Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Gender identity section

I reverted MJL's recent addition of the Gender identity section pending further discussion. Given the MOS:GENDERID debates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is not yet a guideline (and may not be one in the future), is still being worked on via discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity, this addition should have input from more editors. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I support centralized discussion. I am ready to support anyone linking to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity or wherever the centralized discussion is. MJL I encourage you to develop this issue and say whatever you want, but the history is that we have had this conversation in 100 places. If you like, block off space in this manual to describe the general problem without saying what to do about it, because all the solutions are controversial. Then go to a centralized discussion elsewhere and describe everything in detail with examples or anything else.

Here in this documentation we have space for a few sentences. We should use that to link to another discussion, not try to summarize everything here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry and Flyer22 Reborn: I'm sorry to both of you, but I am confused about what the exact objection is to the addition nor how it is being suggested I move forward? Add this to MOS:IDINFO? Start an RFC? I'm open to suggestion, but I seem to be missing something here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I was only suggesting that it have more input from others first. I'm usually like this with all of the guidelines and policies I watch. When I see a substantial change, I'm usually like, "This should be discussed first." Like a part of the tag at the top of the guideline states, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." It helps to make sure that we are all on the same page and see if anyone objects to any piece or has an idea for improving a piece. I think you should wait and see what other watchers of this page have to state and what editors from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style may state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL I support the idea of putting this in its own section as done at special:diff/905215985#Gender_identity. I criticism I have is that I think that about half the content should be cut, any half. The overall discussion is huge. If we have only minimal content and link to the full discussion, then there, everyone can see all the issues covered and discuss more. Whenever we try to make the discussion here longer, we get into debates about what to include and exclude and no one is satisfied. There is not much space here, so best to not go into much detail here. Make a minimal presentation, link out, and encourage discussion centrally elsewhere. Do whatever you can to prevent small side discussions from growing, and instead put everyone in the same place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: [Thank you for the ping] how about this:

Extended content

==== Gender identity ==== {{See also|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender identity|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity}} {{shortcut|MOS:GENDERBIO|WP:GENDERBLP}} Special care should be taken in the area of [[gender identity]]. Articles should always use the subject's [[WP:V|verified]] preferred personal pronoun. In cases where this may be confusing, such as describing events in the subject's life before they [[Coming out|came out]], it is recommended practice to provide a concise footnote explaining the irregularity. The lead should only include a person's (1) birth name if they were considered notable by it and (2) gender identity when its [[WP:UNDUE|especially notable]].

Fix ping: Bluerasberry –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Y Yes! Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The footnote and gender identity suggestion of "should only" doesn't work in all cases. For example, if the person is non-binary and the article uses singular they per the subject's preference, it is best to note this in the lead (if also covered lower in the article, as it should be if it's going to be in the lead) so that readers will understand why the article is using singular they instead of a gender pronoun for the person. This is done, for example, with the Emma Sulkowicz article. And what is "especially notable" compared to "notable"? Also, since "due" is what is meant instead of "notable," as is clear by you pipelinking to it, "due" should be used in place of "notable." Our notability guideline is only about creating articles or adding content to articles per WP:No page. If you reply to me on this, I prefer not to be pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can agree with the addition of limited to bio articles... but it is problematic when dealing with non-bio articles. For example, in the article about the 1976 Olympics, settled consensus (after lengthy debate) was that we should use the name “Bruce Jenner” when discussing the decathlon. In this specific context, if we needed to use a pronoun (which thankfully we don’t), we would use “he”... even though we use “Caitlyn” and “she” at the bio article. My point is that while we do want to respect a subject’s desires, historical context also matters. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I am on the middle on this. Some hardliners argue that Wikipedia should never, under any circumstances, publish a trans person's deadname. I cannot agree to this. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, if someone was famous under a former name we need to record it.

On the other hand, the harm of deadnaming needs to be recognized: a trans person's former name can have many of the characteristics of a slur. I imagine some people will find that statement hard to swallow: how can a name be a slur? Well, it's something that's affixed to a member of a minority group against their will. It's often considered harmful and emotionally charged. It can, and often is, used to demean and insult a person. In one Chelsea Manning move discussion, there's a section with sources talking about how misnaming trans people is harmful. I've copy-pasted it below:

Sources discussing how naming decisions affect trans people

This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question. What’s in a Name?: “I AM A SITUATION LIKE THIS” A. Finn Enke, editor of Transfeminist Perspectives in and beyond Transgender and Gender Studies, considers names, pronouns, and learning from Chelsea Manning. "it is extremely disrespectful to be called by a pronoun or name one does not chose for oneself. It invalidates ones identity and self-concept. This lack of validation and recognition can and often does lead to depression and suicide." (Transgender Law Center) Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, [1]). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section: "Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press." "The use of ‘before’ names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk" (Leveson Inquiry, section 3.20 on p65, summary) Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake [or] a malicious attempt to undermine my identity". Some editors have expressed a concern that the following source is not reliable, while other editors consider it to be reliable: Wikipedia’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives) (written by digital media ethics scholar)

When deciding how to handle a trans person's former name we must be cautious and WP:Neutral. We must avoid WP:Harm and must respect the basic human dignity of each WP:living person.

Ultimately what we should do is what we mostly do already: make use of the use-mention distinction. We should never use a trans person's former name (unless they've stated a preference otherwise) but at times we should sparingly mention a former name, if it is historically relevant. This is what, for example, the Switched-On Bach article does. It says the album was created by American composer Wendy Carlos, even though that wasn't her name at the time, but then the article mentions the former name that she originally released the album under. This is what mainstream sources do as well: Here's a New Yorker piece that uses Chelsea Manning's chosen name but mentions her birth name.

Although this use-mention distinction is mostly already adhered to, it would be helpful if it was officially codified in the guidelines.

As for Caitlyn Jenner, that may be a special case, as apparently she has said she is comfortable with publications using her former name when talking about her Olympic career: With Jenner’s approval, in this story, the historical figure who won the gold medal in 1976 is referred to as Bruce and with male pronouns. The woman who lives now as Caitlyn is referenced with female pronouns. As I said above, an exception can be made if it's in line with the subject's stated preferences. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with my colleague Wander on this (because of course I do). However, I would go a bit farther in one way; I think we should never wikilink a deadname. What do I mean? Well, if we need to use Bruce Jenner in article; This creates a redirect: Bruce Jenner, but not this: Bruce Jenner. I see no reason why this needs to include a single link in the mainspace. It's only exists as a redirect for ease of search, but not for articles if it can be avoided imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Wanda. Support Flyer's desire to air this to gain consensus, as for any P&G change. Also, I would mitigate the always in the proposal with a suggestion to recast a sentence to avoid awkward constructions, e.g., "she fathered a child in 19xx".

One quibble (with 'Extended content' above): [[came out]], not [[Coming out|came out]]. Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

When someone is notable under a specific name, we HAVE to at least mention that name in the bio article. If that name subsequently changed, our job is to explain to the reader that the name has changed and why. Outside of bio articles - I would agree that, in situations where we do decide to use a pre-transition name, any links should redirect to the current (preferred) name. This is done with other name changes, and name changes due to gender transition are no different. And as for pronouns... using language that avoids the issue is definitely the best solution. When that is impossible, let Context dictate. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Blueboar stated. MOS:GENDERID says, "MOS:MULTIPLENAMES calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." And its "Referring to the person in other articles" section states, "Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned." What is on this guideline page shouldn't conflict with what's in MOS:GENDERID. This page shouldn't be used to try to trump MOS:GENDERID or get around the MOS:GENDERID debates. It's important that in a case like Jenner's, that historic full name with regard to Olympics is used in Olympic articles. I also stand by what I stated with my "20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)" post. I'm not on board with "it is recommended practice to provide a concise footnote explaining the irregularity" as written. A non-binary person's preference for singular they will confuse readers if it's not made very clear to readers in plain text, rather than in a footnote, that this is why the article is not using feminine or masculine pronouns. Mentioning gender identity and pronoun (and name) preference is also important in the case of Janae Kroc, whose Wikipedia article currently mismatches when it comes to gender pronouns. The discussion on that can be seen at Talk:Janae Kroc#Self identification for female pronoun. A permalink for it is here. I've personally known transgender men and women like Jenner and Kroc, who are clear that their previous name does not bother them. They do not consider it a deadname. Or they might do something like what Kroc does. While what Kroc does bothers some transgender people, it's Kroc's choice. We shouldn't force a personal style on Kroc because we think her pronoun preference for her life might have changed. In that discussion about Kroc, I noted, "I don't oppose using feminine pronouns throughout, while still noting the other gender stuff in the Personal life section." But it's her life. Not mine. It shouldn't be about me. Or any of us. It's important to remember that not all transgender people think alike. Because I'm not only around people who think the same, I know this personally. It's why I understand a person scoffing when someone takes it upon themselves to speak for all transgender people. (I'm not saying that anyone in this discussion is speaking for all transgender people. Speaking for most transgender people can also be an issue, however.) Yes, there may be general consensus on how to treat some transgender issues, but I recognize that some people in the transgender community (and those who share their thoughts) simply have more prominent or mainstream views than other transgender people (and those who share their thoughts). And I reiterate that since "due" is what is meant instead of "notable," "due" should be used in place of "notable." I'll alert WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion to see if we can get more opinions on the above proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It's important to remember that not all transgender people think alike. I agree. MOS:GENDERID has language that address this: unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise and any new guidelines should as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL: You've sparked some discussion and thought with your changes and it's appreciated. Thank you for being WP:BOLD.

If I were to evaluate your additions on their own, I wouldn't have major problems with them. However, I'm not sure that I like how it restates things that are already in MOS:GENDERID. For example, this sentence: articles should always use the subject's verified preferred personal pronoun mirrors this sentence in MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns...that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Why reinvent the wheel? If you think the Biography subpage should mirror the guidance in the main MOS page, why not copy-paste that guidance? Or transclude it? (No pun intended!)

I do think MOS:GENDERID has a few problems that need to be solved, but this proposal does not address the problems that I see. For example, the MOS should provide more guidance on how to refer to transgender people outside of biographical articles.

Just my two cents. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've followed much of this discussion from afar. In looking at a few of the articles mentioned in the discussion I'm not sure what this addition is really fixing. I think the spirit of the recommendations could be added to the MOS section with little fuss rather than making a largely redundant subpage. I would suggest adding the following, largely as written from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Recommendations to the MOS section Manual_of_Style#Vocabulary. Add the "mention" vs "use" distinction. I think this is somewhat already covered by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. I don't agree with the "footnote" instead. Either the former name(s) are relevant (it goes in the text) or they aren't (it doesn't need to be in the article). That's actually redundant with the current Biography#Gender_identity guideline but it doesn't hurt to mention it here as well. I think the photo sentence could be condensed and included as well. It's basically saying the same thing as we say about pronouns. Finally, I think the part about awkward sentences should be emphasized. It's very awkward to use a person's current gender identity when describing events that clearly happened prior to transitioning. For example in the Chelsea_Manning#Background, Born Bradley Edward Manning in 1987 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,[31] she was the second child of... In that case and many other examples in the same article, "she" is used to describe actions of Manning during a time that Manning was identifying as male. "She" is used extensively in the section on Manning's military enrollment next to a clearly male looking, pre-transition picture of Manning. It's really odd to say a drill sergeant was yelling at "her" given the drill sergeant was yelling at a person who had a male identity at the time. Perhaps this is just an issue with this article but I would argue that such phrasing should be actively avoided. It might even be helpful to have writing examples to help in such cases. Springee (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Without wading into detailed arguments, I will agree with the early observation by Flyer that every proposal about this sort of thing is controversial. Gender matters are probably the most controversial ones in MoS's history. Given that, and given the failure (many times) to come to a consensus to change (including add to our remove from) the limited material at MOS:GENDERID, and given ongoing but iffy work to draft a separate MoS page for this, and given that such matters have previously been subjected to intense, months-long debates at WP:VPPOL, I can't see just adding new stuff about this to MOS:BIO, off-the-cuff. Even a lengthy discussion here is probably insufficient consensus, because few watch this page, but everyone has an opinion on the matter.

I don't think any such idea will be viable without another proposal at VPPOL, or possibly at WT:MOS if also advertised via WP:CENT. No such proposal will go anywhere without all the devils in the details being figured out first. So, it's good to have discussions to ID those problems (many are under discussion already), without treating such spotty threads as community mandates for more or different guidelines on gender identity, yet. They're just baby steps in that direction.
— AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c (SMcCandlish via untrusted/public WiFi), 20:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of née

FYI

There's a discussion of the use of née for Hilary Clinton that you are invired to join at Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Use_of_née. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Honorifics

The guidelines about honorifics are context-dependent, aren't they? An editor recently removed all "Hon." from the Viscount Hereford article. In such articles, it seems to me honorifics are relevant.

HandsomeFella (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• @HandsomeFella: The honorific "The Honorable" is specifically mentioned in WP:HON as something that should not be included when speaking in Wikipedia's voice, which is the case with the edit that you reverted, but may be discussed within an article. For instance, if there is a section (as some articles have) on someone's titles from birth to death, then the honorifics are certainly relevant and may be included. Otherwise, they are a violation of neutral POV, just as it would be if I was to go to every mention of a US president and add "The Honorable" or "His Excellency". There are several exceptions listed, none of which apply to the page in question, and obviously those within quotations should be retained. Honorifics may also be included in the infobox of the subject's article, but in this case the subject of the article is the peerage itself, not the specific individuals to whom you reattached the honorifics. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I realize what WP:HON is saying, but that part of the guideline may need more "development". I think honorifics are clearly relevant in articles that are specifically about nobility.

Let's wait for more input, and if editors in general disagree with me (or if none show up in a reasonable timeframe), I will self-revert.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I was going to jump in and say WP:HON but actually reading the edits I didn't find what I expected. I certainly would object to every mention of a person in a article with Hon. attached. On first mention only it isn't doing much harm but it doesn't matter either way. However, where there is a list/table as in many articles of the children of a peers for example it is appropriate eg.Lord Clinton In lists of title holders its appropriate (the lists are formal) but and its a big but I've never been in favour of the recent trend of some authors for interleaving into the succession lists of peers heirs who never succeeded. Its a list of title holders *not* a family tree. So I'd rather they were not included at all but if they are then I have no issue with 'hon' in such lists Garlicplanting (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm curious why MOS:HON carves out an exception for The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered that myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

With regards to Lord/Lady, despite my generally anti-honorific stance, I can see those being useful in certain circumstances, like where it is a substitute for someone's actual title. If you're writing about John Posh, Baron Posh of Over-Poshington, in a situation where the fact that he's a peer is important (i.e., the House of Lords or some such), it can be easier to refer to him as "Lord Posh" than the alternatives. Likewise if you're dealing with someone who held multiple titles over the course of their life, the "Lord/Lady" title can be easier than tracking whether they were a Baron or Earl or whatnot at that specific time. On the other hand, there do seem to be a fair number of people who are referred to as Lord/Lady so-and-so without actually being a peer. The Sir and Dame exception doesn't make sense to me either; perhaps it's a sop to Big Knighthood. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

From my memory of many of these arguments long ago was some of the above. It can be a useful short form of disambiguation especially among families (especially where both for- and surnames can be the same) Sir/Dame can serve a similar purpose in families and both that and Lord can have some function where articles jump about chronologically and its helpful to realise that Bloggs was Lord bloggs at this point not Sir John Bloggs or his father/brother/son etc. In terms of Lord. The only non peers referred to this way are the children of Dukes/Marquesses (eldest son/daughters of earls) and the heirs apparent of and their HA (+HA) of Dukes/marquesses depending on their spare titles. (There are some other minor cases but these are rare) Younger children are indicated by the use of a forename 'Lord Thomas Fitzalan-Howard'. Whereas he elder brother and (the) heir can use Lord ArundelGarlicplanting (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Because Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady aren't honorifics, they're titles! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just a reminder of the this discussion is about: the inclusion of "(the) Hon." in articles about British titles and nobility. I'm fine with skipping them in other articles, but it seems pretty relevant in articles like Viscount Hereford, Baron Carrington, etc. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

No, completely unnecessary. They're usually included in the infobox, but not in the lede. No need for honorifics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Def not in lead Garlicplanting (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me that we refuse to call Martin Luther King, Jr. a Dr., but then in the Judi Dench article we load up the lead with pre and post-nominals: Dame Judith Olivia Dench CH DBE FRSA. Feeling very WP:BOLD, I have just made some large changes to make the policy more consistent. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you stop that right now! Luckily your ridiculous changes have been reverted. This is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias record facts. Not including someone's title would be ludicrous. And academic titles are very different from titles granted by the state that effectively become part of the name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I always assumed Sir, Lady, and all of those bootlicking "titles" were not used because Americans, quite rightly, find them odious, or even ridiculous, as vestiges of the old English class system. The argumement that we need them for disambiguation is very weak, in my view. Tony (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense (that must be Australians you're thinking of). They can be very useful for distinguishing between, for example, John Donne and Sir John Donne (and don't go frigging with those please). Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Probably less distaste and more that the federal government is banned from assigning titles to persons of interest, as they were a sign that someone was loyal to a non-American government, or something to that effect. My Federalist memory is a bit lacking lately. --Izno (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  Please desist from describing titles as "bootlicking", "ridiculous", "odious", or other such disparaging terms that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So (some) Americans don't like them? Big deal! This isn't American Wikipedia. And it seems to me that Americans do just as much "bootlicking" to their wealthy businessmen and politicians in any case (I would urge you to watch The Butler!), whether they give them titles or not, and actually have a very well-defined class system, even without titles. These claims that there's no class system in America are frankly so much nonsense. We're not using titles for disambiguation (hence we don't use them in article titles). We're using them because they're used and they're genuine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  You might consider re-reading closely. Tony did not claim that America does not have a class system. --Izno (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  He made offensive comments about the "English class system" and its titles, with the assumption that Americans didn't like it because it was "bootlicking", which suggests that Americans don't hold with "bootlicking", which is clearly complete drivel given the "bootlicking" that appears to surround many people in America from the President on down! Presumably he actually meant "British class system" in any case, since titles are used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what "genuine" means in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  In that they are awarded by the state and not made-up by their holders or by some tinpot unofficial organisation and they are genuinely used. Usually, in fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that we should dial down the "bootlicking" rhetoric. But I am puzzled by the notion that an academic title is less genuine than a knighthood or the like. I am not particularly pro- or anti-honorific, I just think we should be consistent about them. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's not less genuine. But unlike a title like Sir or Dame it does not effectively become part of the name. It is a replacement for Mr, Ms, etc, which we also don't use on Wikipedia. Incidentally, if someone who has the title of Dr is knighted, he no longer uses that title. The "Sir" supersedes it. Also, we don't use degree postnominals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  So if we don't use "Mrs." or "Dr.", why do we use "Sir"? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Because it's a title that's always used! I think there seems to be some confusion as to the difference between titles and honorifics here. John Smith may be referred to or addressed as Mr John Smith or Mr Smith, but he may not be; "Mr" is an honorific that may or may not be used. If he has a doctorate then the same applies. However, if he is knighted he should always be referred to as Sir John Smith and addressed as Sir John. Not to do so is incorrect as it has essentially become part of his name. It is not an honorific; it is a title. All reputable encyclopaedias and biographical dictionaries use titles; most do not use honorifics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  Titles such as "Sir" have a legal basis for their existence and go into all your official documents. "Mr" does not. Atchom (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So in the Paul McCartney article, McCartney should always be referred to as "Sir James", and not as "McCartney"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"McCartney" is perfectly acceptable. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

Which is why I said "addressed as"! The surname alone is perfectly acceptable in encyclopaedic articles, as it is with anyone else. Only when the full name is used should the title be added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The titles (and postnominals?) are part of the legal name of the people in the UK, right? Seems to me somewhat like listing ", Inc.", "Corporation", or "GmbH" after the common name of a company in the lead, to give its technical legal name. When the common name does not match the full or legal name of something or someone, shouldn't this be noted at the top of the article? (disclaimer: not an expert on wikipedia policy) —DIYeditor (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes on your first and no/kinda on your second. For most companies they are called "Blah" almost exclusively in general use and inc/Gmbh is rare except in paper filings/legals and the most formal contexts. Sir/Dame is general use (on first introduction writing or speech). However the above issue is honorifics which are different, the most common peerage use 'The Hon' discussed above is a matter of courtesy not law, cannot be spoken and is used only in formal written use.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Postnominals are not part of a person's legal name in the UK. See https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/changing-your-title. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I was referring to the title forgot about the 2nd question in brackets. PN's appear in some official/legal documents and generally in formal contexts but they are not legally joined.Garlicplanting (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Part of the legal name? No. Part of the name in that they are always used? Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Section Honorific prefixes can be interpreted to mean that honorifics such as "Dr" and "Rev." should not be used in articles. I suggest addition of a sentence such as Honorific prefixes such as "Dr" and "Rev" should generally only be used with the person's full name at its first mention, or where its omission would result in nonsense, eg. "Foo, later Dr Foo . . ." Doug butler (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a correct interpretation. The advice is not to use them. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

avoid sentences like "Clinton met Clinton while they were students at Yale."

This is wonky. The example is used at MOS:SURNAME. Its point is to say use "Rodham met Clinton while they were students at Yale", referring to Hillary using her then-current surname.

Don't get me wrong, the advice to avoid "Clinton met Clinton" is entirely sound, but that's MOS:SAMESURNAME. (And revisiting the Clintons there would only be confusing, so I'm not suggesting any change to that section)

Boldly editing this now.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles

Hello, all. I'm looking for clarification on two constructions of job titles where I'm not sure if the job title is "addressed as a title or position in and of itself" (and should be capitalized) or if we are really just treating the job title a common noun and omitting "the" and/or "as the" as matter of style.

Ideally, I'd gain a consensus here and then add the correct examples to the table in MOS:JOBTITLES.

* As President of the United States, Nikon went to China.
* As president of the United States, Nikon went to China.
* As [the] president of the United States, Nikon went to China.

* In 1972, Nixon was re-elected President of the United States.
* In 1972, Nixon was re-elected president of the United States.
* In 1972, Nixon was re-elected [as the] president of the United States.

What are the thoughts of the editors assembled here? —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

How many photos did Nikon take? I'm afraid that's my first thought! Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The first example in each case is the correct capitalization. Public offices should be capitalized.Theoallen1 (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how JOBTITLES is unclear as to those examples. The first example in each of your groups is equivalent to table column 1 example 1: Richard Nixon was President of the United States. If there is a modifier such as "the", "president" is uncapitalized. "As" and "re-elected" are not modifiers of "president". Where's the problem? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring over MOS:ETHNICITY at Brunel and Bugatti

Half a policy is a dangerous thing.

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is busy with a campaign across bios to remove MOS:ETHNICITY claims from the leads. However in some cases (and these are two) then their international origin and early emmigration is a crucial aspect of their bio, and is appropriate for the lead. ETHNICITY recognises this. Brunel and Bugatti both meet this.

However these are just repeat edit-warring, rather than any discussion. Their discussion since at Brunel is so patchwork (it's not literally wrong, but it mis-emphasises the trivial over the significant) that it merely highlights them not knowing anything about the subject, in favour of simply following the prominent half of the policy. The texts left, "was an English engineer." and "was a French automobile designer" are horribly misleading.

Anyone with some spare eyeballs to comment? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In neither case is the birth place relevant to their notability. Bugatti's entire career was in France (to be precise - prior to WWI - Molsheim was in Germany - but not Italy). Brunel's engineering career took place in the United Stated (for less than a decade, not in the lead) and England (notably Thames Tunnel as well as other engineering projects). In both articles the birth place is properly described in the body, however MOS:ETHNICITY is very clear in that we don't highlight prior nationalities / places of birth in the lead when they are not relevant to the subject's notability. There is absolutely nothing misleading in calling a immigrants to France or England (who spent most of their lives there) - French and English respectively. Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So why did an Italian have a career in Alsace? Why, in Bugatti's case, did an Italian who was the heir to a successful and highly notable Milanese furniture designing firm (see Carlo Bugatti) instead relocate to another country? This is precisely the sort of issue which MOS:ETHNICITY recognises.

Why was Marc Brunel an "English engineer"? You claim yourself that his engineering career was American! He was born in France and retained such strong links to France, in particular a faith in the French education system over the English obsession with classics, that he sent his son Isambard to be educated there. To remove this from the lead is to make that lead seriously misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of Brunel's career was in England - and that's certainly the most notable portion of his career. Arguably - being chief engineer in NYC contributed to notability. Brunel's activities in France - do not contribute to his notability. Sending his son to be educated in France - is a NOTINHERITED situation (and one should note the son is notable for his works in England). If the reasons for Bugatti's move (note that his father, Carlo Bugatti, lived on the Milan-Paris line - so this is not quite such a large move) are relevant - perhaps that should be mentioned in the lead (it isn't quite mentioned in the body either) - in any event - what made Bugatti notable were the fine cars produced in the Alsace factory - not his childhood elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Brunel and Bugatti, but I've almost never seen an instance where ethnicity and/or country of birth (if someone emigrated fairly young) is relevant in the first paragraph, and certainly not in the first sentence of the lede. Nobel prize winning author Imre Kertész, for example, was sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps because he was a Jew, yet the lede of his article nowhere mentions that he was Jewish. François Englert, Walter Kohn, Otto Stern ledes similarly mention nothing of them being Jews, despite having to hide/escape from the Nazis. On the other hand (and I'm not saying that's the case here), I have seen dozens of cases of editors arguing that a specific person is an exception to MOS:ETHNICITY because the fact is important to the editor, though not particularly important regarding the person being described. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I support Icewhiz's edits, though wouldn't it be better to describe Brunel as 'British' rather than 'English'? GiantSnowman 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding British vs. English (and Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, and possibly Irish (proper) in past periods) - that's a good question, and I wonder if there is some MOS (or Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom?) guidance. Currently - articles are completely inconsistent in this regard - possibly since Countries of the United Kingdom muddles things (as these components of the kingdom count as "countries", complete with national sports representation in some instances (e.g. England national football team, England national rugby union team, England cricket team (which still includes Wales, however)). Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a small detail in the grand scheme of things, both are correct... GiantSnowman 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes - but it is inconsistent, and I think I have observed un-Englishing of people (to being described as British) possible not considered "English enough". At present - e.g. [%2221st-century%20English%20people%22}} "is an English" deepcat:"21st-century English people"] vs. [%2221st-century%20English%20people%22}} "is a British" deepcat:"21st-century English people"] - both are being used (in a seemingly random fashion - ignoring sports where I can see the point of "English"). Icewhiz (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

We're going slightly off-topic here (though this is probably a discussion worth having at a different time) but as a general rule if they are in 'Category:English XXX' they should be described as 'English', and if they are in 'Category:British XXX' they should be described as 'British'. It's worthwhile sub-catting for athletes, unsure about other professions. GiantSnowman 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm pretty sure you mean if they are in 'Category:British XXX' they should be described as 'British'. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! GiantSnowman 07:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• The point about France is that he was born there. Thus "an English engineer" is problematic from the outset, even though his two main and notable works were in England. If we state "a French-born engineer who settled in England." (as had been stable for ages) then everything is accurately clear from the outset. The article at present is a policy-based [sic] attempt to make it very misleading.

If you are convinced that policy requires you to write a bad article, then you need to take a damned good look at that policy (and ETHNICITY recognises this). Nor is it even policy, it's a styleguide. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

If ethnicity and nationality are different, why not omit both? —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that has us treating immigrants in a different fashion than non-immigrants (as well as possibly treating ethnic minorities differently - e.g. are Black English people (generally referred to as English (or British) in the lead - to be described as stateless? Roma? Jews?). Burnel was a seaman as a teenager, escaped France at the age of 24 and after a few year in the US he arrived in England at the age of 30. He married, constructed great engineering projects, became a fellow of Royal Society, was knighted (age 72), probably ate his share of Sunday roast and Yorkshire pudding, died in England at the age of 80, and was buried in London. Brunel was an Englishman. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's the point; indicating someone's birthplace (or ethnicity) in the lede (particularly the first sentence/paragraph) differentiates "native"/"real" English people from "immigrants"/"minorities". I'm not saying that was the intent here, but it is certainly the effect. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg, speaking as an immigrant, I am different from the native English people (and identify as different), so I don't see a huge problem with differentiation there. It might be useful to check what people identify as, and what reliable sources say. —Kusma (t·c) 20:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, everyone is different from everyone else. We're all unique. Wikipedia says the lede is a summary of things about an individual that are particularly notable, and ethnicity typically isn't one of those things. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No-one is saying that it is. But as ETHNICITY notes, there are a few cases when it is. These are two of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The best test for MOS:ETHNICITY - for whether ethnicity is relevant to the subject's notability - is whether that relevance can be concisely stated. And if it can be, then just include that statement of relevance in the lead, rather than the bare statement of ethnicity. For Brunel, I don't see how his country of birth is related to his notability such that it would warrant mention in the first sentence. However, I have rewritten the lead to better summarize the article, so it does now get a mention in the second paragraph.--Trystan (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Which of the following should be described in the first sentence of the article "a French-born English xxx" rather than "an English xxx", and why: Theodore Roussel, Augustus Jules Bouvier, Dominic Serres, Theodore Janssen? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with any of those, so I have no opinion on them. Even if I did have an opinion, there would be nothing to base it on, so no credence should be given to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Would you object if someone removed "French-born" from the first sentence of each article? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I literally would not care, because I know nothing about any of the subjects, thus I have no substantial opinion about them. Janssen would seem unusual, as even today, British MPs are not often born overseas. Perhaps they might have some justification for it, but again, if I know nothing of the subject I cannot express an opinion on them. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents (based on reading the body of each article - the lead should summarize the body) - Roussel - marginal (very early career in France), Bouvier - no birthplace, Serres - no birthplace, Janssen - no birthplace. Janssen is the most clearcut of the bunch - there's absolutely nothing in his bio on France (other than being born there in 1658, departing in 1680 - everything else is on stuff he did in England - including being a MP). Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It's a pretty good list, though, isn't it? :) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A fine list for future improvement, yes. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Cross-posting objection originally raised at Talk:President of the United States

I just posted the following text to Talk:President of the United States in response to User:Mandruss pointing to a community consensus in this portion of the MoS:

I just got around into looking up the history of this so-called "community consensus" you speak of. Nonsense. It was a series of unilateral edits to the MoS by User:SMcCandlish in June 2018 after premature closure of a RFC on one of the most important issues of English writing style. At a bare minimum, the RFC should have been circulated on the village pump to solicit additional comments several times over a number of weeks, and I see no sign of that. The largely anecdotal evidence presented by User:SMcCandlish of a purported trend towards lowercase was equally consistent with bad training or overwork on the part of the writers cited and was therefore unconvincing. Wikipedia core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT) reflect a philosophy that Wikipedia follows, it never leads. It is inappropriate for an editor to attempt to unilaterally impose their novel views on the community and beg the question by referring to a nonexistent consensus. The logical result of adopting a bizarre capitalization style in the Manual of Style—one that does not reflect the style actually used in American English by most educated intellectuals—will be to alienate and drive away even more editors and lead to further deterioration of the English Wikipedia project. For example, Law of New York was vandalized last November, but the number of active lawyer editors on English Wikipedia is now so tiny that no one caught the vandalism for over nine months (until I noticed it a couple of days ago).

I note that User:SMcCandlish has elsewhere voiced disdain for certain traditions of American English. Too bad. There are other places for advocating change to American English, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Alienating Wikipedia users by trying to impose a nontraditional writing style is not a constructive contribution to the Wikipedia project. There's been a lot of news coverage over the past few years over how the English Wikipedia's active editor community is hemorrhaging editors like crazy, and this is definitely not helping.

Unfortunately, I'm far too busy this year working on class actions for the first time to initiate the necessary ArbCom proceeding to obtain appropriate remedies. But I will gladly support any editor who does so. I'm also going to cross-post this to the talk page for the relevant MoS section. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just note that editors have widely varying views on why the English Wikipedia's active editor community is hemorrhaging editors like crazy, none with much evidence of causal links. Want to add strength to your argument against something? Just claim that it's a significant part of the reasons why enwiki is hemorrhaging editors like crazy. I have to believe that how we capitalize or don't capitalize titles is not a significant part of the reasons why enwiki is hemorrhaging editors like crazy – my take is that 95% of editors couldn't care much less about that, and few of the other 5% are jumping ship because of it – but that's just my view.

Otherwise I will watch this thread with interest; if there is in fact inadequate community consensus for the current state of MOS:JOBTITLES, I wholeheartedly agree that it needs to be changed. More attention needs to be paid to producing clear, unambiguous, linkable consensus(es) to support the guideline. That requires structure and probably uninvolved close(s). ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

By hemorrhaging, I mean turnover in the sense not only of existing editors but the busy and bright people who never get involved in the first place because they look at Wikipedia and are discouraged from contributing because the writing style is nuts. Because from their perspective, life is far too short to waste time debating long-established points of grammar with people who either weren't trained properly or refuse to recognize that effective communication requires a certain degree of conformance to existing conventions. If I recall correctly, that has also been covered in the news coverage on this issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I just wish that the entire community would get involved with this topic & help bring closure on it, one way or the other. Along with article titles, even article intros are inconsistent, concerning capitalization. A prime example are the intros in the bios of US governors & lieutenant governors. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

To get the entire community involved this should be bumped up to an even more frequented forum... perhaps Village Pump (policy). Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

JOBTITLES

Can we talk about this mess before it gets worse?

Capitalized in first sentence deCapitalized in first sentence President of Algeria Chief Executive (Afghanistan) Prime Minister of Algeria President of Afghanistan Co-Princes of Andorra Prime Minister of Albania President of Angola Prime Minister of Albania President of Argentina Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo President of Armenia Prime Minister of India Prime Minister of Armenia Chief Justice of the United States Prime Minister of Australia Chief Justice of Hungary President of Austria Chancellor of Austria Prime Minister of Azerbaijan President of Azerbaijan Prime Minister of the Bahamas King of Bahrain Prime Minister of Bahrain President of Bangladesh Prime Minister of Bangladesh Prime Minister of Barbados President of Belarus Prime Minister of Belarus Monarchy of Belgium Prime Minister of Belgium Prime Minister of Malaysia Prime Minister of Moldova Prime Minister of Nepal Prime Minister of the Netherlands Prime Minister of New Zealand Chief Justice of India Chief Justice of Ghana Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Chief Justice of Canada Chief Justice of Pakistan Chief Justice of Sri Lanka Chief Justice of Australia Chief Justice of South Africa Chief Justice of Malaysia President of Pakistan Prime Minister of Pakistan President of India (prime minister deCapitalized) President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (prime minister deCapitalized)

What is going on here? Are we really going to de-capitalize all these articles? There are hundreds more. Isn't it time we gave up on this failed experiment? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The current trend is towards decapitalizing. No doubt, all those article will have their 'bold' intros decapitalized. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't it start at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is only fair those with the most to say about the matter lead by example. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You can decapitalize them all, if you wish. WP:JOBTITLES appears to have gone that way. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who dislike caps, and remove them, but there is also considerable resistance. I wouldn't agree "The current trend is towards decapitalizing" qat all. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC & "honorific_prefix" in bio infoboxes

A disagreement has arisen as to whether it's appropriate to use the field "honorific_prefix=" to list military and paramilitary ranks. For example:

• |honorific_prefix=<small>''[[Obergruppenführer|SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS]]''</small> |name=Gottlob Berger
• | honorific_prefix = ''[[Grand Admiral|Großadmiral]]'' | name = Karl Dönitz

I would appreciate input on this matter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Military ranks (generally including officers of the rank of major or equivalent and above) are honorifics, which is why the documentation for Template:infobox military person includes "honorific_prefix – titles such as "Sir", "General"" as an example. One look at Debrett's makes it clear that military ranks are honorifics. If retired military officers are invited to anything swanky, they are always referred to as Major or General Fooian, not just Mr Fooian. I have never had anyone question the placing of honorifics in the first sentence or infobox at FA, see the infoboxes of Pavle Đurišić and Raymond Leane for examples going back seven years or more, but the use of rank as an honorific in the lead of articles is applied by other editors, see Harry Chauvel, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig and John Monash. I have never had anyone question it before, whether it related to Nazis, Yugoslavs, Australians or anyone else, and it makes me question whether this is yet another example of something that K.e.coffman just doesn't like, typically because there are Nazis involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)