Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Common name, birth name and post-nominal initials

I noticed an editor making a excellent job of cleaning up bios to conform with the MOS. In one case Mark Evaloarjuk, I notice that the style guide does not give any information as to the correct format. Is the current oepning correct, with the exception that "nee" should be "ne", or should it be '''Mark Evaloarjuk''' (né '''Evaluarjuk'''), [[Order of Canada|CM]] (died [[July 3]], [[2002]] By the way would it be possible to rewrite Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Maiden names so that it applied to both women and men?

WP:POSTNOM

There is a disagreement between Daniel the Monk and me over what counts as a post-nominal title. The disagreement emerged after this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_of_Saint_Victor&diff=522068025&oldid=521783146 ; the discussion that followed (User_talk:Daniel_the_Monk#WP:POSTNOM) was not conclusive. I understand the guideline as follows: always link / avoid bold typing post-nominal initials in general (as I see it this definitely includes post-nominals related to bodies of priests — Post-nominal letters#Examples). Daniel the Monk believes that since religious Order initials are not honorifics, they could/should be bold typed. Could we have this clarified in the guideline page? --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no special exception for religious vs. non-religious postnomials. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No reason to treat these any differently. In this case their inclusion is anachronistic anyway, as I very much doubt postnoms were used in the 12th century! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think postnomial abbreviations as adhering appendages to names (vs. incidental time-saving abbreviations used or not used as the writer wished) only go back to the 19th c., i.e. the Victorian era (based on my reading and retention; I'm not an expert on titles and styles). Any application here of a specific postnomial abbreviation outside of the period in which it provably was consistently used would be a clear policy violation, per WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re McCandlish's point, these postnominal initials are precisely that, time saving abbreviations, not appendages. So regarding that and the issue of NOR, an indication of a person's religious Order following their name can be found in illustrations of individuals going back to at least the 16th century. In texts they go back to the 12th century, when Orders other than the Benedictine began to emerge, as a means of identifying the individual's religious affiliation. In modern times, the name of the Order was simply abbreviated.

As to the point of anachronism, if the individual belonged to an Order which still exists and uses these postnominal initials, why should they be treated differently in a contemporary text? Are they not to be treated as a member of the Order, albeit no longer living? Clearly if they were alive today, they would use the postnominal initials. This is not an ancient document, but an encyclopedia.

But as to the main point, why are they to be treated the same as honorifics, such as OBE or Ph.D.? I have yet to hear a good rationale. As I indicated in my initial exchange with Omnipaedista, they clearly are not that, but instead indicate membership in a community. Any member of the Order is entitled to their use, whether they are the Brother who repairs the plumbing or a cardinal. Therefore they should be considered the equivalent of Jr, Sr and III. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

They aren't equivalent. Jr, Sr and III are part of a person's name, whereas postnominal letters indicate membership of orders or qualifications. If used, which they don't have to be, they should not be bolded. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jr and Sr do not have to be used, and often are not, so what is the difference in that regard? Plus what do you mean by qualifications? Other editors here don't say that they are part of a name, so that seems irrelevant. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned PhD above. Membership of orders should be treated the same way. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So presumably you're also saying that postnominal abbreviations like RAMC, RAF and RN should be bolded as they also denote membership of an organisation? Sorry, but no. It's a postnominal like any other. In actual fact, far from being bolded, none of these should even be used, because as you say they don't actually denote any achievement but a simple membership. We don't use degrees inline; why should we use postnoms denoting membership of an organisation? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Membership in a religious Order is legally recognized as equivalent to a family relationship throughout the world. So your comparison to an occupational organization is not equivalent. Perhaps that is the problem for people to grasp their meaning, as there is no equivalent otherwise in society, other than the familial titles of Jr., Sr., etc. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You presumably have documentary proof of this claim? A religious order is an "occupational organisation" to all except the religious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, there have been a number of court rulings to this effect. For this reason, a religious superior is accepted as the next of kin by the legal system. I can't speak to your own country, but I doubt that it is significantly different.

Can you provide documentation for that last comment? Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again, would you like to provide proof to that effect? And tell us why it's relevant to this discussion? As to my other statement, it's blatantly obvious, I would have thought, since non-Christians clearly don't accept that being a monk, nun or priest is anything other than a job. If we believed they were something higher then we'd obviously be Christians! That doesn't need documentary proof, just common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Only the article title is bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLD and the article title does not include post-nominal letters. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see documentation for your assertion, Necrothesp. I am not arguing about anything being "higher", simply that being part of a religious institute is being bound into a particular group with their particular way of life, one which is legally recognized as not being simply a job. The difference from a job is that otherwise your supervisor at the office could legally determine whether or not to pull the plug on your respirator, which a religious superior can do. Thus the closest civil parallel is familial. Consequently they should be bolded, even if not in the title of the entry, in the same way that a maiden name or a foreign alternative form or family title would be. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You keep asserting these things, but have provided us with no proof! It's all very well to say that a religious superior can "pull the plug on your respirator", but a different thing entirely to prove it to us, which you have not yet done. The Catholic Church asserting this right and the law accepting it are two entirely separate things. And even if it were true, that still does not mean that the postnominals are part of their names, legally or otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of proof would be possible in this format? This is not a legal codebook. And, even just assuming that I am correct in this matter, I disagree with your conclusion. They are certainly not honorifics, which is what the MOS speaks about. Why not consider them the equivalent of family titles, such as Junior or Senior? Can you suggest a better equivalent? Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "honorific suffixes" to clarify the guidance. DrKiernan (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there any kind of editorial consensus for that or did you do that on your own? Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The former. For example, there are 4 editors in this talk page section that agree on the point. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of WP:CREDENTIAL

"Rabbi" is an academic title indicating that the recipient has successfully completed the requirements of a multi-year program in an institution of higher Jewish education. As such, I had always thought that the first sentence of WP:CREDENTIAL,

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.

was a clear indication that the title "Rabbi" should not be included before the name in the initial sentence or other uses of a person's name. However, I have recently been getting opposition to this from another editor, who insists, at least in the Elazar Shach article, that the title Rabbi "is part of his name." Is my understanding incorrect? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Any guidance would be most appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no specific guideline here, since Rabbi is essentially a religious title as opposed to a strictly academic one (rabbis are generally spoken of as being "ordained", just as Christian clergy are). We have never really determined whether religious titles of any denomination should be included inline or not. It is a discussion we probably need to have, but as yet there is no real guidance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If WP:CREDENTIAL doesn't apply, then would WP:HONORIFIC? Some combination? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the directives there seem to indicate that it is a case by case basis on whether to use the title Rabbi. Since we have Mother Teresa as an article name, it is clear that a usage of Rabbi could in theory by common enough to conform to the indications there. Whether or not a specific usage is, I think would have to be decided on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discoraging of mention of ethnicity in lead should be toned down

The fact of the matter is that lots and lots of people have their whole careers tied to their ethnicity. This is particularly true of many actors. It would seem much better to reword the phrasing on mentioning ethnicity in the lead. This is epsecially true because many actors who are clearly know as African-American only have one paragraph articles. The current situation has lead to a situation where people aggresively defend categorization and attack those who try to follow the rule that categorization should follow mention in the article, while at the same time other people agressively fight mention of ethnicity in the opening paragraph. This leads to people like me who seek to have some semblance of connection between the article and the categories it is placed in getting attacked by people from both sides. I can't remove and article from Category:African-American actors without being accused of being a vandal because it is a commonly known fact that Ellen Bethea is African-American, but I can't mention in the lead that Ellen Bethea is African-American because "mentioning ethnicity in the lead is discoraged". What should I do, especially when those who are hung up on a stringent reading of the guidelines do not care one iota about categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Past or present tense when discussing a dead person's beliefs, teachings and writings

In many bios of dead persons the history is written in past tense, but the writings are described in the present tense. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin#Theology ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Aristotle.27s_scientific_method The MOS only allows past tense for bios of dead persons. I suggest one of these two options: 1. specifying in the MOS: "Writings and theories of dead persons can be described in the present tense." 2. "Writings and theories of dead persons must also be discussed in the past tense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markewilliams (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality in the lede?

Somebody pointed out to me that this MOS requires the nationality to be put in the lede? Really? How dumb can you get? It is just silly to put the nationality of a person in the lede when that person's nationality is plainly obvious from the context. That's like saying that Elizabeth II is a (insert nationality here; I'm sure she has a lot of them) is Queen of Canada, Australia, etc., or that Barack Obama is an American politician. In many respects that MOSBIO you cited is just ridiculous. Sorry I am waxing indignant, but that is the way I feel. I have written scores of articles about Notable Americans, and in none of them have I chosen to name their nationalities when it is just obvious that they are Americans. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This guideline does not require nationality; it requires context. If adequate context is given by "Barack Obama is the President of the United States", it is unnecessary to state explicitly that he is an American politician. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. But one should never assume knowledge on the part of a reader. Just because you may think everyone and his wife knows that someone is an American doesn't mean you're right. But as DrKiernan says, if the context is in the lede then further specification of nationality is unnecessary. I assume the article under discussion is Lloyd G. Davies? In this instance I agree the nationality should be in the lede. There is, I think, sometimes a tendency to assume that American (and sometimes British and Canadian) topics (Hollywood and Los Angeles in this case) are so well-known that nationality doesn't need to be specified. This is unencyclopaedic and too much of an assumption. Very well-known does not equate to universally known. I think you'll find that most other encyclopaedias follow suit on this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no and no. This interpretation has to be fought at every point. When did it get slipped into the encyclopedia? One has to assume that a reader is not exactly a dope: It is so obvious that governmental leaders are citizens of the country wherein they serve that to point out that fact is like saying the sky is blue. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I am having a hard time seeing why one would get so upset over the notation that Davies was an American politician. Regardless, while you focus on politics here, this MOS considers all biographies, and there are many realms (such as sports) where it is useful to note the nationality. As such, I have reverted your removal of this from the MOS page, barring a consensus decision to remove it. Resolute 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is what DrKiernan already said, is it not? We do not need to say that "Barack Obama is an American politician who is President of the United States", since that is effectively repeating information. We do need to say that "John Smith is an American politician who served as Mayor of Houston". Do you know in which country every city in the world is? No, neither do I. Neither does anyone else. So it needs to be specified. To do anything else would be to assume that the cities in one particular country (usually one's own) are better-known than those in others, which is biased and foolish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Houston is a town in Canada, duh. As are Rochester, Adelaide, London, Sydney and Paris. Resolute 19:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notable mainly for past events"

This wording is contained in WP:OPENPARA, but it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. Surely everyone who is notable is "notable mainly for past events"?

I would assume that the guidance should say something like "...people whose notability is substantially in the past and who have fallen into obscurity". But there's an alternative view that it just means "...people who first became famous a long time ago...".

This has come up at Talk:Gérard_Depardieu#In_resp._to_all_the_above:_We_have_a_guideline_for_lead_and_natonality, but I don't think the outcome for that article depends very much on this particular issue, so you don't need to worry too much about the detail of the specific case.

Any thoughts? Formerip (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one seems to care enough to comment, I have gone ahead and modified the wording. Formerip (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got from this talk page section to the changes you made to the section in the manual. I'm going to revert your changes. I don't think any consensus has been established to make them. I understand the point about "past events", but I don't understand the rest. Silence may be okay, but now that I've reverted, I suggest more discussion. I also think it would be easier to understand changes to the manual when the actual language that is going to be implemented is included here on the talk page. That way everyone is on the same page, if you'll pardon the pun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, well here is the current wording:

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

To me this is gobbledygook. Nationality being related to citizenship is fine. But nationality being related to being a national is a tautology and being a permanent resident (WP:CRYSTAL) clearly does not give nationality (e.g. Piers Morgan is British, not American). Everything from "notable mainly for past events" is useless for the reason I mentioned above (it applies in all cases), and surely it cannot be intended that a person's nationality at the time of becoming notable should be fixed in amber (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger can be described as "Austrian and American", even though he was only Austrian at the time he first became famous).

I think what the wording is trying to say it that nationalities held, for example, during childhood or old age, which constitute biographical detail only, should not be mentioned in the lead.

So, I've tried to render all that into something that makes sense:

Any nationalities the subject has had during their period of notability should be included. In a modern-day context, "nationality" usually means holding legal citizenship and having at some time been a resident of the country in question.

Formerip (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If silence is not good enough: I see no problems with the proposed change. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with the reasoning. I believe the current wording intentionally relies on items other than citizenship, which, by the way, is often hard to source when a person was born in one country and, for example, later became a permanent resident of another country. Thus, if an actor is born in France, moves to the U.S. when he is 3 and becomes famous, he is an American actor, not a French actor, even though we have no way of knowing whether he became a citizen of the U.S. The citizenship problem is further exacerbated by legal issues. For example, we may assume that a person born in a particular country is necessarily a citizen of that country, but that's not always the case, and we certainly don't want to get into a legal quagmire examining the laws of the natal country.

As for the problem with "mainly for past events", I understand the issue with that, but I think the meaning is clear. The manual is trying to address earlier events in the person's life. For example, a person is born in Britain and at the age of 6 becomes a famous child actor. They stop acting at 17 and never act again. They are not notable for any other reason. They move to Germany when they are 20 and remain there for the rest of their life. They were a British child actor as they are notable for past events.

I may be open to minor changes to the current text to clarify the intent of the wording, but the proposed change, in my view, alters its meaning and intent.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice a persistent silence on this matter, maybe because nobody sees how the proposed wording worsens the current text. Rabid nationalists will continue to apply anachronistic nationalities under the current wording, where the proposed wording seems to focus on "nationality" alone – which raises its own can of worms for almost all Europeans before nation states. I think a simplification of the current 45-word sentence to two sentences with 38 words is an improvement. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SURNAME

There are many more countries that follow Patronymic#Ethiopia naming convention, specially in East Africa. These need to be included in this section. Some examples of affected articles: Meles Zenawi, Fuad Ibrahim, Tekle Hawaryat, Tewodros II of Ethiopia, Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, Isaias Afewerki, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and many many more through out the region: in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and South Sudan. There is are too many articles to correct. I have tried my best to correct them. But it is nearly impossible when all news articles refer to people by their fathers or grandfathers name.

According to this MOS, even though titles of articles will refer to people by their most commonly cited name, in subsequent mentions, the given name is used if the name is patronymic. If no objections, I will be adding these countries to the list of Country-specific usage. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Present tense

I think this recent addition is confusing and should be removed:

---

Use the present tense when summarizing or quoting written works or other artistic creations:

• In his book, Bob begins his argument with an anecdote ...

If there is a shift in the time frame within the world of the text, you may need to change tense. Write as if the actions of the work exist in an eternal present:

• At this point in John's story, Jack becomes afraid as he considers what he has done and what it will mean for his future.

---

"Summarizing or quoting written works" is not the subject of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone has expressed confusion over biographies being generally written in the past tense for dead people. Often biographies of writers will have significant amounts of information about their written works. --JFHutson (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In every writer, artist or philosopher's bio, her works are discussed in the eternal present tense, violating the MOS for BDPs to be written exclusively in the past tense. If we don't include a note on how to discuss a writer's/philosopher's/artist's work here, where do we include such a note?Markewilliams (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not always going to be appropriate to use the past tense when referencing written works. Context is very important, and I think the wording used should be thought about carefully. Consider:

George Orwell was a British writer. In 1936, he goes to Spain and fights in the Spanish Civil War, according to his book Homage to Catalonia.

When to use past and when to use present is not very easy to succinctly describe, I think. Perhaps the guidance would be better if it were worded to permit use of the present tense in some cases, rather than require it.

Formerip (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If the stylebook indeed REQUIRES the use of any given tense in situations like this, then, yes, it should be changed to permit. (This is not really a style question anyway, but a composition question.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The MoS doesn't require anything, but it confuses the reader by saying that BDPs should generally be written in the past tense. I know what it means, but some (or at least one) people are reading it to mean that all verbs in a BDP should be past tense. At least some qualification needs to be made. Maybe someone should write an essay on Literary present tense and link it if my little guide is too confusing. --JFHutson (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly confused. 1) What has WP:BDP got to do with this? 2) Is it suggested that the George Orwell example above, "…he goes to Spain…" is preferred usage? 3) Is there an example from a biography article which a) uses the literary present tense; or b) doesn't but ought to? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bios of dead persons are to be written in the past tense as per the MOS. However, when referring to the dead person's works (literature, art, philosophy) the MOS does not permit anything to be written in the present tense, yet most articles (see Aristotle and John Calvin) include references to their writings in the present tense. I was going to change two articles to comply with the MOS by making all those references past tense ("Calvin believed...said...argued"), but others disagreed. Finally we found a style manual by Vanderbilt University in which it explained dead person's writings are normally referred to in the eternal present tense. Now everyone discussing this subject agrees and there is complete consensus on referring to works in the eternal present tense. And almost everyone agrees that it needs to be in the MOS, either here or somewhere else that tells how to write a bio, so that the way articles are written now is permitted by the MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markewilliams (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I like the explanation at Talk:John Calvin#Why are Calvin's teachings presented in the present tense?, "it is common to use the present tense when describing written work, because the work still says it." As GeorgeLouis wrote above, it seems more a question of composition than something to be adjudicated in a Manual of Style. I still believe that adding this will confuse readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

BOB, BOD styled DMY and commas

Though it's not called for here, many DMY intros have birthplace & deathplace with the dates. Therefore, which is correct?
1- (18 January 1859, Montreal – 25 January 1959, Quebec City) or
2- (18 January 1859 in Montreal – 25 January 1959 in Quebec City).
GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't overburden the lede. Keep it comprehensible. It's a sentence, or a group of sentences, not a race over hurdles.GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Then, it's best to delete the birthplace & deathplace, like so

3- (18 January 1850 – 25 January 1959)
GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But make sure to put the places in the Infobox and prose in the article if not already present. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, if places are in infobox - remove from intro. If there's no infobox - place in intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly what I'm saying. The place of birth and death, unless they are important enough to the history and notability of the subject to be placed in the lead paragraph, should be in History, Early Life, Death, etc. sections. If there is an Infobox, they should also be there, per MOS (the Infobox is supposed to summarize and provide easy access to info in the article, not replace it). The birth and death places should not be in the parens with the dates right after the subject's name(s) in the lead sentence. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The place of birth should never be included in the birth date parenthetical in the lead sentence per the examples provided by MOS:BIO and MOS:LEAD. Places of birth and death should be included in the infobox, and may be mentioned in main body text if relevant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They should not be included parenthetically at all. They should, however, always be included in the text. The infobox should not contain information not included in the text. It's a summary of the text, not a replacement for it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanings of the subject's middle name

I do not seem to be able to explain to User:Cotillards that there is no reason for biographical article, such as Prince Vincent of Denmark, to explain what the subject's middle name (or any first name, for that matter) means. The article about Donald Trump, for example, does not say that "Donald" means "ruler of the world" (hmmm) and that "John" means "God is gracious". That is nothing but trivia. Am I the one who is wrong here? Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the literal meaning of a name is trivial, but I think it is relevant to say, for example, that the eldest son of the king of Denmark is called Christian by tradition if the father is called Frederick, or explain that someone was named after their grandmother. However, in the case you mention the material was mostly unsourced or sourced to blogs and wikis, which are not reliable sources (particularly for a living person who is a minor). DrKiernan (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me completely, the actual meanings of the names obviously are irrelevant but explaining that Vincent and his twin sister each have a Greenlandic name and the reason why is relevant in my opinion. Explaining that Vincent was named after the French Saint Vincent of Saragossa, the patron of wine-makers, because little Vincent's grandfather is a wine-maker is very relevant in my opinion. Like it was done with Vincent's grandmother, QMII. Cotillards (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hadrat as an honorific

We have an article on this - Hadrat. The spelling 'Hazrath' is also used in our articles, eg [1], sometimes even in the article's title, eg in this truly dreadful article: Hazrat Sayed Mehboob Ali Shah Chishti Nizami. I came across this at a recent edit here. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Religious titles/honorifics

We seem to need help with religious titles and honorifics. I please request that we discuss, achieve a consensus and write down guidelines. Please see the talk page of the article Gandhi for more details, regarding a proposed move to Mahatma Gandhi. Here is an excerpt from that conversation:

• Comment: WP:MoS and current usage. Religious titles derived from formal initiations or high hierarchical functions usually make it to the article's title, e.g. Pope John XXIII, Swami Vivekananda, or Mother Theresa; but this is not true for low-ranking or less known clergy, such as priests or lamas. On the other hand, titles resulting from popular veneration or extolment are inconsistent, e.g. {Saint} Francis of Assisi and {Saint} Paul the Apostle -- but Saint Andrew and Saint Peter. Though WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence, the cases of the Christian apostles show that this is not strictly followed. The honorific Mahatma is the result of popular extolment, but also one with religious meanings.

I think the main issue here is that the common name is also a religious concept, which implies a certain spiritual status (saint, mahatma, mewlana) that is impossible to verify and different from a hierarchical title. Hence the request for debate, consensus and guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style: is WP:COMMONNAME appropriate in the case of Gandhiji? What about the Christian apostles? What about {Mewlana} Rumi or {Avatar} Meher Baba? Why do popes or the patriarchs of the Catholic Church have their title in their names at Wikipedia? What about leaders of smaller religious organizations in which religious titles are also hierarchical designations, such as {Satguru} Sivaya Subramuniyaswami of Saiva Siddhanta Church? There is no obvious solution. I believe we need to keep in mind common sense, but avoid any subtle Judeo-Christian bias (as in allowing only titles that are familiar to a Western audience due to cognitive bias.)

[Cross-posted from MoS talk page, not sure which place is appropriate.]98.234.105.147 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)