Jump to content

Talk:Nominative determinism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.86.117.208 (talk) at 12:41, 2 August 2017 (→‎Counter examples: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleNominative determinism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted

Thomas Crapper

I don't think Crapper is the perfect example since the name for the device, and therefore the name of the act, came from the name of the inventor. I think if you research it, the word "crap" didn't come into existance until Crapper invented the water closet. (Unsigned comment from an IP address)

After research, it would appear that crap predates Thomas Crapper! However, the statement about Thomas Crapper was an opinion, against Wiki policies so I removed it. MortimerCat 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Brain

Added Lord Brain as another example. A nice one this, particular as it links to a nice article on him. Routlej1 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Black suggestion

Don Black is the webmaster of stormfront, a White power site. Not sure if irony is supposed to be included on this page or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhpayne23 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Eugène Terre'Blanche. — Chameleon 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aptronym?

from the aptronym page The articles would seem to suggest that they are different things. I had not heard of aptronyms before but they seem to primarily refer to fictional names. The other article is about an alleged or humourous theory that roles are assumed according to one's name. It is widely discussed in papers and journals and deserves an article. I has become something of a boffins game to find them in technical journals. I just found all this on the random page, sorry if I am late to discussion. - Fred 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given here seems to be for aptronym - a name that aptly fits the character. Nominative determinism would seem rather to mean - and when and if I can find the Post-It, I'll quote the source - that the name determines, decides, informs the character. It is fiction, of course, we're talking about and how a name can decide the personality of a character. Interestingly, that would probably change with each reader. Maybe there is no author, only the reader.

I am new here, but with regard to the signature requirements - huh? Tafkalfolly 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Tafkal Folly (hope I got this right)[reply]

Merge proposal

Renewed proposal for merger of nominative determinism and aptronym. While some text at the latter attempts to distinguish the two concepts, it completely fails to do so, is blatant original research, and appears to have been inserted after the former merge proposal in an attempt to justify separate articles. Actually reading them shows that they are in fact duplicate articles in every meaningful respect, including the nature of their mutually-redundant lists of notable examples, and the explanation of what the terms mean. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I read the articles and could not for the life of me understand the difference. Maybe someone could explain it better and rewrite the lead? mattbuck (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the last paragraph in each's lead. It makes the distinction pretty clear.
Equivalently, Correlation does not imply Causation, but Causation implies Correlation. For consistency, merging aptronym & ND would require we also merge causation & correlation. Which would render wikipedia a joke. Saltation (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not really say it's very clear. I can see what the difference is, but if you need to re-read it to understand it, it's a bad sentence and should be put another way. I personally agree to this merger, though the difference should be made clear. mattbuck (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it as if someone give himself a surname or is being given a surname, more common.

Biblical quote

This concept is well recognised in Jewish tradition, which is referred to as "he is like his name" (I Samuel 25:25) without a clear indication as to whether the name determines fate or fate determines the name. The Talmud discusses whether a person's name influences his fate - shma grim. Will need to look up the quote, but possibly worth mentioning. JFW | T@lk 06:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nom de destin

Isn't there some cute or funny way to refer to nominative determinism? Perhaps the French phrase "nom de destin"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.158.156 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names based on the English language??

The list of examples is highly dubious and surely based on positive reinforcement. Find someone's name with an English meaning, get a match, proves a point. All that nominative determinism is demonstrating is coincidence, I am certain that if the name is not English in origin, it would be ignored. For instance what does the theory say about the eponymously named Sheila Dikshit. It is quite obvious what the English reader would think however for Indians she is the Chief Minister of Delhi.

The example's list is a waste of time as it's etymologically linked to the English language when the surname might not be.

Original Research in the examples of Nominative Determinism

The examples previously listed served merely to be just that -- examples of the theory. Nominative Determinism is never held out to be anything other than a theory in the article, and the names are merely meant to illustrate some individuals whom the theory could be said to apply to. Of course it's completely unverifiable that their name led them to their profession, but it still is self-evident that if someone's name and occupation are the same, they surely fall into the putative category of Nominative Determinism. Their sourced existence is itself a primary source and the article deserves to have a well-pared list of exemplars in it. JesseRafe (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Editors should not add lists of "these are obvious examples" to articles. As I said at ANI: has a secondary source examined all the people named "Fish" and determined whether an unusual proportion of them are marine biologists? How would we feel if someone added examples to an astrology article showing that certain people born under whatever the sign for "fish" is (pisces?) are good swimmers (or marine biologists)? They might be obvious examples of true statements, but they are not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the article is about, and what I said above. Nobody, lest of all me, has ever said that they were real and made people choose a job. It says clearly in the introduction that this is a theory. Furthermore, I have no idea what astrology has to do with anything. Maybe you could use clearer examples and analogies? But if there were a referenced astrologer named Star that would be an appropriate example of Nominative Determination. If you are an admin, Johnuniq, I would strongly suggest you read the article and get a sense of what the examples were intended to indicate. Remember, this is a theory and the list is of those to whom the putative label could be applied.JesseRafe (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not an admin, and the analogy should be clear: editors cannot add lists of examples unless secondary sources are used. This is not a forum where people make stuff up and add it to articles. There is no reason to use real people as examples because the meaning can be sufficiently explained without adding "gosh I found another example" lists. Why not take a couple of days away from this article and the IP editor, then review my points above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "take a couple of days away from the IP editor"? The one who's been wiki-stalking me??? So when I make good edits and the IP undoes them, I should let them stand? Ludicrous. JesseRafe (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the analogy is completely unclear. What does somebody's astrological sign have to do with anything? The article is about names and occupations -- not signs, there's no reason a sensible pared-down list of a couple of examples can't be included, which is what I was doing on this page, monitoring spurious additions so it wouldn't grow too out of hand. The IP is reverting all of my edits, regardless of their content.JesseRafe (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless specific people have opined that notable people have been affected by this "theory" in a reliable secondary source I do not support their names inclusion in this article. If the case above applies, then attribution to the opining person should be required. Last night I saw on a comedy show, they were making a joke about Wiener, making a joke of the fact that he got his wiener out but they didn't mention this theory as a causal effect.Youreallycan (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youreallycan, I don't think you're understanding the point. The article is not saying that ND exists, but that it is a theory. The examples should be people it could be applied to. There's no insinuation of an actual causal effect, therefore there is no need for a source saying that such is real (which don't exist) -- but verified people (like a Bishop named Bishop) prove an illustrative example and their existence serves as primary sources. JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I am in the consensus group. I know it's a "theory" as per my use of the word in the post above yours. You appear to be currently the only person that is right. This is not my chosen subject and I had never heard of the theory, so just applying my interpretation of guidelines after a read of the article - these names association with this theory are uncited and imo original research being used to support this "theory" - Youreallycan (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already referenced material in the article mentioning a few names. I see no reason to add swathes of OR to the article on the basis that the names just look right. If the names look apt they could be said to be aptronyms, it's only nominative determinism if you can show a causal effect-but even moving those examples to the aptronym article, which is what I've done so far, just moves the OR problem somewhere else. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of examples

I am very surprised that this article still doesn't have a list of examples. I would suggest that Mr I Judge, who became the most senior judge in England & Wales, would be a good one for inclusion. MrStoofer (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list would be good but it would need to be well referenced with references that note the humorous association. Simply noting that somebody's name is closely related to their job is not acceptable here as it qualifies as original research and cannot be supported by references. Even if the name and job can be referenced, it would still need a robust reference to demonstrate that it has been recognized as nominative determinism elsewhere.
For this reason (and others) I have twice reverted the following an addition concerning Arsene Wenger and Mr Gove because one managed Arsenal and the other was in Government. As far as I am concerned, these fails to meet the criteria of being sourced and also failed to match the basic tenet of nominative determinism (please see my edit summaries on reversion). I asked the contributor to bring the question here under bold , revert, discuss but the response was simply another reversion so, in the spirit of cooperative editing, I have brought it here to get a consensus view.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the article to focus on the concept, and the theoretical framework and studies, rather than a list of examples. Of course, the concept needs examples to be well understood, and I have sprinkled plenty throughout the article, but in my opinion having a list of aptronyms is only blurring the line between aptronyms and nominative determinism. We're helping the reader by not having a list. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because of the potentially humorous nature of aptronyms a number of newspapers have collected them. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen reported irregularly on reader-submitted gems, including substitute teacher Mr. Fillin, piano teacher Patience Scales, and the Vatican's spokesman on the evils of rock 'n roll, Cardinal Rapsong." This is immediately after you said that aptronyms are something completely different. So these examples of aptronyms should be removed unless the references actually give proof of the causality. 87.102.44.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Celender

This is a neat article...congrats on passing FA! I'm not sure if it's possible to find a copy of or not, but I want to point to conceptual artist Don Celender's 1978 work Destiny of a Name, in which the artist writes to various American professionals to ask them whether they believe their surnames (Toothman, Reveal, Barber, etc.) influenced their choice of profession (dentist, psychologist, barber, respectively). There's reference to the work in this document. I hope this is useful, or at least interesting! All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 12:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations as well. For what it's worth, I felt free to nominate it for this year's April 1 WP:TFA. I think it falls well within the April 1 spirit of featuring serious articles with a bizarre component. No such user (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Argue and Phibbs

Messrs Argue and Phibbs were a well established firm of solicitors in Sligo, Ireland, and — despite the names — were very well regarded. Although the firm has been taken over, the name plate still lists them.

It's said that they once, in the 1920s, had the opportunity to take on a Mr Cheetam (Cheetham?) as a partner; sadly, they didn't.

Korhomme (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I enjoyed reading this article, which I found via WP main site, especially gems like: "In 2015 researchers Limb, Limb, Limb and Limb published a paper on their study into the effect of surnames on medical specialisation...." Zezen (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor

Seem to remember a documentary program about Emperors of India, one of whom used Nominative Determinism to choose his ministers. It apparently wasn't very successful Tabletop (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More names

I wonder if Jennifer Doudna, one of the developers of the CRISPR DNA editing technique should be included, if only for the final 3 letters of her last name? Also, at Southern Oregon University, there is a professor emeritus in the Physics department, whose name seems appropriate, especially for Particle Physics: Dr. Photinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's article

This is one of the best! Kudos to the editors who edited and chose this one. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrooge

Like crapper above, it appears the Dicken's character preceded the use of the word as being miserly. I tried to find a better example, but my initial pass through List of Dickensian characters did not prove fruitful. Anyone? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scrooge the character coming first was also my understanding. Brutannica (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped Scrooge with one of the other (the less famous Gradgrind, but apparently truly a charactonym) examples in the source. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bowler

Yes, he played cricket. No, he wasn't a bowler. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

I have performed three reverts in 24 hours so can no longer edit this article. I would like the sentences "In England it was mostly[failed verification] after the Norman conquest that surnames were added.[1] But there were earlier bynames that were not hereditary.[2]" changed to:

In England it was only after the Norman conquest that surnames were added, although there were a few earlier bynames that were not hereditary, such as Edmund Ironside.[1]

which is what the sources actually state. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why de-link "bynames"?
I would prefer a much newer source than one from 1914. As for "mostly", where does the research stand as to Roman names in Britain and what time perspective should be chosen? Also, mentioning epithets and not patronymics doesn't give a very balanced picture (leaving aside the question whether patronymics at this time were thought of as names at all). 151.177.62.193 (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter examples

In the interest of balance some counter examples should be provided, such as Reality Winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Winner

  1. ^ a b Weekley 1914, p. 68.
  2. ^ McKinley, Richard: A History of British Surnames, Taylor & Francis, 1990, pp. 25-34Template:Inconsistent citations
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nominative_determinism&oldid=793547617"