This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There's quite a bit more on this at Lynching in the United States, including a photo and more detailed discussion of certain aspects of the events.--Bcrowell 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC) anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just finished reviewing the article. Here are my comments:
I think the lead needs the most work. Right now, roughly half of the article is devoted to the background of the riot but the lead doesn't mention any of it. Several facts are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the article.
I don't feel like there is a good timeline of the riot. The background, the cause, and the end result is there but there's nothing about how or why the riot ended in the article. Newspapers articles of the times might have some salvageable information regarding this. The New York Times has some coverage  but I'm sure Chicago newspapers would be better.
I don't want to have the article to be overwhelmed with pictures but I'm guessing there is an abundance of public domain pictures that could be added.
Everything else looks good. I'm going to ask for a second opinion as I'm rather new at good article reviewing. Right now I'm leaning toward failing the article but I'm sure the editors can address my comments ~ Eóin (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't given the article a careful review, but I think that most of your comments were spot-on. Luckily, Tony is a very responsive editor who addresses issues raised in GA reviews, as we can see from the comments above.
There's still remaining issues to fix. The interchangable use of the terms Negroes, Blacks and African Americans is jarring - I suggest standardizing. The prose could use sharpening; for example, minimize use of the passive voice.
Eóin, you may find it useful to show that you've addressed each of the GA criteria. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll be sure to use a checklist next time. I noticed several mentions of Black changed to African American so I changed the rest of them. I also combined two small paragraphs. With that, I believe the article can pass. Congratulations. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: in the lead, there is a paragraph that starts with "United States PresidentWoodrow Wilson and the United States Congress attempted to promote legislation and organizations to decrease racial discord in America" with a cite. Given Wilson's racism and the Congress of the time, I am skeptical they did any such thing. And it just has an encyclopedia as reference which is not exactly an historical study. Either the sentence should be removed or supported by additional more specific information as to what was actually done with citations. More detail, but not enough, is found in the later 'Ramifications' section, but it has no citations at all. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Is "militancy" the best word to describe African-American veterans' attitude and behavior? To me, "militancy" includes a connotation of incivility, aggression, or violence. If the veterans were advocating civil rights and equal treatment, is that "militancy?" On the other hand, if the veterans were agitating for violence then "militancy" would be the right word. Could the original author please clarify? Derrick Chapman 11:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)
The terminology in this article is all over the place - "African American," "Irish," "black," "white," etc. A glaring example is the photo caption that begins "A white gang looking for African Americans..." This needs to be cleaned up and made consistent. If they are "whites," then they are looking for "blacks." If they are looking for "African Americans," then they are "European Americans" or "Irish Americans." 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
After a careful screening of the article, I found a few specifics that were missing but easy to provide. I edited one, but maybe others will watch for the remainder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoskeleton2013 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The change of name of this article makes no English sense. It is correct English that a 'proper name' is capitalized and a 'proper name' is the name of a particular person, place of event. This article is about and thus the name is the name of a particular event. The name change needs to be reverted. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Riot was lower-cased but Race was not? Something's not right. Hugh (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oooops! Agree with Hugh, "race" should also be lower-cased then. My apologies. "Charleston riot" is instead correct: "Charleston" is a proper name, while "riot" is not. By the way "race riot" is also a common noun--Darius (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Since when in the English language are these changes correct. A 'proper name' is the name of a particular person. place. or event. For proper names, correct English language capitalization is that each word in the proper name is capitalized except for little connection words like 'the', 'in', 'a' and so on. I am still waiting for the justification for these changes from the Manual of Style so that I can check it out. In the meantime, all these name changes are wrong and should not continue. Hmains (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem to be the case that book editors and authors agree that this descriptive term is a proper name. See book n-grams. The idea that "correct English" is to capitalize proper names is true, but the determination of what's a proper name is not so simple. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The technical revert of DagosNavy's move was proposed by User:Hmains with this reason:
"un-discussed move made by editor who does not think a specific event should have a capitalized proper name unless he says so, based on criteria he himself created; in violation of MOS:NAMECAPS – Hmains (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".
WP:NCCAPS states that *proper names* should be capitalized. The disagreement on this set of articles is about what words or short phrases ought to be considered to be proper names. For example, is 'Chicago Race Riot of 1919' a proper name. Depending on the outcome of this article's move, it might be appropriate to revisit other items in the list of reverted moves from the WP:RMTR discussion.
Oppose. Other sources treat these type of events in the same way and it seems to have had a level of seriousness to warrant the capitalisation. A trivial event such as "The 25 October 2014 Greg Kaye Shopping Outing" might not warrant capitalisation but I think this is a reasonable case. Gregkaye✍♪ 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please help me understand this. "...level of seriousness..." May I ask, what is the basis for this criteria in policy or guideline? Thanks, Hugh (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – Reliable sources treat this as a proper noun, and, as such, we must use capitalisation. This is not a WP:NDESC title. Particularly notable, in this instance, is our fellow tertiary source, the Britannica, which uses the capitalisation. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree this title is non-judgemental. I agree some reliable sources treat this as a proper noun. Others don't. I too thought we were done with this issue when I saw what EB did, until I read WP:NCCAPS. The criteria for proper noun in WP:NCCAPS is very strong: "...a proper noun that would always occur capitalized." (emphasis added) This article relies heavily on contemporary news sources which you would not expect to recognize then-current events as a named event. Is "always" too strong? Am I reading the guideline right? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what WP:NDESC means. WP:NDESC refers to an invented non-judgemental descriptive title used for articles that otherwise have no common name, or no neutral common name. This name is not constructed at this article on Wikipedia for that purpose. It is the proper name used by reliable sources. As a name, it should always be capitalised. It is also true that in the early-mid 20th century, it was much common to give a "proper name" to events than it is now. This is largely a function of the fact that news at that time was constructed over a period of time. It wasn't constantly "breaking" and evolving on television, so it was possible to craft names &c. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience as I understand the criteria here, I mainly work in bio where title capitalization is relatively straightforward. I agree we are not inventing a proper name. "It is the proper name used by reliable sources." I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix. I agree reliable tertiary sources Encyclopedia Britannica and the Chicago History Museum website go proper, but most of the authors of the article's RS do not. I agree we should discount contemporary accounts in favor secondary and tertiary. Is the majority of RS or the majority vote determinative? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This is a good informational article and how it portrays the racism in this country during that time from a historical standpoint. However the article it self is presented with anger and racism toward people that are not African American. Particularly people with light skin. As all the references to Caucasians people are derogatory under the picture captions. for example "White boys" or "whites" Where all the people with dark skin are referred to as African Americans which acknowledges there humanity, identity and an equal people of the human race as it should. However the Irish immigrants or Irish Americans are only referred to as Whites or white boys stripping them of there racial identity and just assigning a slang word to them no different then honky or cracker. If you want to group all the Irish, German French etc. in to one category to refer to them, Wouldn't it be more constructive to use a non racist term like Caucasian?
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. Consensus favors the move, and the consensus argument legitimately notes that MOS:CAPS would have the common nouns in the title capitalized only if sources were consistent in their capitalization. bd2412T 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"...nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources..." Above on 25 October 2014 I wrote "I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix." Hugh (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Support as nom, based on data showing that the name of this event is not usually treated by sources as a proper name:
Books n-grams:  overwhelmingly lower case even without filtering out titles and headings.
Book examples (look past the first pages, because Google prefers to show capitalized hits first): ; overwhelmingly lower case.
So this title does not come close to being treatable as a proper name per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Support again as nom, since the proposal is consistent with recent multi-move discussions on this pattern and is unopposed after a week. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It's unopposed now, but it's only a month since several people did oppose this move. I have relisted because it's difficult to process this with no outside input given the previous, recent discussion. Shall we ping the previous participants to see if they are swayed by your evidence? Dekimasuよ! 05:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps so. Since then the situation has been clarified and the arguments against shown to be irrelevant, so they are not likely to oppose again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"I have relisted because it's difficult to process this with no outside input given the previous, recent discussion." I would like to better understand the rationale for re-listing so soon after the close of a previous discussion. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The recent close of the previous discussion was the reason for relisting this discussion when there wasn't sufficient input to process the request. I'm not quite sure what you're asking; I didn't propose the move right after the previous close, I only declined to process this one without explicit support. Would you have had me close the move as successful when it was unopposed? Dekimasuよ! 06:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I was surprised to see a second RM so soon after the close of the previous. I didn't know you could do that. I was not completely comfortable with the result of the previous. I thought the previous close was not in line with what I came to learn of MOSCAPS, but I thought what I was seeing was WP:IAR or WP:CON. I thought we were supposed to respect concensus even if we do not agree with it. I still do not understand when it is OK to re-open an issue after a close. Are you saying the previous close was too soon? Because at the time I was surprised at how quickly it closed. Hugh (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I explained in the rationale when I re-opened it that "nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources." This was a mistake worthy of being addressed sooner rather than later. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"...nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources..." Above in the previous RM on 25 October 2014 I wrote "I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix." Data was supplied. The treatment is not consistent. The resolution was capitalize anyway. Hugh (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose – This move request really should not've been opened. Regardless, this is a proper noun, and that's that. Capitalisation is required. Note our fellow tertiary source, the Encylopaedia Britannica, which uses the capitalisation. One should also note that, per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is no reason to move this article, as the status quo has not changed. Honestly, I'm starting to think some Wikipedia editors have turned French in their desire to decapitalise words and phrases that have always been capitalised in English. We don't get to have our own personal grammar, here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Your linked "evidence" for this being a proper name is a Google Book Search first page of hits. Be aware the Google Books ranks capitalized hits higher, so the first page typically shows a preponderance of capitalized and title forms. Go to the second or third page and you'll see a more typical set of hits in text, which in this case are seldom capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I looking at the 2nd sentence of MOS:CAPS where it says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I would think that means the 'reliable sources' that WP is supposed to be based on and which would be included in the article's references. The rationale above for lower casing this name is just a popularity contest (look here, look there, count the numbers you like), easily manipulated and abused in the retelling and not something that can be used by the other editors now or in the future to check for 'reliability--and certainly in no way based on article-text documented reliable sources. All of this is no better than the editor who recently lower cased hundreds of articles saying in definitely that 'the MOS required it' or whatever other excuse he got in his mind that day or an administrator saying 'he did not feel that the name was a proper name' as he lower cased dozens of articles. All these excuses and edits should have no place in WP. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Obviously we don't let sources vote on our style. But sources do often provide evidence of whether a term is treated as necessarily capitalized or not, and this one comes nowhere near any reasonable threshold. There is no reason to treat it as a proper name, just as in the dozens of others that you argued and lost. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"...words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources..." (emphasis added) I read this to direct us to capitalize where sources consistently capitalize. Here sources are inconsistent. What is your understanding? Hugh (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The prima facie and intended interpretation is that when capitalization in sources is not consistent (to a threshold left undefined), then we interpret that as an indication that caps are not necessary, so we don't. The implication, I think, is that sources would need to show an overwhelming supermajority of capitalization for us to conclude from sources that capitalization is necessary. In the present case, with only a small minority of sources using caps, it's not even a relevant issue here. Some argue that we need a more principled way to define what to capitalize, and I don't oppose that; but for the claims to be in such opposition to what we find in sources in cases like this means that the proposed principles are not the right ones. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmains, may i ask, what is your interpretation of "consistently" in MOS:CAPS?
Support, as consistently applied elsewhere on this project (except by Hmains). I think you're going to have to accept that if there's mixed usage out there, WP downcases by preference (see MOSCAPS opening). RGloucester, could you explain what criteria you're using for this category you call "proper noun"? Tony(talk) 07:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I too would like to better understand the criteria we should use here. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Any name used to refer to a specific event, thing, person, place, &c. This is how English capitalisation has worked since the 19th century, and it is how it should continue to work. I will eliminate abomination lowercased titles, if I ever have the time. RGloucester — ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Recent large multi-move discussions on various "riot" and "massacre" articles and such (Talk:Potato riots and Talk:Rock Springs massacre#Requested moves) affirmed that WP style is to use lower case, and showed plenty of evidence that your assertions of "how English capitalisation has worked since the 19th century" is incorrect. Most good sources do not capitalize descriptive names for specific events. The idea that "any name used to refer to a specific event, thing, person, place, &c." is a proper name has no basis is sources. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care what Wikipedia style is. I care about what's right. It is right that proper names be capitalised, and this is a proper noun. That's that. Your tiny little consensus at those pages is hardly indicative of larger support. If I'd known of them, I'd have opposed with every fibre of my being. Good sources, such as the Britannica, capitalise this title. That's reason enough to maintain it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, this is starting to be a rogue-editor rant. You appear to be nursing anger. Please stop and reconsider your threats at mass unilateral action against consensus. Tony(talk) 04:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happy to bow down to your anti-English capitalisation soap. I speak French. I'm fine with French-style capitalisation, if I'm writing French. We're not writing French here. We're writing English. Let's use English capitalisation rules. Or perhaps we should return to the time when all nouns were capitalised, as in German? I'd not like that. You're lucky. You shan't get even me to propose that. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This would not have started had not one editor been lower casing 3 or so articles every day week after week with the excuse I noted above of 'the MOS required it' or whatever other excuse he got in his mind that day or later an administrator saying 'he did not feel that the name was a proper name' in lower casing dozens of more articles. As long as such editing is tolerated/allowed/excused/encouraged, then we will have a mess and not an improved WP. And WP does NOT 'downcase by preference' in MOS:CAPS opening; it seems to me to ask for reliable sources, but others here seem to like a popularity contest of counting any kind of content that might be around the Internet. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"per MoS" means as suggested by the guidelines at WP:MOS, not that it's "required". Many editors do their best to bring diverse article styles into line with wikipedia style. You're right that the question might not have come up if editors didn't work on such things; but they (we) do. Such editing is widely approved of as a way to improve the Wikipedia. Why do you oppose it? How can the guideline at MOS:CAPS be interpreted to support capitalization of this term that most books do not? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree "a popularity contest of counting any kind of content that might be around the Internet" is not determinative. But how about the reliable sources of the article itself? May we focus our discussion there? Are the article's sources consistent in capitalization? Hugh (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Most of this article's sources do not use this exact title, capitalized or otherwise; the Britannica is the only one I found on looking through most of them (Did you find others that I missed?). The variety of references to the event are another indication that it doesn't have a "proper name". The title is descriptive. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"Did you find others that I missed?" The ref, currently the 2nd, is to the Online Encyclopedia of Chicago, a production of the Chicago Historical Society and the Newberry Library, a reliable source, and also includes a capitalized in-text reference to the subject of this article. Hugh (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"This would not have started had not one editor been lower casing 3 or so articles every day week after week" Yes, I remember that. I was really annoyed when he swept through articles in the Chicago project. Then I studied MOS:CAPS more carefully. Hugh (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmains, may I ask, scanning through this article's refs, how would you describe the capitalization of the subject of this article? thanks Hugh (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support - the crazy capitalization theory that Hmains and RGloucester argue for has no basis in consensus guidelines, policies, or sources. This should be a routine action, given the clear evidence presented from books; just do it. 2620:0:1000:157D:6CBD:7325:B242:FBDE (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I endorse this post. Hmains' and RGloucester's "evidence" is deceptive, even if inadvertently so. Naturally the titles of most printed sources tend to be capped (which needs to be accounted for but is not by these two editors—why?). Usage of major sources strongly favours lower case, and Tuttle, a highly respected source on the topic, downcases in his main text.
Now, those whose argument centres around "I don't care what Wikipedia style is": please note that there is a difference between proper noun and proper name—this is not a trivial distinction, and our article proper noun bears close reading. Ngrams (restricted to five words) yields ~10% of non-titular usage in upper case, using the search string ["the Chicago race riot of". "The" will exclude many titles that omit it, but some inevitably do use it; so that 10% is likely to be yet lower if it were possible to exclude that contaminating variable.
If Hmains and RGloucester object to WP's house style announced at the opening of MOSCAPS, an RM is not the place to invent new guidelines—they should go to the talkpage at MOSCAPS. (Ngram result courtesy of User:Noetica, whom I asked for advice.) Tony(talk) 01:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't object to MOSCAPS, we object to your false interpretation of it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please keep the discourse polite (your edit-summary branded my post as "nonsense"). Which part of "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized", and "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" are we misinterpreting; this is a question alluded to by Hugh, above. I see no attempt to address the specific points raised, other than pleas that you simply don't like them. Tony(talk) 02:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This capitalisation is "necessary" if one wants to write in English. Therefore, it must be written. RGloucester — ☎ 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll need to explain the basis of your necessity, not just state that it's necessary (particularly when other editors on this page clearly don't' think it's necessary). You explanation will be greately assisted by anchorage in key parts of WP's article on proper nouns. Tony(talk) 02:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please, explain to me why the Britannica capitalises this item? RGloucester — ☎ 02:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Capitalising is an option, but nothing like a necessity. If Britannica is in the estimated 10% that choose to cap, good luck to them. The eyes of far more professional editors—not to mention generalist writers—are on our consensual guidelines than Britannica could ever muster, with far more discussion, all in the open. Britannica is inconsistent, just as its content is demonstrably out of date and inaccurate compared with Wikipedia’s in many domains. If you believe we should be slaves to their stylistic whims, maybe we should close WP down as inferior. Tony(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Your arrogance is amazing. You will be the death of this encyclopaedia, and of English. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Your user page tag says you are a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Have you considered asking there to see if your ideas about English copy editing enjoy any support among others here who do that? I suspect you'll find that the one who is out of step with English Wikipedia style, and English in general, is you. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to do any such thing. I know what's right, and I'll make sure to do what I need to do as such. If you'd like me to stop cleaning up articles, I'd be happy to do so. Far from Mr Tony's arrogant claims, most of Wikipedia is a mess of dismal and dingy prose or proseline that has no semblance of style. If he'd like to continue living in such a squalid mess, that's up to him. Me, on the other hand, I like to keep my house in order. RGloucester — ☎ 18:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, please don't be rude to other editors (now, "arrogant"): it's not the way to win your arguments—and people aren't being rude to you.
Now, you're going out on a limb, unilaterally declaring: "most of Wikipedia is a mess of dismal and dingy prose or proseline that has no semblance of style. ... a squalid mess". I'm sure we're feeling crestfallen at this description of our hard work over the years.
You've been tending to make pronouncements rather than to engage in good-faith discourse about the specific matter at hand: "This capitalisation is "necessary" if one wants to write in English. Therefore, it must be written." And: "I know what's right, and I'll make sure to do what I need to do as such. ... I don't care what Wikipedia style is. I care about what's right. It is right that proper names be capitalised, and this is a proper noun. That's that."
Well, we've all been put in our places, bent over and whacked with a cane rod, punishment administered where indicated. I'm sure people appreciate the strength of your passion for linguistic rectitude, but this alone is not a productive way to establish consensus on talkpages.
Again, could you explain the distinction between proper noun and proper name? Tony(talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It is clear to a primary schooler, tony, so I think it should be clear to You. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to move toward consensus with a fellow editor who claims he knows what's right and doesn’t care about WP style. Hugh (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Not consistently capitalized in RS. MOS:CAPS is clear. This is not hard. I'm comfortable talking, thinking, reading, and writing about things that don't have proper names. Capitalization is not necessary. In my thinking on this I initially was overly impressed by Britannica. I care what WP style is. Hugh (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.