Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Multiple occupations

Is there any consensus/guidance for determining what/how many occupations to use in identifying a person in the lede? I see many articles which try to recap the subject's entire resumé, even delving into hobbies, (e.g. "actor, director, producer, writer, voice actor, comedian, singer, juggler, and television host"), which is awkward to read and isn't terribly information for someone who is simply wondering why this person is notable. Obviously someone such as Ronald Reagan who had two substantial and distinct careers needs more than one occupation listed, but how many items is too many, how much detail is too much, and how minor a role is too trivial? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be as minimal as possible per "avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles" and "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph". In the above example, "voice actor" is redundant to "actor" and "comedian, singer, juggler, and television host" sounds like "entertainer". DrKay (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, it's at the bottom of this section MOS:BLPLEAD. Just clean up the lead sentence whenever you see a big mess like that, and refer back to here in the edit summary (e.g. clean up lead sentence, see MOS:BLPLEAD). LK (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that ref will be invaluable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

People commonly known by nicknames

Right now, the guideline doesn't mention what to do about nicknames. The common practice on Wikipedia seems to be to put it in quotes. See Billy Carter, Casey Jones, Dick Van Dyke, Jimmy Hoffa, Tom Daschle, and our own Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales. Let's put something in the guideline at WP:FULLNAME, maybe something like: "When the subject is commonly known by a nickname, the nickname may be included in quotes next to the proper name." Thoughts? Darx9url (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that discussions regarding this exact topic are ongoing at WT:Article titles and at the main WT:MOS page. I don't mind including something about this here... but let's make sure that whatever we include matches the consensus at other pages. We don't want to give conflicting advice. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2015 archive#Placement of a nickname in the full name held on this page a few months ago. Many people there opposed general use of the William "Bill" Clinton form. DES ^(talk) 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, guidelines are supposed to reflect practice, not dictate what to do from on high to the masses. So maybe we should follow what people do instead of pissing into the wind. Just a thought, Darx9url (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone's interested there's also a discussion here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games--Prisencolin (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Although increasingly it is being put into quotes this is actually completely unnecessary, looks very messy and amateurish (it's the sort of thing that may be okay in a book of pop culture, but not in a serious encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is attempting to be), can be confusing, and contradicts existing guidelines. If the commonly used name is given in the article title then there is no need to further explain unless it's not an obvious contraction, in which case an explanation should be included after the dates. Bill Clinton is called Bill Clinton in the article title and since Bill is a common contraction of William there is absolutely no need to put his contracted name inside his full name - it looks like we're idiots writing for idiots. If anyone really feels the need to state the obvious then put "commonly known as Bill Clinton" after his birth date. As stated above, this has already been discussed and is explained at WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In general, encyclopedia should state the obvious. We're (hopefully) writing for posterity. Who knows what would be common knowledge, and what not, 50 years from now. I think we should explain nicknames as not doing so leaves a gap in our biography of a person. LK (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you're not advocating Michael "Mike" Smith or David "Dave" Jones? We're not writing for idiots! If such a blatant contraction is in the title then it's obvious. If it's less obvious, include after the name, not within it, which is not a clear way of doing it. And incidentally, Bill has been used for William for centuries. I don't think it's going to change any time soon. Unless the whole English language changes, in which case we're going to have to rewrite the whole of Wikipedia anyway and such minutiae would be the least of our worries! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics in infoboxes

Honorific titles are allowed in the first mention and in the infobox, but it is unclear if honorific prefixes may be used in the infobox. The policy for honorific prefixes states: "In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article." The reason for this question is that recent edits ([1], [2]) to justices of the US Supreme Court added "The Honorable" using the honorific prefix parameter of the infobox. All of the infoboxes of the justices have "The Honorable" as an honorific above their name in the infobox. For comparison, I don't see "Her Majesty" (or whatever the correct honorific is) in the infobox of Elizabeth II, a featured article. AHeneen (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these honorifics should be added. The infobox on a biography should be (1) about the person, i.e. the topic of the article, and (2) concise, i.e. just giving the basic facts about their life. It should not feature details that, usually, only relate to one of the offices they've held rather than them as a person. DrKay (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA

Can we please do something about the nonsensical guideline to not have places of birth in the opening line. This has been discussed before as being WP:Local consensus. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been like this for a long time, and most people editing BLPs agree with it. If you really think most Wikipedians disagree with the guidelines in WP:BLPLEAD, start a RfC and see what people say. Darx9url (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The place of birth/death should not be in the opening brackets - partly because it is not relevant to notability (and also UNDUE), partly because it cannot be agreed how to display it, and partly because it looks out-of-place. It is a long-standing element of MOS, it's hardly 'local consensus' is it? GiantSnowman 09:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, most of us seem to agree with this. I know I do. So no, it isn't "nonsensical" and there's no "consensus". -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the first of the three rationales Giant Snowman gave above, how is year of birth more relevant to notability than place of birth? For instance, Barack Obama's place of birth has been the subject of enormous attention while it really doesn't matter much to the world whether he was born in 1961 or 1958 or 1964. For Virginia Dare, the place of her birth goes hand in hand with her date of birth in establishing her notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is nationality and sometimes land of birth that is most important, and that is recorded in the opening paragraph (for both of those you mention above, plus almost everyone else). Specific place of birth is very rarely so important. Dates are always considered to be vital pieces of information and are recorded in all encyclopaedias; specific places of birth nowhere near so much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People who change their surname but not through marriage

Apologies for the rather awkward subject line! The situation I'd like feedback on is this: the subject of a biography changed her surname simply for personal preference, not through marriage, and not to her original/birth name. In this situation is it appropriate to use "née"? i.e. Jane Doe is born, later changes her name to Jane Bricken because Doe is too boring, and becomes famous as Jane Bricken. Is she now "Jane Bricken (née Doe)" or "Jane Bricken (born Doe)" or "Jane Bricken (formerly Doe)" or "Jane Bricken" and the name change is noted in the body of the text? Or some other solution? I feel uncomfortable using "née" as this is typically used to signify a surname used before it was changed by marriage, and in this case the change is not due to marriage. The use of "née" might give the reader an inaccurate impression of the person's decision. FYI the bio in question is Suzie Moncrieff. Many thanks! MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dont normally use nee if the change doesnt relate to a marriage we have lots of entries for people better known by a stage name and they use "born", see Elton John for an example. MilborneOne (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sections of the article

This MoS currently has a section on the Opening paragraph. but none on the sections of the main part of the article. E.g., for a person who founded an organization, can there be a section for Appearances containing links to interviews they gave? What sections should typically be included? — Sebastian 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Users (mostly IPs) keep changing the nationality of notable citizens in the open paragraph, when someone was born in country A but became notable in country B. Two examples are Riccardo Giacconi and Richard Rogers. I always revert these changes according to the WP:OPENPARA guideline, but I am wondering whether it would not make more sense to mention the double nationality in the lead (although I am aware that this would simply change the targets of the POV pushing, but not solve each problem).

Moreover, I would like to ask if this rule can be enforced asking help to an admin. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Jr./Sr. double comma in lede

I'm curious how to use the double comma around the life range in the opening sentences of biographies. Example: "Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an ..." Should the latter comma for Jr. be before or after the parenthetical dates? Thanks for any guidance. Fdssdf (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Post-nominals "PC" for holders of prefix "Right Honourable"

User:Mabelina has been removing instances of the post-nominals "PC" (for membership in a privy council in all or many of the Commonwealth realms) from biographies for the apparent reason that "PC should not be used as a post-nom where Rt Hon is displayed as an honorific prefix." They have provided no source for this information, I have certainly never heard it before, and it goes against wide-spread practice in Wikipedia. I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage. Does anyone here know if "PC" and "Right Honourable" should never appear together is indeed the correct practice? Is it only in the UK, if anywhere at all? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: first of all, thank you for including me in your comments. Secondly, the reason for removing "PC" where "Rt Hon" is also displayed is quite simple: it is duplication (something which Wiki massively dislikes above all things, seemingly). JorisEnter and I have corresponded on this matter, in a most agreeable and informed manner, which hopefully Miesianiacal and others will look at before reaching any conclusion - Wiki MOS is a vast subject... Suffice to say, User talk:Miesianiacal's statement : "[They] (sic) have provided no source for this information, I have certainly never heard it before, and it goes against wide-spread practice in Wikipedia. I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage." is a wild accusation (& incorrect), & let me prove in a nutshell why...:
qv: Don Foster, Baron Foster of Bath http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 - NB Don Foster is a Privy Counsellor & the UK Parliamentary website styles him properly as The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath. Is it too much to ask for Miesianiacal to withdraw the attempted badmouthing? M Mabelina (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

See Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Rights and privileges of members: for commoners, "PC" is not used with "Rt Hon"; however, it may be used for peers because they already hold styles with their peerages and so membership of the privy council is not otherwise indicated. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrKay: - my point entirely. Who devised Wiki's script because it is incorrect? To deal with the very specific point of Rt Hon. + PC, where, in any official manual or reference book of note, is such "lingo" (for wont of any better terminology) used? It is not, so why has Wiki adopted it? Please comment as to what you make of: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 re. The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath - I use this example because he has no other appellations so there can be absolutely no complications in coming to the correct conclusion. Awaiting yours. M Mabelina (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. please let's attend to Wiki's MOS where necessary - thank you.

Privy Council membership is a problematic situation for the Manual of Style. It is certainly true that the usual style in Britain is for Privy Counsellors to be given the honorific prefix 'The Right Honourable' with no postnominals; that does not apply to Peers because all peers under the rank of Marquess have the 'Right Honourable' prefix anyway, whether members of the Privy Council or not. The MOS problem is that a consensus was arrived at a long time ago (about a decade, if I remember) that 'The Right Honourable' should not be used as an honorific prefix in the lede of biographical articles. Hence it was decided, relatively informally, that Privy Council membership could be signified by the postnominal 'PC' in the lede. Then things became slightly more complicated by the fact that infoboxes were added, and they did include honorific prefixes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have some recollection of Mabelina getting blocked for edit-warring over this issue. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise. If I'm right, then Mabelina should cool it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also the point that there is no one "correct" way of styling or describing people and their titles/honours etc. It depends on context and is to some extent a matter of presentational choice. Here on WP, clarity is key, and as pointed out, the Rt Hon/PC issue is confused in the case of peers. It's certainly not advisable for one editor to go around edit-warring over this relatively trivial issue. That same editor might also care to peruse other parts of the MOS relating to capitalisation and overlinking. These edits, for example, highlight the problem in that regard (and there are multiple similar ones, across multiple articles). Their odd changes and attempts to apparently copyedit articles require constant clean-up. N-HH talk/edits 11:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Blacketer: thank you for your explanation, which is helpful because it provides reason behind the situation Wiki now arrives at. It would of course appear that by having the temerity to raise the issue certain activists are lining up to have me blocked again - or should I not glean that? What to do? M Mabelina (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. I stated long ago that I thought it was more a problem of Infobox template design than anything else - if somebody could find this statement of mine, much obliged. Still doesn't give a clear route by way of solution, given the immediate hostility... However, I am here to discuss & make Wiki better informed (with a fair wind)... Best M Mabelina (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS. the latter two contributors make a good attempt at neatly swerving the point entirely, namely: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-foster-of-bath/214 re. The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath & choose to engage in the "dark arts" (you know what I mean) rather than actually answering the question. So as to reach "consensus", I defy User:N-HH & User:Nomoskedasticity to provide justification for Rt Hon. + PC being acceptable usage as is in question. RSVP. M Mabelina (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As anyone can see, I addressed the issue directly and in some detail in the first part of my comment (while also highlighting other problems with your editing). Part of my point was that there is no one correct way of presenting information and describing people (or indeed of addressing them, which is a different point of course anyway). So what pointing again to how they happen to be described on one site (the Parliament site) is, rather obviously one would have thought, hardly definitive proof of what should be done on another site, ie this one. It certainly doesn't justify constant disruptive editing. I and others have also very clearly explained the problem with peers who are members of the PC, which means that using Rt Hon on its own does not always clearly denote membership. The only "swerving" of the point here is by you. N-HH talk/edits 12:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@N-HH: NO, NO & thrice NO. I am not swerving any point. I have merely asked how to justify going against what the UK Parliament's website states online.. Would citing Burke's, Debrett's, Dod's, Vacher's, Whitaker's, Who's Who or any other recognised and authoritative publication help matters? What everyone can glean from this exchange is, that rightly or wrongly and I make no judgment here merely a statement of fact, the whole process of consensus and discussion is being hijacked and suppressed. Why is anyone's guess (or choice, as could be said). So why bother with substantive footnotes & references etc, if when one doesn't like what it says (qv. "So what pointing again to how they happen to be described on one site (the Parliament site) is, rather obviously one would have thought, hardly definitive proof of what should be done on another site, ie this one. It certainly doesn't justify constant disruptive editing"), you just ignore that & launch another broadside? Sounds more like anarchy to me... So there is something wrong with www.parliament.uk is there? Not sure this is a winning argument, but no doubt you might soon tell me again otherwise. M Mabelina (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said there was anything "wrong" per se with parliament.uk or indeed any other source, or the way any of them choose to present information. My comments so far have explained my argument quite clearly, as others' comments have theirs. I'm not going to keep repeating it so that you can respond with more non-sequiturs. As for consensus, you might have noticed that you seem to be pretty much on your own here. You're free of course to edit without regard for the MOS or the views of other contributors, but you can hardly be surprised if you find multiple other editors taking you to task as a result. N-HH talk/edits 14:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But they are not taking me to task, you are just attempting to abuse me. How else to put it? Please answer the question: in UK Parliament website it states very clearly - The Rt Hon The Lord Foster of Bath; how does that match up with Wiki's previous Infobox style? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. What do YOU mean by I AM ON MY OWN. Are you part of some sort of collective then?

PPS. maybe we need to go back to basics and remind you of the meaning of Wiki? Do you know what it means? And, in any event, this is getting extremely tiresome since you won't attend to the question. Hasta proxima M Mabelina (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I should be glad of one or two supportive comments. M Mabelina (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, avoiding all the more bizarre stuff in there, I'll answer the specific question you've just asked: it doesn't. The prevailing practice for WP infoboxes does not appear to follow parliament.uk, which has "The Rt Hon. The Lord X" for peers on the PC and "The Lord X" for those not, and there's no reason why it has to. Here, by contrast, peers such as Michael Dobbs and Sebastian Coe tend to have Right Honourable even though they are not on the Privy Council, on account presumably of them being peers/barons; peers such Clive Soley who are on the Privy Council tend to have both Right Honourable and PC to mark the distinction. Most peers are "The Right Honourable the Lord X" and some "The Right Honourable Lord X PC". That is a perfectly reasonable way of doing it, just as it would be perfectly reasonable to simply have the infobox say simply "Lord X" for all peers, with no postnominals at all, or to do what parliament.uk does. It's a choice, but it's a choice that seems to have been broadly made here.
What you have been doing is randomly removing PC from individual page infoboxes, thus losing the distinction between peers on the PC and those who are not and introducing inconsistency in the way information is presented in the infobox. That has led you into conflict with other editors. If you find everyone disagreeing with you, it doesn't mean that they are in a collective conspiracy against you, it means you should probably query whether you are doing the right thing in a consensus-based environment. If you think the parliament.uk way is better, get that change in principle agreed first, and then apply it universally: take the PC off all Right Honourable peers and take Right Honourable off all non-PC peers. Don't pick away at what appears to be the current consensus on an ad-hoc basis and then complain when people disagree with your actions. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have stated this before in discussions with Mabelina but I'll post it again here: Debrett's recommends using PC postnominals for peers who are also Privy Counsellors:

In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. [3]

That same Debrett's (which is apparently Mabelina-approved) also recommends using The Rt Hon as style for a peer, by the way.[4] I agree with N-HH that we should try to keep Wikipedia consistent above all else. JorisEnter (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Good - I do hope we are looking at the same thing, so here goes: http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/titles/privy-counsellors. M Mabelina (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. perhaps I should spell it out: nowhere does it say that Rt Hon. + PC should be conjoined... Is that clear? M Mabelina (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PPS. & yes Wiki should aim always to provide the correct info, consistently. So, now that this has been pointed out there is no reason not to do it..

ARE WE ALL AGREED THEN?

You guys make me nervous - all the evidence is before you - if you can't think of a problem please concur - many thanks

@N-HH: actually I quite like your Talk page statement; so what happens when you occasionally meet an editor who is not a moron! Anyway, let's put this one to bed, surely it's crystal clear now? M Mabelina (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here again Mabelina, is an issue in which there is more than one option for how to proceed (rather like our previous discussion on capitalisation here or the ambiguous status of Corbyn's PC membership back in October). The question for us on wikipedia is which option do we choose, considering all the available RS. In a case like this there is not a right or wrong answer, so your "I'm right because I'm right" attitude (again) really does not cut any mustard. You also cannot take silence from other members for an hour as agreement with your position. A discussion like this needs to be open for some time before a definitive decision can be reached.

The facts seem to be that there is ambiguity over the use of the PC suffix. Even the Debretts article you link to says that a place card should read "Lord Smith, PC" while an envelope should be "The Rt Hon Lord Smith". Given that Debretts do not give the recommended style for a wikipedia article we need to work it out ourselves. I would also suggest that the Debretts article is not infallible given they say that the last person to be struck off the PC was Jonathan Aitken, whereas I believe Elliot Morley was struck off as well.

We seem to have a problem not just with consistency between articles, but with consistency within articles. I think the infobox and intro sentence should include the same postnoms otherwise it is confusing (see Andrew Lansley for example). I'm not too worried either way, though I think inclusion of "PC" for privy counsellors who have peerages would be best given that all peers are currently shown with the Rt Hon prefix in infoboxes.

We ought to have a sentence or two in the MOS to clarify this. We also ought to clarify the need for a counsellor to be sworn in before they get the Rt Hon prefix (given that the MOS specifically refers to other UK honours which are "active" as soon as they are gazetted). We also need clarification on the position for former (non-privy council) members of the HoL now that peers can resign their seats. My understanding is that a peer who resigns keeps their title, so I assume they keep their Rt Hon prefix as well - but it's something that could do with clearing up.

Frinton100 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PMJI but you might be interested in List of people removed from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: - a PC is appointed for life at HM's pleasure, whereas a peerage in whatever form it takes is created in Law, thus making them impossible to abolish just like that as Tony Blair & others thought pre-1997 - even Falconer got mightily mixed up about how to extinguish the office of Lord Chancellor (until he realised the night before taking office that it would take an Act of Parliament to abolish it) and similarly a combination of Corbyn & No. 10 last year had no idea whether the Leader of HM Oppo was a Privy Counsellor or not until Buckingham Palace stepped in to clarify the issue).

I have been given to understand that Wiki much likes to modernise things which is actually the way most articles are written & I am full of admiration for this outlook. Where there seems to be an ideological mindset though concerns Labour politicians, machinery of government & protocol. Presumably because we Brits are trying overhard to .... I don't what... Anyway by changing everything capitals to small etc, where dies it get us? Knowing where one stands is good - and it would appear that Wiki doesn't want to know the categoric situations about certain things as displayed above. Otherwise why so much argument.

Are you saying that whenever I pipe up I'm in the wrong? I don't think you are, but it is strange how it is always the usual suspects & it always revolves around something political where there is a left-wing slant... It is what it is - by constantly changing everything for no reason it doesn't make it better...

I am totally amazed that my suggestion which is much more in keeping with Wiki's normal approach causes such hostility. It just shows how contrary people can be. So PC only for PCs & as a postnom. Simple! M Mabelina (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? No one is saying you are wrong - just that there is more than one way of doing things so we need to come to a decision one way or the other for the sake of consistency. On the capitalisation issue, it was clear from RS that there was no consistency on the particular word we were interested in (and the inconsistency had begun well before wikipedia was around, so it is nothing to do with wikipedia "modernisation"), so the decision of the wikipedia community (via the MOS) when RS do not consistently capitalise a word is that on wikipedia we don not capitalise. Re. Corbyn, yes you're right, there was a complete and utter mess with some RS saying one thing and others saying another. The way we deal with it that case is to discuss and come to a view, which we did (ultimately it proved the wikipedia consensus was correct). We needed to come to that view considering all the available RS, rather than just cherry-picking the ones that backed up a particular POV and coming up with reasons why other RS were not reliable at all.

The issue with these postnominal letters is that practice varies we just have to have a clear and consistent policy. Most of all I think we need consistency within articles (so if PC is included in the opening line it should also be included in the infobox). I also think we need an addition to the MOS along the lines of whatever the consensus turns out to be.

My question about peers resigning their seats was just that - a genuine question. I was asking because it is something we need clarifying. I did not need a diatribe about the last two decades attempts at House of Lords reform. The ability for peers to resign their seats has been introduced so when we update the MOS, we ought to include guidance as to whether an ex-member retains the Rt Hon prefix as this is an area that could cause some disputes in the future. My guess is that they do retain their Rt Hon title, but it is only a guess based on the fact that they retain their title of Lord X. It's an issue that could do with some clarification from RS. Frinton100 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. I have just seen you later addition to your previous post - will you please let go of this idea about it being a "left wing conspiracy". You should not be surprised at wikipedia editors who are interested in politics contributing to a discussion about politicians. There are relatively few of us on here, and when people are committed to contributing on a regular basis to a particular subject area, this is usually something that most wikipedia members find positive. I must admit I'm confused - you say at the end of your post "So PC only for PCs & as a postnom." - that's my view, but you've been deleting the PC postnoms from infoboxes. So what is it you are actually proposing? Are you suggesting that PC should be restored to the infobox of, say, Andrew Lansley? Frinton100 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

IMO we should only use PC postnoms when the PCship cannot be inferred from whatever other features there are. For example, a peer is already Rt Hon (or Most Hon or His Grace, which rank higher). Therefore, based on the Right Honourableness of the person you can't tell whether they are a PC or not. If they are, however, not entitle to the style of The Rt Hon (because they are a commmoner, for example), you shouldn't use PC postnoms because you can infer the person's PCship from their Rt Hon style. This is also the reason why we should use PC postnoms in the lede: there is no Rt Hon used there (or any other style, for that matter) so you can't deduce somebody's PCship from that either.

As far as I know, all peers, whether they are in the HoL or not, are entitled to appropriate styles (Rt Hon / Most Hon / His Grace etc) and we should style them as such. Debrett's (although it is indeed not in any way a replacement of WP's MOS) does not appear to differentiate between peers who are in the House and those who are not. JorisEnter (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This entire discussion appear to be based on the false premise that only PCs and peers are entitled to the prefix. Amongst others who are entitled to its use are the Lord Mayors of London, York, Cardiff and Belfast, and the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is self evident that being a "Right Hon", and being a member of the PC are not synonymous. FF-UK (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct. That's the reason why PC postnoms should be used in some cases, even when Rt Hon is also used. JorisEnter (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The situation with Lord Mayors/Provosts is different as the title goes with the position rather than being granted to the person - e.g. "The Rt Hon, The Lord Mayor". Incumbent and former Lord Mayors/Provosts should not be given the prefix Rt Hon on their own articles (unless they hold it by virtue of another office of course), as they themselves are not "Rt Hon". So any individual who is themselves a Rt Hon and not a peer is a privy counsellor, so for that reason I don't think the PC suffix is needed for "common" Right Honourables, but I would support its use for peers who are also PCs. Frinton100 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I certainly didn't expect my question to initiate so much discussion! However, I've read through it all and believe I understand things thusly: There should be no "PC" post-nominals used for people who are or were members of the UK Privy Council (this is putting aside practice in other Commonwealth realms) but are or were not peers or by any means other than membership in the Privy Council entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable". There should be "PC" post-nominals used for people who are or were both members of the Privy Council and entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" by means other than membership in the Privy Council. Since "Right Honourable" can indicate positions other than membership in the Privy Council, when someone holds that honorific for reasons other than membership in the Privy Council, the "PC" clarifies that they are or were members of the Privy Council. That is not according to any external rule; there is no definitive rule outside Wikipedia. It is merely a practice used in Wikipedia to best convey information. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: If I understood this correctly, then yes. To put it short: only use PC when there is no other way of identifying the person as a Privy Counsellor. JorisEnter (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, regarding your "I certainly didn't expect my question to initiate so much discussion": you are aware that most Wikipedians have some degree of OCD? JorisEnter (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Frinton100 - Both that, and the opposite view, are to be found in other WP articles, but what matters, surely, is the use in RSs. Taking the Lord Provost of Edinburgh as an example, referring to him as "The Rt Hon Donald Wilson" is common terminology by the City of Edinburgh Council, the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the various Universities of the City of Edinburgh and many many other sources. FF-UK (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@FF-UK: Of course, there are also people who are by tradition styled Rt Hon but who actually aren't. As if things weren't complicated enough already. JorisEnter (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

MIESIANIACAL, I would agree with that, and I would propose the following addition to the MOS:

====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom====

Privy council members should have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added to their name in the infobox. Given that Wikipedia’s standard practice is not to include honorific prefixes in the opening sentence, the prefix should only be included in the infobox.

The post-nominal letters “PC” should not be added unless the subject is a peer (whether currently a member of the House of Lords or not) who is ordinarily entitled to use the prefix “The Right Honourable”. In these cases, privy council membership cannot be inferred simply by the subject’s title, so the post-nominal “PC” should be used. In line with Wikipedia’s standard practice outlined above, such post-nominal letters should be added to the subject’s name in both the opening sentence and the infobox.

Note that a privy counsellor is only entitled to the styles and titles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient.

Frinton100 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Two remarks. (1) Shouldn't PC postnoms also be used in infoboxes where the subject has another reason for being Right Honourable? (e.g., the Lord Provost of Edinburgh) (2) I'd also add that PC postnoms should be used in the lede, where there is no Rt Hon style used. JorisEnter (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Those taking part in this discussion would do well to remember that the purpose of WP is to inform. It should be obvious that membership of the PC is significant and should therefore be made clear. Users will rarely have the knowledge that the use of Right Hon can signify (but does not necessarily mean) that the subject is a member of the PC, but using the post nominal makes it clear (even though many users will have to look up the meaning). Surely this is one of those occasions when clarity should come before pedantry? FF-UK (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not actually too bothered about the issue of postnominals and styles of address per se, but having been involved here so far, I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Plus having a general rule that says "always add PC if they are a member" is much simpler to explain and easier to remember and apply. This is about clarity in an encyclopedia, not necessarily offering or following a strict etiquette guide (which are rarely definitive anyway and depend very much on context). N-HH talk/edits 13:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

N-HH, I can see the sense in that approach as it's a clear and concise rule to follow. The "challenge" with that approach is the state we are in at the moment - PC is not currently used on wikipedia for most privy counsellors, so it will take a lot of work to get to the stage where there is consistency across a reasonable number of articles. Are you suggesting only adding PC in the infobox (where we would also add the postnominal MP for members of parliament for example)? Frinton100 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding and impression is that actually most do have PC in the infobox currently, and that that this would therefore pretty much be a confirmation of the status quo, at least for peers (a quick scan of a few MP pages suggests it may not apply quite so uniformly there). This whole issue only really kicked off because User:Mabelina was going around removing them (on a haphazard and random basis) and then edit warring when reverted. As for it appearing elsewhere, eg in opening sentences, that's another issue, but my personal preference FWIW would be for not cluttering them up with any show-off postnominals. N-HH talk/edits 13:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right about peers, given that we have typically worked on the basis (which I always felt was fairly uncontroversial) that if council membership couldn't be inferred directly from "Rt Hon" that PC was added as well, but for "commoners", Rt Hon was sufficient, so MPs who are also PCs don't have the postnoms added. Moving over to a "postnoms for all privy counsellors" policy would involve adding the letters to any non-peers' articles. I think with opening sentences we need to either have no postnoms at all, or the same postnoms as in the infobox, I think the inconsistency in say, Andrew Lansley is unsatisfactory. Frinton100 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it safe to say, given the lack of replies in the last 33 or so hours, that we have reached the conclusion that PC postnoms should be used when there are other reasons for Right Honourableness (such as peerages)? JorisEnter (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I believe we have established that use of Right Honourable can never be assumed as indicating membership of the PC, therefore if it is known that someone is a member, that must be separately indicated, and the addition of the PC postnominal is the obvious logical method. FF-UK (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that PC postnominals should be used regardless of the presence of a Rt Hon style, or that they should only be used when the PCship cannot be inferred from the Rt Honness? JorisEnter (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Regardless of the presence of a Rt Hon style", as that style does not indicate membership of the PC. FF-UK (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know people who are not styled Rt Hon for any other reason (i.e., no peerages or specific positions) and who are PCs, should be styled Rt Hon without PC postnominals. In the lede, though, PC should be used, as there is no Rt Hon there. Placing PC in every infobox regardless of Rt Hon would imply changing massive amounts of pages. JorisEnter (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is completely illogical, as it depends on A) Readers knowing and understanding all the possible reasons for the use of Rt Hon, and B) Readers being familiar with the details of a persons appointments and status to allow them to work out whether the subject might, or might not be a PC. WP's purpose is to inform, not play guessing games. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't support starting to use PC postnoms anywhere for non-peers who are privy counsellors. I think that it's also important that postnoms in the lede match those in the infobox, otherwise it is very confusing. Wes should have either no postnoms in lede and all in infobox (e.g. David Cameron or else they should really match up (which, for example, Andrew Lansley's do not. The main issue that triggered this discussion is the use of PC for peers who are privy counsellors - I sense a general agreement among most people that on that issue at least, PC should be used in both infobox and opening sentence. If we could establish that as a consensus I think that would be a big help. Frinton100 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing postnominals from the lede doesn't really work either; some pages don't use postnominals in the infobox (either because the infobox doesn't support |honorific_suffix or because it looks ugly, as is the case with {{Infobox military person}}). The problem is that the lede should include all basic information about the subject, including postnominals. There is no Rt Hon in the lede either, so you can't infer it from the style. JorisEnter (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So,Frinton100, you are suggesting that it is important to indicate which peers are PCs, but it does not matter for non-peers who are PCs? Given that we have established that the use of Rt Hon CANNOT be taken to indicate a member of the PC, how is that logical or justifiable? JorisEnter you can never infer from the style Rt Hon that someone is a PC, you need to know why they are entitled to Rt Hon! FF-UK (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC).

Hyphenated-Americans (first sentence nationality descriptors)

Are there any guidelines about using nationality descriptors on the first sentence? I know that a lot of articles are moving away from the vague "German-American" and into the more precise "German-born American" or simply "German-born" with a follow up explanation in the Background section. Is this something we can agree on (should we add it to the MOS) or is there opposition? Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For more context the original discussion was about the term "Canadian-American" on Anita Sarkeesian. The term itself is quite common, and is used when to describe plenty of notable people (e.g. Phil Hartman, Martin Short, Jim Carrey, Dan Aykroyd). It's use is usually appropriate when describing someone with strong ties to both countries. — Strongjam (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Forum shopping. User:Hamsterlopithecus is the only editor in the Sarkeesian talk discussion advocating such a change. Insufficient argument has been made that this is an issue more broad than this single example. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Woah... good faith man... We were having the discussion on the Sarkeesian article and I came here to see if there was any rule about it in the MOS. Since there was no mention about it, I posed the question here in the talk page to get a general idea about how people feel about it. I then let people know in the Sarkeesian talk page that I had done so and asked if they would continue the discussion here as we were no longer talking about the subject of that article but of a more general MOS topic. Anyway, can we just start the discussion fresh and we can share our thoughts on the matter? Hopefully we can reach a consensus. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but this does smack of a solution searching for a problem. As was already explained at the talk page, ethnicity is generally deprecated in intros, but nationality is encouraged. In cases where someone has more than one nationality, there's no reason not to cover both of them. In some cases, it's appropriate to say "xxx-born American", or avoid nationality entirely (if only to avoid endless debates with nitpickers), but this isn't one of those cases. Here, the subject quite plainly identifies as Canadian-American and this is how sources represent her, which ought to settle the question.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidental to the actual debate, I can't think of any time that "Canadian-American" has been a term in use. "Italian-American", "Irish-American", sure. But not "Canadian-American". And this is a relevant topic beyond just Sarkeesian. Nationality is fairly important on many sports articles, and there have been edit wars from people trying to "claim" players for their countries - usually when said player gets a secondary citizenship long after they retire. Resolute 00:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Canadian-American" is quite a well established term. Strongjam just linked a number of Wikipedia articles that use it, and a few minutes of Google searching reveals a wide variety of external sources that use it as well.[5][6][7][8][9] That "Italian-American" and "Irish-American" are more common indicates only that there are more Italian Americans and Irish Americans than Canadian Americans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia use Western naming order for Hungarian names?

Hungarians use the [family name][given name] order for names, which is the opposite of the Western naming order. The issue came up at George Soros between Smallbones (talk · contribs) and I as to whether we should just go with the Hungarian naming order or "convert" Hungarian names to the Western naming order. The George Soros article says his name at birth was "Schwartz György", with György being the given name and Schwartz the surname, but other articles like Imre Nagy have converted Hungarian names to the English naming order. My argument is that readers unfamiliar with Hungarian naming order will assume that Western naming order is being used (and thus be confused), Smallbones' argument is that we should go for authenticity and not convert names. Any thoughts?