about someone who remains an active academic (e.g. in the recent controversy about the dismissal of David Nutt from the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the media referred to him consistently as "Professor Nutt"). I know that this is not normal usage in some other countries - e.g. it would be rare in Germany or the US in my experience. Also, it is not normal practice within academic discourse - in a discussion within David Nutt's own domain of psychopharmacology, he would usually be referred to as "Nutt", or perhaps "David Nutt" if the author happened to know him.

In the light of these usages, I suggest the following:

• Academic titles may be used in the initial line of an article if they would normally be used in a non-technical article about the person in the country where they are principally located.
• Academic titles should not be used in the title of an article
• In the body of an article, academic titles may be used if they would normally be used in a non-technical article about the person in the country where they are principally located, but should not be used excessively.

These suggestions are based on a review of a sample of articles about UK academics, and they reflect what the majority of such articles actually do - if we were to bring them all in line with the guideline as it now stands, we'd have to do a whole lot of editing; and frankly, I think editors would be better employed writing new articles.

However I am not going to change the guideline until there has been discussion here, and I will only do so if there is reasonable consensus. If there is a more formal procedure, please advise here. seglea (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a change. This is a long established style on Wikipedia and it is not usual to use academic titles in other encyclopaedias or in biographical works (e.g. Who's Who or the Dictionary of National Biography). The media usually refers to people as "Mr" too (it would be normal to refer to the prime minister as "Mr Brown", for instance, although in actual fact he is "Dr Brown"!), but that doesn't mean we should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on CREDENTIAL

There's a claim at this RfC that this page, and therefore WP:CREDENTIAL, only applies to articles that are biographies, rather than to any mention of a specific person's credentials. Therefore, the editor concludes, physicians should be described as "Dr Smith" instead of "Smith" in non-biography articles (e.g., all medicine-related articles that discuss history, research, staffing at pharma companies, universities, etc.). The specific case is complicated by the physician apparently being a celebrity: thus in addition to the general rule, editors need to decide whether to use her 'stage name' or her real name.

I encourage you to read and respond to the RfC, but I think it would be helpful to remove or clarify text on this page that could be misinterpreted as it applying solely to, e.g., a biography about the CEO, and not to the CEO's description in his company's article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll that's a coincidence: the exact opposite seems to be proposed for clergy in this RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that the one is about WP:Article titles and the other is about a single sentence inside an article (whose main subject is the organization that hired her). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor referred to by WhatamIdoing, and can I give my summary of the full discussion that took place. We have a single passing reference to a physician Dr Donnica Moore in an article (and yes, she is publicly know as Dr Donnica Moore). One editor tried to remove the reference in its entirety. After a few more reverts and when a number of editors objected, she then removed the "Dr" citing CREDENTIAL, so we suggested Donnica Moore, MD. She then removed the MD. We had a 4-1 impasse so I raised the RfC to try to stop this cycle, Most of the editors on this page still prefer the "Dr Donnica ..." form, and a number of us have made the same point. But let me expand our reasoning here.

At some point, typically early in a Bio you always introduce the academic qualifications of the subject, so the guideline of sticking to the subject's name elsewhere in the article makes sense. This situation can be quite different when you link to the person as a passing reference in another article. The reader of this article may not be aware of the academic or professional qualifications of the person referred to. It is unreasonable to expect the reader to go to every linked article. It is overkill having to add the persons full qualifications after every reference. Surely the sensible approach is guided by economy and accuracy. In some circumstances, use of the person's title (consistent with WP:MOS) in a passing reference is the simplest way to achieve this. So what is so wrong with a passing "Dr Donnica Moore" or a "Professor Steven Hawking", say, that gives one editor the right to quote this guideline to go against the wishes of the consensus and remove the title?

So I do think that the rules for passing references are different to Bio reference. However, if the consensus of the maintainers of this MOS is that this is clearly wrong, then I don't have a problem with this. But in this case, then why not simply change the intro to this article so that instead of limiting its scope to "guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles" to make it clear that sections X,Y,Z apply to all articles, or even just relocating this content to the parent MOS?

These guidelines should say what they mean and mean what they say. -- TerryE (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, as an inveterate opponent of academic titles in biographies, that I have no problem whatsoever with using an academic title in a reference to an individual in another article in which said title is germane. And it looks much better than using postnominal letters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Postnominal initials are less likely to be used in a misleading fashion. Donnica Moore, MD, leaves you with no doubt that Dr Moore is a medical doctor instead of, e.g., a Doctor of Education or Doctor of Business Administration.

This is particularly important for medicine-related articles, because there are a far too many people using the academic title "Doctor" to make people think "licensed physician" instead of reality, e.g., "I got a PhD in sociology 40 years ago, and now my hobby is giving dangerous advice about alternative cancer therapies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you're American. However, a medical doctor from Britain or the Commonwealth is likely to be John Smith MB ChB (very few British doctors hold MDs, which is a postgraduate research qualification in the UK as opposed to the basic medical qualification as it is in the US), which is a mouthful and will tell the uninformed reader (i.e. someone who is not familiar with British medical qualifications) absolutely nothing. You have to remember that Wikipedia is an international project and every country is different. In actual fact, your example is somewhat flawed in any case, as many medical scientists aren't qualified doctors and instead do hold PhDs in medical sciences, where the PhD in question is actually a postgraduate research qualification which completely qualifies them to talk about medical sciences, probably much more so than a ten-a-penny MD straight out of medical school with no research experience whatsoever! To many people, I'm sure, "Dr" makes them think of "physician or person with a doctorate", the latter being its actual meaning (and an American MD not being a proper doctorate in that sense). -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know what an MBBS is, and a simple wikilink to MBBS will explain all to a reader.

But "Dr Smith" explains nothing: the reader will not know, and cannot discover, from "Dr Smith" whether the qualification is likely to be relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Since PhD is used for doctorates in almost all subjects, how does this help? There is no way of knowing that an individual's PhD is in physiology, nuclear physics or English literature! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even PhD provides some information, e.g., "not a medical degree" and "not a law degree". "Dr" clearly provides less information than "PhD". "Dr" provides far less information than "MBBS" or "D.O.".

And, in the relevant case, Moore has an MD (that's why I used it as the example), and "M.D." is far more informative than "Dr". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Rank

There is nothing in the article about "Rank", like military. I thought there used to be? And (unfortunately) some people need it spelled out. > Best O Fortuna (talk)

What spelled out exactly? You seem to be assuming it's obvious. There have never, to my knowledge, been any actual guidelines laid down for this. There probably should be. Military ranks are usually included before the name inline, but certainly not always and some people seem to disapprove of them. My personal opinion is that military ranks should be included inline but not linked (as I think linking before the bolded name looks ugly) and certainly not bolded (as they're not an actual part of the name). The rank can be linked later in the text when it (hopefully) will say when the individual was promoted to said rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-nominal initials

I deleted this section

ensuring that readers who hover over the initials see the expanded abbreviation as a hint and in the status bar at the bottom of the window. Readers who click immediately on the link, missing hints will hopefully see a short article with the definition clear and near the start. Often one line article will suffice, with appropriate links to further information, thus: Jack Brabham, OBE. (see above in regards to academic titles and post-nominal initials)

but it has been restored by another editor. I really do fail to see what it adds to the guideline. Everything it says should be fairly obvious and applies to any other link. It is also a pretty confusing and poorly-written paragraph. And the last sentence seems to be completely meaningless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About normally: The text says, "should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." Contrary to your assertion in your edit summary, it is not restricted to the first line. There might be a limited number of circumstances in which identifying an academic degree is appropriate (e.g., when naming a non-notable or redlinked person whose professional credentials are highly relevant to the context of the sentence). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Now clarified. Note that every example given in the section refers to the first line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation of titles

The discussion here [2] raises is a very interesting point. The suggestion is that we should use translations of foreign titles which may (or may not) be equivalent of English language titles. The proposal is that Magister should be translated as Master's. Whether that is appropriate or not is to be the subject of a RfC. However, Scottish universities' M.A. degrees are equivalent to B.A.s, but are reported as M.A.s. If we are to use equivalent qualifications rather than the name used by the actual universities themselves, we will have to write all article about people who have Master's degrees from Scottish universities to say that those people have Bachelor's degrees. I imagine that that will be neither very popular nor a good idea.Varsovian (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a list prepared by the University of Toronto that lists foreign degrees they accept as the equivalent of a Canadian four-year degree (honours bachelor). The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there should be no translation of degrees - some people on Wikipedia have a mania for translating everything (often very badly) into English. That is completely unnecessary and is not what the guidelines, which are usually cited to support this obsessive translation, either say or mean (even if we get away from the fact that they actually only refer to article titles, despite their frequent citation in other situations). Proper names should generally remain untranslated. If there is an obvious and commonly-used (i.e. by people who know what they're talking about, not by some random bloke on the internet) translation then we should use it (and even then, only with care), otherwise we shouldn't. It's impossible to establish equivalency anyway (e.g. is a three-year English Bachelor's degree equal to a four-year Scottish Master's degree equal to a four-year American Bachelor's degree?) and we shouldn't try to do it, since that's effectively original research. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that in many cases, the foreign names of non-English academic degrees are already routinely translated into English by student advisories such as http://www.universitiesabroad.com, in order to keep them understandable and in line with each other. The issue is especially important for BLP individuals who obtained these degrees in politics, science and international relations. Please take a look at some abstract examples, based on the above PDF page by the University of Toronto. It is of vital importance that we address this issue properly, and provide guidance for the community, because of its cross-national nature. Let's imagine: such and such BLP academic (inventor, laureate), have obtained Pytchion in Greece, Egyelem Oklevel in Hungary, Maitrise in France, Licenciaat in Belgium, Sarjana Insinyur in Indonesia, Laurea in Italy, Doctorandus in The Netherlands, Magister in Austria and Poland, Diploma of Specialist in Russia, Diploma Visoko Obrazovanja in Serbia, Titulo in Spain, etc. Would you have known that all of them mean the same thing? And, what if the author of the article wants to keep it ledgible? I think, there must be a system devised, perhaps in a form of a separate guideline, allowing for the translation based on reference we all can agree on. --Poeticbent talk 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Just record the actual degrees they earned and link to the appropriate article. No problem whatsoever and no need to translate. If there's not an article then someone can write one. We are not in the business of trying to make the whole world identical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might have missed my point. For example, the doctorandus in the Netherlands is not a doctorate (and, what do you think it is), so insisting that it NOT be translated into English might be misleading to our readers. Also, I don't understand what you meant by saying: "Just record the actual degrees they earned"? Record what exactly, and it what context: the Bachelor's degrees, or the Master's degrees based on universitiesabroad.com, or perhaps Honours (or any other translation) based on whatever academia we run into? Why not work on a proper guideline instead? --Poeticbent talk 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean the exact degree they earned. If they earned a Doctorandus then say they earned a Doctorandus (which, you will notice, already has a bluelink to an article explaining exactly what it is - no confusion there). Why does everything have to be translated into English? It's not a bachelor's degree or a master's degree - it's a doctorandus! If I read an article about someone from a non-English-speaking country I don't want to know the awards they would have had had they been British or American - I want to know the awards they actually have. Being an intelligent human being, I don't require everything to be translated into my language as long as what it is is explained in my language. It's like going to see a foreign film - most people (in Britain, at least) prefer subtitles to dubbing, thus leaving the film in its original context while still explaining it in our language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, what I see here is that you have very well defined personal preferences. Not so clear though, with regards to the rest of my own examples from above. I added the links like you did, i.e. Pytchion in Greece, Egyelem Oklevel in Hungary, Maitrise in France, Licenciaat in Belgium, Sarjana Insinyur in Indonesia, Diploma of Specialist in Russia, Diploma Visoko Obrazovanja in Serbia, or Titulo in Spain. --Poeticbent talk 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it means we're in the business of writing an encyclopaedia, not an attempt to homogenise the world. Where does it say that everything on Wikipedia should be translated into English? If those terms don't have bluelinks then articles should be written for them. That is not an excuse to just translate everything into English and ignore the original terms. There is nothing worse or more inaccurate than an encyclopaedia saying that something approximates something else because otherwise "it might be a bit confusing". It doesn't and it isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody else have an opinion in this matter except for Necrothesp? How about our own university graduates, who aren't British, but had their credits transferred? Where are you? --Poeticbent talk 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I very much feel that we should leave the orginal names of all academic qualifications.

Admittedly a post-2006 Magister degree is a second cycle Bologna qualification and a British MA is a a second cycle Bologna qualification but that does not mean they are the same: it just means they are a second cycle Bologna qualifications! Saying that a Magister is the same as an MA because it is a a second cycle Bologna qualification is rather like saying that dogs have four legs and a tail and then observing that because my cat also has four legs and a tail, it must be a dog. Varsovian (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to see if there is a president for this but my search abilities let me down, can anyone else have a look, at the present time how are polish peoples degrees being reported? A search on Wiki for the word Magister should show us, is this a wiki wide issue or is it just this article where the title description is being disputed? Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should leave degrees in the original and only mention equivalency if it is in the source. However it would be helpful if someone could provide information about recommendations in major manuals of style. We may have to set up an RfC for this issue. (This section should refer to academic degrees, not titles.) The Four Deuces (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tomasz_Kamusella had written his Masters thesis....He obtained his doctorate in Political Science from the Institute of Western Affairs (Instytut Zachodni), Poznań, Poland. Category:Polish_academics feel free to look if there is already a general usage and if this is a wiki wide issue or just related and disputed on this single article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It also says that the Central European University where he studied for an M.A. was "co-accredited then by the Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom". It is now accredited by the U.S. and instruction is in English. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will have more of a look later, the question is imo, is Magisters translated in the wider wikipedia as a masters, which is the literal translation and is imo a quite close intellectual qualification, the open university of milton keynes is a minor facility, anyway, Magisters degree is as yet a redlink and if we dispute the translation then we would need to detail exactly what a magisters is because this is the eng wiki and no one will have a clue what a magisters is, tomorrow I will look some more as I want to see if magisters is used or it is translated in the other articles. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is described under Magister (degree). Note that the French baccalauréat is usually left in French. Since the M.A. referred to was from an English language university it would not make sense to translate it into the local language. The Open University, whose administration is based at Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, has an enrolment of 180,000 students. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what do you mean that the Open University is a "minor facility"? It is a fully-accredited British university on a par with any other British university. "This is the eng wiki and no one will have a clue what a magisters is" is an extraordinarily sweeping statement - I'm sure many people reading Wikipedia know exactly what a Magister degree is, even if they don't come from a country that uses them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The general english speaking public will not know what a magisters degree is and why should they? The idea that english speaking people will have any idea about a magisters degree is incredulous, I also have heard the baccalauret as it is a common discussion in the UK, is this normal in the wiki, this is my question, is it normal that foreign language certificate are left in the original language? I fail to see that there is any big issue here, the magisters degree,states in the first sentence.. In Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, and Slovakia, the Magister is equal to a Master's degree. imo it is a bit pointy, but hey, thats just me. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

a) An MA from the ancient Scottish universities and from Oxford & Cambridge and Trinity college Dublin is equal to a Bachelor's degrees from any other British university. Should we start to refer to those MAs as Bachelor's degrees?

b) Having taught on Magister courses, knowing a lot about them and having worked on trying to get Magister holders places at British universities, and having read the requirements of English universities such as the London School of Economics, I can assure you that a Magister does not equal a British Master's (other than those from the ancient Scottish universities and from Oxford & Cambridge and Trinity college Dublin). Varsovian (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to generate greater attention to this issue, I have set up an RfC below. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Birth name

Just wanted to bring up a suggestion to change the placing of the birth name in some cases. There was a dispute at the Miley Cyrus page (here) as to whether her birth name, Destiny Hope Cyrus should be placed in both the lead and the "Early life" section, or just the early life section (bolded). Personally, I think opening the lead as "Miley Ray Cyrus (born November 23, 1992)" looks a lot cleaner and less cluttered than "Miley Cyrus (born Destiny Hope Cyrus; November 23, 1992)", which I feel is especially unnecessary and redundant since her surname was not changed. Can we make certain exceptions in cases like these; where the surname (or first name) was not changed, and there is suitable documentation about the birth name in an "Early life" section? Thanks for any input. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I always use the style "Miley Cyrus (born November 23, 1992), born Destiny Hope Cyrus, is a...", which I think looks fine and uncluttered. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's repetitive, using the word "born" twice. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, since the first use is in parentheses, not part of the sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

She has apparently made a legal name change -- the legal name thus has precedence. [3] Collect (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honorific titles

I have just reread this section. What on earth does it mean? I really have no idea what the point of this section is. It belongs more on a discussion page than a guideline page and seems to be a single editor saying "I don't agree with this, but it's been included so I'm pointing out that I think it's controversial", which isn't really appropriate. It's an essay, not a guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the meaning is supposed to be something like "Use just plain 'Churchill', not 'Sir Winston'." It appears that a substantial re-write is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's probably the essential meaning, but I don't think it needs two paragraphs to say it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we consider combining and clarifying the Honorific titles and the Honorific prefixes sections? There's a discussion going on at the WP:USC talk page regarding a batch inclusion of honorific prefixes in the infobox of every current United States governor, congressman, and senator. The argument there seems to be that the style guidelines here discourage inline usage but not infobox usage. It seems to me it discourages both, but what do I know? In any event, we should try to discern some consensus from here, there, or somewhere, so that we don't have several hundred biographies constantly in flux on something that ought to be standardized. jæs (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me. The United States does not have titles and honorific prefixes should not be used. I do not think the honorifics used are even recognized by law, unlike Commonwealth countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Um -- this Wikipedia is not purely US-centric. You are correct that one should not refer to "Sir Barack Obama" (or any US citizen who might have a foreign honorific) but it is proper indeed to use honorofics for people who are not US citizens. I have not even ever considered writing about Elizabeth Windsor. And the Wikipedia policy is that ALL English-speaking editors are welcom, last I checked, even Canadians. Collect (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempt made to remove odd verbiage and to make the whole section more common-sense in approach. Collect (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is improper to use any honorific prefixes in biographical articles unless they are honorific titles and they should only be used in their biography. (Since royalty do not have surnames, they are referred to by their christian names.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where a person is customarily referred to by title, it is presumptious indeed for us to simply say "This is the USA and we got no titles." <g>. Collect (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

While it may be presumptious to address someone without their customary honorific prefix, the MOS advises that honorific prefixes are omitted from articles, even for Commonwealth nations. And there are no honorific titles in the US, except those awarded by foreign governments, e.g., knighthood, which are not used. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We already know that ... except for such things as "Judge" (applied to former judges), "Senator" and "Governor" (ditto) and a few dozen other exceptions to the absolute rule presented. The clear "best choice" is to defer to usage outside WP. And not to simply assert "titles are not used in the US, therefore they are not used in WP". This faux egalitarianism is not seen ouside the US as being a great thing <g>. Let us, since you raise the issue, look at how "Commonwealth nations"'s media handle it. (Noting that the Chicago MoS says this is how US media should handle it as well). [4] is fairly definitive. Is that good enough? Collect (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Times style book honorific prefixes are never used, and I agree with that. It also says: "appellations on news pages, though not on features and sport, almost every surname should be granted the courtesy of a title....First mention, Herbert Palfry, Juliette Worth, subsequently Mr Palfry, Mrs/Miss/Ms Worth." Do you think we should change the policy so that everyone is called Mr., Mrs., etc.? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Other honorifics used in the U.S. and elsewhere include: Mr, Mrs, Miss, Dr, and Professor. We don't want to repeat the New York Times' famous refernce to Meat Loaf as "Mr. Loaf".  Will Beback  talk  06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationality/For the record...

...this is bullshit: "...or was a citizen when the person became notable." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have requested for it to be clarified. However, I would suggest that a person's nationality is defined as that which they are now or which they were when they died; previous nationalities are only important in an historical sense. Hence, the fact that someone came to prominence as a Finn but later emigrated to Canada means that they are now either Canadian or joint Canadian-Finnish depending on how the naturalisation was accomplished. They certainly are not pure Finnish any more. The nationality at the time they became famous is not relevent except insofar as the person was that nationality at that time. Perhaps this latter is what is meant? --Jubilee♫clipman 12:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Even if the person was quite old at the time of naturalization, and died the day after Canadian citizenship was granted?

I think we are best off following high-quality reliable sources, even if that results in us reflecting a rather muddy reality instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all rule on 100% of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I never thought of that senario. Perhaps the only way to be sure here is to say "A person's nationality is whatever the RSs say that person's nationality is"? There is another issue: what about countries and areas that change hands or name? This reminds me of the hypothetical person that was born in Saint Petersburg in 1913, was educated in Petrograd, wrote their most notable works in Leningrad and died in Saint Petersburg in 1992... without ever actually moving house! Prussia/Germany, Yugoslavia/"FYR of..." and several other states spring to mind in this context, especially states in centeral Africa. Perhaps ...should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability... should also apply to nationality (with the further provisios ...and is verifiable and indisputable? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with following what sources say in this case is that you can find a source to describe anyone as just about anything they qualify as. Someone who was born in Cuba, raised in Venezuela, and became famous in America, for example, would have sources describing them as "Cuban", "Venezuelan", and "American". If they later took on Canadian citizenship, you can add that as well. I see this as a guideline issue, not a source issue. I think a good idea would be to use both the nationality they had when they became famous, as well as one they may have taken on later. I.e. Alfred Molina would be described as "British-American", or perhaps "a British and American actor". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that a very important factor in biographies of actors is that the majority of film work is conducted in the US. The US has strict residency requirements and for a foreign actor based in the US it is often convenient to take American citizenship once they have been living in the US to become eligable. This normally doesn't require them to renounce their original nationality and is really nothing more than an administrative scenario. Spudbynight (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender Neutral

What's the guidline for the use of gender neutral terms such as calling an actress an actor instead of an actress? Do we only do it for some pages or should there be a concensus on all biographical pages?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of several editors involved in this situation it would have been nice to be notified about it. This editor does not believe in using Gender-neutral language in articles. In general he has refused to take in the information in the Actor article regarding the present day sensibilities of gender neutrality. Specifically he has edit warred on Helen Mirren's page.

For the record I do not feel that we have to make a hard and fast rule on this. Both terms can be used. When we have someone like Ms Mirren, who prefers the gender neutral term we should use that. If we have someone who prefers the gender specific term then we can use that. While I favor gender neutrality I feel that Wikipedia can be flexible. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is something that will only lead to massive edit wars and irritation if strict guidelines are imposed. Frankly, using "actor" to refer to a woman still grates on me and I have no doubt on many other people. Let's face it, "actress" is still the commonest way to describe a female actor in the media and everywhere else. If we know (and can prove) that an individual prefers to be referred to as an actor then fair enough, but otherwise actress is fine. We also have to remember that huge numbers of our articles are about people who died long before the concept of gender-neutral language appeared and to impose it on their articles would be highly anachronistic - I doubt if many actresses before a few decades ago would even have considered referring to themselves using the masculine term (back to about 1700, when actress became the common term). -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I will start by concurring with MarnetteD that there is no valid reason why we cannot be flexible (even sympathetic) in our approach to this topic. I also agree with Necrothesp that retrospective treatment of deceased female thespians would be anachronistic and plainly a nonsense.

However, we cannot escape the fact that in the new millennium an increasing number of female artists are starting to refer to themselves with the gender-neutral term of actor. Helen Mirren is probably the most prominent - but in TV media interviews I have also noted Felicity Kendal, Demi Moore, Meryl Streep, Celia Imrie and several others apply the neutral term to themselves. This usage is definitely on the increase and I see no reason why we cannot respect the individuals' wishes and reflect it in their biography articles.

If a female exponent of the acting craft finds the term actress demeaning or sexist it would appear to me that we should refect their wishes. Throughout wikipedia we are so careful in many other respects when dealing with BLP issues and to ignore this specific aspect, to my mind, would be nothing short of insulting and insensitive.

The opening sentence of the article on Actor clearly states The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be referred to by either term. My feeling is strongly that this should indeed be our policy – applied on a case by case basis and reflecting the wishes of the individual. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that... Actor is a wikipedia article, not a wikipedia guideline. Necrothesp ignored my request for such a guideline during our "edit war" (and I don't see how the "edit war" has any bearing on tis discussion anyway... unless he's trying to color my activities). Since he did not take the opportunity to start a proper discussion I have brought it here. We can cite all sorts of things ([5] defines actress as "a woman who acts in stage plays, motion pictures, television broadcasts, etc., esp. professionally.") but it seems the real solution is wikipedia should have a guideline or policy on this. So... how do we resolve this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the relevant sections of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language.5BR.5D and Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. You will note that both sections state that the guideline is "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." The dictionary source that you use also has this [6] which applies gender neutrality by using the term person. These combined with the other comments in this section would seem to show that the guideline has already been set. It should be noted that flexibility has been recommended by all but one member of this discussion MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr who1975, would you care to enlighten me which "edit war" you're talking about? I don't recall edit warring with you on anything. Specifically, I'm not aware of ever having edited the Helen Mirren page! Since you have apparently had debates with MarnetteD and 21stCenturyGreenstuff on that page, I would suspect you are getting me confused with someone else. Please check your facts before you make allegations in the future! Particularly since I generally agree with referring to female actors as actresses, which seems to be your point of view! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting Helen Mirren and still being flexible ... the distinction in common usage between "actor" and "actress" is meaningful. Usually, men perform men's roles, and women perform women's roles. Maurreen (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-English language university degrees

Should non-English language university degrees be translated into English or remain in the original language (which is often Latin)? If they are translated, should they be translated according to their literal meaning or into the equivalent degree? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The normal ranking for degrees at English language universities is bachelor, master, and doctor. However, European degrees developed separately so that the Baccalauréat is awarded before university, while the magister degree is often awarded as an undergraduate degree. ([Here is a link to a list prepared by the University of Toronto that lists foreign degrees they accept as the equivalent of a Canadian four-year degree (honours bachelor).) On the other hand, some English language universities issue masters degrees as undergraduate degrees (equivalent to a bachelors). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment US colleges generally recognize an "associate" degree as well. Law schools upgraded the law degree to a "doctorate" even though they have no dissertation requirements. As there is no general rule which applies in all cases, it is reasonable for someone to write an article on the equivalencies and provide footnotes corresponding thereto. Collect (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Follow the sources. I think that translating degrees is likely to result in errors. It is not something that the average editor should undertake. Furthermore, there's often no proper equivalent (e.g., the German abitur would be translated into 'American' as something like "a high school diploma from a college-prep charter school for intellectually gifted students"). There are articles on nearly all of these degrees, so readers who don't know what a string of letters is can easily find out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I've asked a professional English-Polish sworn translator for her opinion. She said it is best to avoid translations, as exact equivalents are rare, and if translating, always add the original title in parenthesis. Using originals also reduces the confusions of "translator original research" - as there are no international rules on this issue, some translators can be quite "creative" with their translations, which doesn't help the issue. Such an approach (do not translate) is also supported by a bunch of professional institutions, starting with UNESCO/CEPES, European Commission, Council of Europe, and Polish BUREAU FOR ACADEMIC RECOGNITION AND INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE as well as TEPIS. For editors speaking Polish, here are two professional discussions: [7], [8]. Based on this I would strongly suggest making this a wiki rule. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Use the original. Any translation is likely to be inaccurate, disputed and not reflect the actual meaning of the degree. There is absolutely no need to translate everything into English on Wikipedia as long as an explanation is provided (preferably with a bluelink) as to what the term means. That is why we have linked articles. In actual fact, literal translation is usually a very poor idea for pretty much anything - a literal translation frequently does not convey the concept that is conveyed by the original language and often just ends up looking weird if not completely meaningless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The basic rule of Wikipedia is to always follow the most reliable third-party source. We are not supposed to engage in making arbitrary decisions about academic matters, because we don't accept original research in general. Whatever your personal opinion, our policy guidelines do not (and cannot) disallow the use of English sources, which provide definitions of academic degrees in the English language, as quoted also by universities. The opinion expressed by the University of Toronto for example, should not be used outside of their own environment due to conflict of interest. They have no jurisdiction over other universities and, are not a reliable source of info about them. Their own definition of Masters is reflective only of the source of our info. Likewise, when a foreign university (offering Masters) is listed by a third-party source in the English language; our only concern here in Wikipedia should be the reliability of the source, and not the truthfulness of the degree. "My Masters is better than yours" approach stemming from competitive spirit between universities is not acceptable here. The only question is, whether there is a need for a new policy guideline in this matter, or whether the WP:SOURCE motto: "verifiability, not truth" is broad enough already. Here's another example. When a third-party source such as CollegeAbroad.com says that the Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow offers "5 or 6 year MFA studies and 3 year BFA studies with the legal status of Master of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Fine Arts degree" our only concern here in Wikipedia should be, whether the English source as such, is independent enough and reliable. Please note, the MFA info provided by the Academy itself is not being used in this example, but it might as well since it is not detrimental to others. -- Poeticbent talk 17:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not synthesis to take a degree from one source and the translation from another? Why do you think that CollegeAbroad.com is a reliable source? And why do you say that the University of Toronto has a conflict of interest? The list they prepared is for admission requirements to their graduate school. They recognize the 4-year US bachelor's degree as an equivalent to the 4-year U of T degree, which seems uncontroversial. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. University degrees from different countries are inherently not comparable, as is made clear by many reliable sources, government agencies and universities. See for example this OECD study. As we have articles on the most common degrees we should use the original name of the degree and wikilink. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide a page number in that OECD document. I looked it over carefully, and found nothing about university degrees from different countries in its Table of Contents. Thanks in advance. -- Poeticbent talk 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• p 161 Pantherskin (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Actually, the OECD study (p.161) proved my point. The university degrees (i.e. tertiary-type A studies) are routinely compared between OECD countries, based on their cumulative duration, to ensure international comparability at the Master's level. The programmes are divided into graduate or undergraduate levels of tertiary type in accordance with the total duration of studies. Their foreign names are seldom mentioned in the document. -- Poeticbent talk 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because they standardize degrees by comparing their length and looking at completion rates. Obviously we should not expect our editors to standardize degrees on their own (or should we have a policy on how this standardization is done, not very desirable too). That is why we have to stick to the name of the degree in the native language. Pantherskin (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Recommendation Articles should describe the foreign degrees as they appear in the source used. If the source is foreign language, the degree should not be translated. If there is conflict in the translations used in English-language sources, a foreign language source should be used with the degree described as it appears there. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  It's not always a "foreign language" issue. For example, some American sources translate the MBBS into M.D.. You should not go looking for a German or Chinese or other "foreign language" source to figure out what degree is actually awarded by Imperial College School of Medicine in London. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• CommentTranslations should be avoided. If somebody has a Magister, they have a Magister: they do not have a Master's. Varsovian (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Recommendation Keep the original foreign degree, unless they are already translated in the source cited, in which case follow the cite. If a translation is provided by a Wikipedia editor, the translation should be in parenthesis following the original degree name. LK (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A Question (Infobox?)

First of all I would be glad to know the exact name of the table in the right side of a page related to a person and my second question is whether you think it's right or wrong that a person's ethnicity is emphasized in this table? -- And Rew 03:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about what we call an "infobox"? Can you give more context? Maurreen (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Infobox it is! And now my question is that should we write someone's ethnicity in the Infobox? For example take a look at this page please: Bobby Jindal Thanks.-- And Rew 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that ethnicity generally does not belong in an infobox or even in an article. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it belongs in an infobox. It may belong in an article as long as it's specific (e.g. "he is of Nigerian descent" as opposed to a simple "he is black", which certainly doesn't belong) and referenced, as this is a valid facet of someone's biography. The fact Jindal is of Indian descent should be mentioned in the body of his article, but shouldn't be in the infobox. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I will remove his ethnicity from the infobox. I wish there was some sort of supreme court in Wiki. Is there any place that I can suggest this idea?-- And Rew 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is a frequent problem? Maurreen (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think if such a place was available, it could solve some very long going arguments and struggles and setting new laws when they are needed. Exactly like a Common Law system.-- And Rew 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

But the whole point of Wikipedia is that things are decided by mutual agreement. It may be longer and sometimes more frustrating, but if we had a small group of individuals who made decisions it would transform the whole nature of the project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's pretty much true but the other point is that as Wikipedia keeps growing, there should be an effort to prevent it from falling apart and maybe not something like a supreme court but a system of voting to set some new laws and not too many so that Wikipedia doesn't lose its quality. As Wikipedia gets bigger and bigger, the chance of losing control of it gets higher and higher.-- And Rew 16:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Whose control? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's control, false material, vandalism, low quality articles. Now we have around 3.3M articles. Take a look at this article which has remained like this for a long time and nobody seems to be fixing it: List of Largest Empires -- And Rew 03:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have admins. We may not get around to fixing everything, but I think we do a pretty good job of keeping things tidy, in co-operation with all other genuine editors of course. We'll always have vandals in a project of this nature, but Wikipedia is not overrun with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope so. Personally I'm so much dependent on Wikipedia and we all know ideas, things, websites that started well, but in the end they got too big and didn't try to do anything about it that they fall apart and I'm just worried about that and nothing else. -- And Rew 21:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics in info boxes

We say don't include these in inline text, but see Beverley McLachlin and Margaret Thatcher for examples of their use in infoboxes - how does this differ from 'inline text' in any meaningful way? Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Where it says to state someone's nationality in the opening paragraph, it seems to emphasize too much the question of citizenship (this has caused confusion at many articles, particularly historical ones, with editors trying to turn people like Mickiewicz and Chopin into Russians, Frenchmen and Germans on the basis of claims of citizenship (which is totally contrary to how their nationality is given in sources). "Citizenship" is a recent concept anyway, and is not generally sourceable except by doing original synthesis. I've amended this section slightly, but I think it needs a complete rewrite to emphasize that we reflect primarily how reliable sources describe people. That would also help answer the UK question which is left unanswered in the present guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be clarified. To be consistent with WP:LEAD it should serve to put the person's notability in context. For example, if they were a politician, saying of what country is obviously required. Almost every person I can think of could use some indication of what part of the world they affected or did their notable stuff. Writers or actors probably say what language their works are in, for example. This seems related to the question of entwining their birth and death places in the lead, or not. As you point out this can get complicated when dealing with people who move around, or countries whose borders move, or have ceased to exist, or were part of other countries during the time the person was notable, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification (post-nominal initials)

The section Post-nominal initials says "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated". Does it mean they are included where the awarding body

• is a widely recognizable organization closely associated subject or a country, or (only the organization is closely associated)
• which may be a widely recognizable organization or a country, and must be closely associated with the subject? (must be closely associated with the subject whether it is an organization or a country)

Thank in advance. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Honorific titles in lead

From reading the guideline, I can't make out whether to have honorific titles included in the bold part of the lead. Using Barry Curtis as an example, should it be Sir Barry Curtis or Sir Barry Curtis in the lead? I expected to find the answer in this guideline, but can't see it. Schwede66 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pretitles should be bolded. They're part of the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A belated thanks. I can't see that from reading the page, but I also don't understand the usage of the term 'inline'. Can I suggest two things?

• Explain what is meant by the sentence "should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper" - maybe wikilinking inline might help? (I couldn't find something of relevance), and
• If the 'inline' bit doesn't cover it already (once it's been explained more clearly or wikilinked), spell out that pretitles should be bolded, as they are part of the name.

I hope this is helpful. Schwede66 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Compound surnames, or not

In this thread on the help desk, an editor suggests capitalising the surname, because it is sometimes unclear how many of a person's names are part of the surname - I gave examples Ralph Vaughan Williams and Joseph Blanco White. This confusion can exist in real life as well as in Wikipedia: I was unsure for a long time whether Diana Wynne Jones's surname was Jones or Wynne Jones. I agree with other contributors to that thread that capitalising the surname is alien to the customs of English; but I wonder if we should have a recommendation here that in such cases the lede explicitly say how much is the surname? --ColinFine (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Special advice for U.K. nationality

The Opening Paragraph section had the following material in it (regarding Nationality and ethnicity):

(Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" and the talk page archives. There are also issues with highly mobile people whose nationality may be unclear.)

I've moved the material here, because it is problematic for a number of reasons.

1. It is extremely specific to the U.K., which is just one country among a couple of hundred in the world. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and must avoid focusing on just the U.S. and U.K.
2. It refers editors to an essay; Wikipedia essays have no weight, but are merely individual opinions. As the policy points out, "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established." Guidelines cannot make essays authoritative or imply that they represent consensus.
3. It also links to Talk: page archives. Guidelines should not direct people to old Talk: page archives, in part because guidelines should be sufficient and complete themselves, and in part because, as the Consensus policy itself points out, consensus can change.
4. Finally, the last sentence is unclear: "There are also issues with highly mobile people whose nationality may be unclear." Yes. And? In what way does this sentence guide the editor? What does it suggest they do?

Other thoughts welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. The UK is a unique case which needs special consideration so, regardless of the advice being specific to the UK, the issue the advice attempts to address is important enough to warrant a special note.
2. Essays have no weight?! WP:DUCK is used all the time in SPI's often as the first and last word. How about WP:Tendentious editing? Or WP:COMMON?
3. Talkpages are perhaps less helpful, true.
4. The last sentence just flags up the issue that some people have had several nationalities in their life.

Answer: as pointed out a few sections above, follow the reliable sources. Whatever the RS's tell us, that is the person's nationality. If the sources say Scottish, they are Scottish; if they say Chinese, they are Chinese, etc. The present Guideline (not Policy, note) doesn't quite say that and it should: WP:V applies to everything --Jubilee♫clipman 02:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm... then again, I had forgotten about this discussion. There must be a way to deal with this sensibly? There is no doubt that James MacMillan is a Scottish composer, for example, while Thomas Tallis was an English composer. OTOH, if I ever got an entry (born in Wales of Scottish parents but lived most of my life in England) I would be British! More thought required... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My responses:

1. The UK may be a special case. There are other special cases too; for example, what was Mozart's nationality? He was born in the Archbishopric of Salzburg, which was then an ecclesiastical state in the Holy Roman Empire. How about Beethoven? He was born in Bonn, then in the Electorate of Cologne, also an ecclesiastical state in the Holy Roman Empire. Is the former Austrian, the latter German? But neither of those nationalities existed at the time! Are they both "Holy Roman", whatever that means? Is one Salzburgian, and the other Colognite? Odd nationality issues abound, both in the past and today. While it is important to have a reasonable way of dealing with this, we cannot have a general guideline address the specific U.K. situation. There must be another way of solving the issue.
2. Essays are sometimes good summaries of arguments, and specific ones may be popular with various editors, but policy is clear that they do not represent consensus. A guideline cannot be used as a back door for elevating an essay to guideline status; if an essay is to become a guideline, it must be done explicitly.
3. Yes, I'm sure "highly mobile people" is an issue. Why is it in this guideline though? Guidelines should guide, not just "flag".
4. Yes, WP:V applies to everything. This, in fact, is the general solution for all of these issues.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: WP:V. We just need to help editors apply it. Your point about the UK not being alone in being unique is a fair one, though: the section "For the record?" above points to other unique situations. I wonder what others think about this. BTW, since Handel was born in Saxony-Anhalt and later emigrated to England was he an Anglo-Saxon?  :) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? All the Anglo-Saxons theoretically descend from people who invaded England from Saxony, Handel just invaded 1300 years after the rest. :) Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is wrong-headed. The UK isn't a special case at all. If we can sum up someone's national identity in one adjective, we should do so in the way that reliable sources most generally do for that person. Sometimes it will be the same as their citizenship (like British), sometimes something else (like English/Scottish/Welsh/Palestianian/Kurdish), sometimes it will be a double-barreled adjective, sometimes it will just be impossible. But WP policy doesn't give us any licence to overrule what sources say.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom has a unique problem though: Sean Connery could be referred to as a British actor by reliable sources—especially those written outside the UK—and indeed often is. His article, on the other hand calls, him a Scottish actor. In fact, he is both—as are all Scottish people—but we wouldn't call him a "British-Scottish actor" or a "British/Scottish actor" or say "variously referred to as British or Scottish". We choose one and stick with it. Which one do you choose, though? That's the question. The question is even more thorny for people living in Northern Ireland: some of them reject the UK altogether, others wholeheartedly embrace it yet they both may be referred to as British, Irish, Irish-British or British-Irish. Which one to choose, again? It's a question of sensitivity as much as sourcing, especially for living people --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should attach a lot of weight to self-identification, and not only to living people. We should also be as accurate as possible - if we can say "Scottish" rather than "British", we're conveying more information at no extra cost (but we must know that the person really does identify as a Scot or is otherwise unambiguously Scottish). --Kotniski (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just on the Handels of the world: an immigrant to the UK may choose to live mainly in one of England, Scotland, Wales or NI. But they cannot become English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish - they can only become British. It's only native-born people who get to choose a home country nationality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why the essay "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom" was written in the first place – to explain the fact that there was an extended (and at times heated) debate about this topic, and no consensus could be reached. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is even more complex for the period before the British Nationality Act, which intoduced British citizenship. Until 1981 all people born within the Commonwealth (which numbered dozens of countries on every continent, representing a quarter of the Earth) were British subjects, and the constituent countries only developed their own nationality laws beginning in the 1940s. Would we consider George Orwell to be an Indian or Bengali writer? What would be the nationality of a Canadian-born member of the U. K. parliament? TFD (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Including degrees with Alma Maters in a bio listbox

In the article for Sonia Sotomayor, there is a difference of opinion over including a degree with each alma mater in the officeholder listbox. So in one version it's "Princeton University" and "Yale Law School" and in the other version it's "Princeton University (A.B.)" and "Yale Law School (J.D.)". See Talk:Sonia Sotomayor#Edit war over degrees in infobox and also the article history. Although this isn't of earth shaking importance, may we set a style so this doesn't get debated each time? — Becksguy (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal either way. Usually, a law school confers a JD, but some confer other degrees as well. Usually the undergrad university (for lawyers anyway) confer an AB, but some lawyers get a BS. Also, sometimes there are three schools or more because other degrees are conferred (master's degrees and Ph.D degrees, etc.). My slight preference is to list the degrees. Doesn't take much space, and it's marginally helpful. I would be more against a mandated style of no listed degrees, but I wouldn't object that much to an optional style depending on the context.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)