Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

Gender identity rules

I see the following: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise."

I do not understand the reason that it holds for any phase of the person's live unless they indicated a preference otherwise. I want wikipedia to be a source of reliable information.

I find it ridiculous when you write about some non binary in wikipedia "Nemo began their interest in music at the age of three"

I think the reader who want to know the facts want to know that everybody considered Nemo as a male at that time and from the value in wikipedia people cannot know the facts when they read wikipedia because of the rules that this holds for any phase of the person's life. אורי בלאס (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. People do not have the right to re-write or censor their own history, even their childhood. In particular the name they were given at birth. Even if they were not notable at the time (hardly anyone is notable in childhood). The facts of their life are what they are and should be reported. Not re-written to match their current (possibly changing) preference a la Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth. Ttulinsky (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not just a source of biographical information. What Wikipedia says about a living person can have a profound impact on that person and their life, as our information is reused in countless other sources and provides input to everything from AI chatbots to Google Knowledge Panels. Thus we should err on the side of respecting the identities of living people when possible. When a person was not notable under a previous name, what harm is there in not mentioning their previous name? Wikipedia is not intended to be the repository of all facts. It's only intended to give a summary of notable information about a person. Nosferattus (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot in WP:BLP that helps explain why certain verifiable information can be censored for living people for privacy concerns. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree: There are downsides to the current guidelines but they are preferable to the alternatives. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is really "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." It really shouldn't have anything to do with someone's stated preference, which may change at any time, or be reported in conflicting ways, or even attract several varieties of interpretational WP:OR. Rather, we should use something like "unless the majority of current reliable sources do otherwise for a particular time period in the subject's life". This would get around the perpetual sore spot of examples of like sports figures notable as, say, male competitors in men's divisions years before their transition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Consistency"

I see all over the that bios for celebs who use more than one pronoun are being reduced to one pronoun at the whim of gender police who deem it against Wikipedia's Consistency doctrine. But I don't see anything about using two or three pronouns being inconsistent in that policy. Thoughts? Thanks. Popculturemaven (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What reason would there be for using different pronouns to refer to the same person in an article? The obvious reason against is confusion to the reader, but I am not seeing any countervailing reason that would not be addressed by a sentence or note mentioning the article subject's preference for various terms. – notwally (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Context: ‘be’ or ‘include’

Hi MapReader, I substituted ‘be’ for ‘include’ in MOS:CONTEXTBIO (as below) because it seems pretty obvious that place will never be the only context for someone’s notability. People are usually notable for achievements, often within organisations or sporting codes or artistic movements and so on, and even sometimes for their race, gender, family, and other contexts which are the dominant subject of this section. The word ‘be’ there implies to me that the place is the only context for their notability. It wasn’t a major error, but I feel it’s clearer with ‘include’. Do you read this differently?

−

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a [[Citizenship|national]] or permanent resident

+

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will include the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a [[Citizenship|national]] or permanent resident

— HTGS (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the revert, you don’t have consensus - indeed I don’t see this having been raised anywhere? I completely see where you are coming from (geography clearly isn’t the only contextual parameter), but your rather narrow interpretation of the effect of your change is not the only one. Moving from a specifier (qualified by ‘most’) to simply ‘include’, is a drastic change to a sentence potentially affecting many many biographical lead sentences, and opens the door to arguments that other characteristics should have equivalence, or even supplant, the geographical one. Given the wide potential impact of even the smallest change here, this needs discussion. MapReader (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to say that, to me, it seems obvious that country, region or territory is seldom the only context of notability and that sometimes it is not even a relevant piece of context. So I would prefer "usuaĺly include" to "usually be" - I often see editors interpteting "usually be the country" as "is always the country and nothing else" which (i) is not actually backed by P&Gs and (ii) fails any kind of reality check in the world as it actually exists. So to me, "include" would prompt fewer fruitless arguments than "be" does at present. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree (with the point, but not the conclusion) - but isn’t that point already covered by the word “most”? MapReader (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't think so. The present "be" implies that the key characteristic to be presented is the geographical one, which is typically national citizenship or residency. The proposed "include" implies that geography (usually citizenship/residency) is most likely to be defining but that it can be accompanied (or even supplanted) by other factors.

This apparently trivial issue can have real consequences. For example, the way our article on Ernest Bloch is written follows the "fundamentalist" reading of CONTEXTBIO and opens as follows:

Ernest Bloch (July 24, 1880 – July 15, 1959) was a Swiss-born American composer. Bloch was a preeminent artist in his day, and left a lasting legacy. He is recognized as one of the greatest Swiss composers in history. As well as producing musical scores, Bloch had an academic career that culminated in his recognition as Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1952.

I have included the entire opening paragraph to indicate what it leaves out as much as what it includes - our text departs greatly from what the WP:HQRS emphasize about Bloch. For example, the online Brittanica entry opens, Ernest Bloch (born July 24, 1880, Geneva, Switzerland—died July 15, 1959, Portland, Oregon, U.S.) was a composer whose music reflects Jewish cultural and liturgical themes as well as European post-Romantic traditions[1] - which reflects better the context for notability offered in the best sources and gives readers a better picture of Bloch's work.

I suppose the TL;DR of my comment would be - Wikipedia editors are biased towards identifying and following rules, and in areas where exceptions or nuances are important (like context of notability), a belt-and-suspenders approach may be preferable. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have consensus, I have never raised this before, that’s what we’re doing now. I didn’t see it as a contentious change, and I still don’t know why we’re having this discussion now. I have a deep dislike for objections on the basis of “no consensus”, because I’d rather just focus on the substantive issues.

All that being said, I have never seen a lead section that consisted entirely of “Jack Smith was an American.” or “Giacomo Ferraro was an Italian.” so I don’t see why we would want wording that implies the only contextual fact necessary is their nationality/citizenship/residence (or similar). — HTGS (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence usually contains the reason for notability and the context for it, and the consensus is that this context is almost always geographical/national. Thus a person is an American actor or British politician or German philosopher, etc. Other identifying characters, including gender, religion (or rejection of it), ethnicity, sexuality, politics, marital status, and so on (some of these, you cite yourself in connection with your proposal, above) are dealt with later in the lead, or in the body if less significant.

This is a settled and very long-standing consensus, which does reflect the reality of human interaction: for example, if I told you that yesterday somebody had invented a time-travel machine, but only allowed one question about that person (not about the invention), I am confident most people would ask where they were or were from, rather than about their religion or sexuality. Nevertheless in a world of growing identity politics it is inevitable there are editors who will argue that someone’s ethnicity or religion or sexuality defines their identify as much if not more than their geography, and your edit opens the door to pitched battles at zillions of articles over which characteristic(s) go into the lead sentence, and also to convoluted openings with a whole string of identifiers prefaced to someone’s occupation or notoriety. That’s why what you suggest is, far from being an innocent little change, a very major shift in policy that would need extensive debate and a solid grounding in consensus. MapReader (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The aspect of this where I think editors can reasonably differ is your almost always. This may possibly be a de facto consensus on-wiki, but it isn't what CONTEXTBIO in its status quo language actually says - it uses words like generally and in most cases, which in their plain meaning do not equate to "almost always".

I get that some editors think CONTEXTBIO means, or should mean, almost always - but my Ernest Bloch example above points to why I see that approach as problematic. "Fundamentalism" about this can (and has in this instance) lead to departures from the ways WP:HQRS describe the context of notability for the subject - both in the emphasis given to geography compared to other aspects, and in the ways those geographical identities or categories are described.

I for one would like for editors to be empowered to follow the best sources a little bit further when we write lead paragraphs, and I think "includes" would undermine the "don't add additional context!" aspect of CONTEXTBIO fundamentalism while maintaining the expectation that national geography still be present. Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, per the text in question, we are talking about the opening paragraph, not the opening sentence. There is obviously room for more than one contextual fact about a person and their notability in their lead paragraph. Nothing about ‘include’ vs ‘be’ changes how this guideline will ultimately be interpreted; it just makes it make more sense. — HTGS (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader would you prefer we amend CONTEXTBIO to address solely the first sentence? Because I think that might help achieve what you’re talking about. — HTGS (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I would think that changing be to include here would be a harmless change, and for the better, since it's correct that nationality (or close analogues of it) are often not central to why someone is notable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

JOBTITLES near other titles

Could we add guidance to MOS:JOBTITLE that recommends consistent capitalization for comparable job titles in close proximity? I'd say a sentence like "President Adams and President Bates met with UK prime minister Collins" would be stronger with a capitalized "Prime Minister". The temptation I see in other editors is to rewrite to enable capitalization while complying with current guidance, going with something like "Prime Minster Collins of the UK", which is an undesirable outcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope. We should capitalize things based on what they are, not based on what they're next to. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with David. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Chicago style capitalizes job titles directly preceding a name (President Joe Bob). Where is the rationale that Wikipedia MOS does not do that? Yuchitown (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But MoS does do that. Just read it. We capitalize titles of office when they are directly fused with a name, but not when they are separated from it, as in "Collins, as the prime minister, was ...." But, yes, David Eppstein is correct that whether something is proximal in the text to something else is rather irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

British peer titles in infoboxes

The Right Honourable The Baroness Thatcher LG OM DStJ PC FRS HonFRSC
Studio portrait, c. 1995–96
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

I noticed that some infoboxes for British politicians use their honorary honorific peerage title in the name parameter rather than their actual name (see example at right). When I asked about this on the talk page, I was informed that it was correct and that "It's standard across infoboxes of all articles for British peers to use their name in the peerage." A few questions:

1. Is this practice in line with Wikipedia consensus on the use of biographical infoboxes and honorary honorific titles? And if so…
2. Should this practice be limited to British peers, or should it apply to all peerage systems and/or titles of nobility?
3. Should some clarification be added to the guidelines here (and/or at the infobox documentation) to make this less confusing and contentious?

Nosferattus (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Better ask The Lady Catherine de Burgh. EEng 16:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Peerage titles are not "honorary"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: Sorry, I meant "honorific" not "honorary". Nosferattus (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a strong proponent of the view that infobox name should 100% reflect the article name - but I don't go near royals/peers! GiantSnowman 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  As has been explained to you previously -- at least twice [2][3] -- your position is contrary to infobox documentation. EEng 07:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• This should definitely not be happening. It's against MOS:BIO and against the purpose, documenttion, and name of the infobox parameter in question. It's been happening across many articles, despite years of principled objections, simply as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI action on the part of the WP:NOBILITY and WP:ROYALTY wikiprojects, and this needs to stop. It's utterly absurd that our infobox for, say, Margaret Thatcher says her name was Baroness Thatcher, which is blatantly false. Either this stuff needs to be removed from the infobox, or we need a separate titles parameter for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The infobox is supposed to reflect someone's common name. In the UK, for a peer, this is indeed usually the peerage title (after being created a peer, Thatcher was referred to in the British media almost exclusively as Baroness Thatcher). How exactly would you structure Thatcher's infobox? Bearing in mind that it's supposed to provide information (hence the name) and an anti-title POV is not really a valid argument. I could live with "Margaret Thatcher, The Baroness Thatcher" (all bolded, as in the first line), although it is a little verbose for an infobox, but not simply "Margaret Thatcher" as that would be inaccurate, especially when combined with her postnominals (as, for example, her LG calls for a pretitle unless she had a higher title, as she did), and accuracy is, of course, what we strive for on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

    In my experience, she is way more often referred to as "Margaret" than as "Baroness". Common name surely suggests not to include the title, precisely because it's not the common name. At least not when writing or speaking about somebody rather than with them – Wikipedia has no reason to concern itself with the latter. Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

    But, as I said, how would you then structure the infobox? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to title capitalization

I propose we strike "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the King, not the king (referring to Charles III); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis)." There is a consensus to do so forming at Talk:Julian (emperor). Primergrey (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a change. Chicago style would be to lowercase those titles, with exceptions that are inapplicable here. I don't see the rule current rule being commonly followed (not always a persuasive argument, just some data). Removing the rule would bring the practice for title in alignment with other parts of the MOS, like MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Generally, any reasonable steps to simplify JOBTITLES would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with making it align with the INSTITUTIONS guidance. It always seemed like those conventions are at odds with one another. Primergrey (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the change too. It seems odd that this rule should apply to "the King" but not, say, to "the Manager" (when referring to a specific manager previously mentioned by name). "The President" of the USA is supposedly capitalized, but "the president" of a company, I take it, is not? That all seems odd and unworkable and dropping the rule is certainly the easier solution. Gawaon (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion began because Primegrey insisted that the word "emperor" be capitalized in the sentence, "[o]n the third day a major hemorrhage occurred and the emperor died during the night", on the grounds that "emperor" referred to a specific person while he was emperor. Several widely-used sources on Julian that were cited in the discussion consistently treat "emperor" as a common noun in this situation. There are counter-examples, but "emperor" is not consistently capitalized simply because it refers to a particular emperor, much less because it refers to him at some point in his reign.

I think that this is somewhat different from following prevailing usage in modern media, where you might see "The King dined with his family at Sandringham", although again there are counterexamples, e.g. in The New York Times, June 27, 2024: "Climate policy is another area where the king might find a Labour government more aligned with his views." I am not convinced that this is strictly a matter of UK vs. U.S. English, though I expect that "King" is more consistently capitalized in the UK, at least when referring to the reigning monarch, not historical figures; the three authors cited for Julian (Grant, Browning, Bowersock) all published in London (although Bowersock was American), and all treated "emperor" as a common noun.

There seem to be two reasonable alternatives that are consistent with Wikipedia's general guidelines: either 1) use the prevailing form, if there clearly is one, otherwise do not capitalize titles unless they are being used as part of a name, e.g. "King Richard", or the title itself is a proper noun, e.g. "King of England"; or 2) consider either capitalization acceptable when referring to a specific person (not, however, in "Richard had wanted to be king for some time", where it would nearly always be considered a common noun), but use one form consistently throughout an article, except when used as part of a name, or when it is itself a proper noun, as in the examples above. P Aculeius (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My insistence is with, what seem to me like, clear guidelines being followed. Whatever they might be. I agree that ENGVAR is not relevant here, as capitalization falls outside its remit. I also agree with your "Richard had wanted to be king" example as being clearly a generic use. For the record, "...Richard wanted to be the king" is just as generic, the definite article causes me no confusion. Primergrey (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Primergrey's interpretation of the current guidance. I also support the proposed change to accept the lowercase emperor. Mgp28 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would go along with this as well. We have a long history of avoiding capitalization that is not essentially "required" (by being capitalized in virtually all other style guides and other relevant reliable sources). Usage with regard to this particular question is clearly mixed, so per the first rule of MOS:CAPS we should default to lower case. This would also ease a bit of the "MOS:BIO is confusing" problem, though there is more to do in that regard, including with titles in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Would this still clearly indicate judging individual cases by prevailing use? I'm uncertain whether lowercase should be applied uniformly to all Roman emperors (I saw more extensive use of uppercase for Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, etc. when I was looking for examples to cite; lowercase seems more common with later emperors), we do still have contemporary usage heavily favoring "the King" or "the Queen" when referring to contemporary British monarchs. I don't know whether this applies to all monarchs, or whether usage differs strongly between US and UK sources, hence my suggestion to "use one style consistently throughout an article" when either lowercase or uppercase could be argued, to be changed by consensus once one style has been established. Going by prevailing usage in individual cases seems better than imposing a blanket rule that will sometimes clash with prevailing usage. P Aculeius (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on short-version of names

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Short-versions of names in intro. This is for pages such as Tani Oluwaseyi and Ayo Akinola. Should the opening read as "Tanitoluwa Oluwaseyi is a ......" or "Tanitoluwa "Tani" Oluwaseyi is a ....." RedPatch (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest: “Taniyoluwa Oluwaseyi (known as Tani) is a …” Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Or Taniyoluwa (Tani) Oluwaseyi. Short forms of names do not take quotation marks, as they are not nicknames like "Killer" or "Rochester Rocket" or "Babyface". There's a whole section about this as MOS:BIO, and the short answer is there isn't only one single mandatory way to write such opening sentences, as long as they make sense to the reader. We do not need to explain common-in-English short forms; e.g., an article titled "Liz McCulough" might begin with the full name "Elizabeth Jane McCulough" and no mention of "Liz" in the lead sentence, it already being understood by nearly all our readers that "Liz" is an everyday short form of "Elizabeth". This is not the case with short forms of names not common in English, as in the examples this opened with, or in the case of Russian Dima for Dmitri. Nor for unusual shortenings in English, like Reba for Rebecca or Nifer for Jennifer. In cases like that, they should be provided either parenthetically within the name or given in a "best known as" sort of statement after the birth name (or vice versa; there's nothing wrong with Liz McCulough, born Elizabeth Jane McCulough).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

A reader will be able to equally undertand Tani as a shortening of Tanitoluwa as they will Liz as a shortening of Elizabeth. I wouldn't be surprised if most readers found the former more obvious, as it doesn't rely on assumed familiarity with a specific cultural tradition. MOS:HYPOCORISM should be updated to reflect that where the short form is just the beginning of the longer name, the connection is obvious and does not need to be explained.--Trystan (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree completely, non-English and non-standard nicknames should always be laid out in the first sentence as the policy states now, even if you can infer them at a glance. Ortizesp (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What would the reasoning be behind treating obvious short forms for culturally English names different to obvious short forms for non-English names? I think the intent behind HYPOCORISM must be to avoid belabouring the obvious, but as drafted it doesn't take into account that many short forms are obvious despite not stemming from names historically popular in England.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest the conversation continues on the original page and doesn't split into two separate discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think here is the more appropriate place, as it is really a general question about MOS:HYPOCORISM. Not sure if it would be appropriate to move that discussion here at this point?--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That would also be fine, but just not in two separate places. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at the other location widely seemed to agree that such short-forms are fairly common sense given the article title and putting a short-form in brackets is redundant. RedPatch (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sir and Dame in the name line of Infobox person

I proposed changing MOS:SIR so that "Sir" or "Dame" may be placed before the subject's full name in the name parameter in Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox officeholder, etc. I bit my tongue for years seeing the title delegated to the honorific_prefix parameter, treated the same as styles such as His Excellency and The Right Honourable, when these are just that, styles, not titles. The Right Honourable is only used when referring to a subject in the third person, whereas Sir before the given name is used in conversation. "Sir" or "Dame" is put bolded before the name in the first line of the article, so why not in the infobox? On a purely aesthetic note, it is also much more pleasing to the eye, but perhaps that's just me.

Featured articles such John A. Macdonald, Thomas White and Hugh Beadle, not to mentioned the incumbent British prime minister Keir Starmer have recently moved Sir to prefix the name in the name parameter, but when I began making the change on other articles, I was accused of vandalism and treated with a block. So here I am seeking consensus. Walco1 (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It seems consistent with similar situations to implement this as policy. I may not be phrasing this very well, but titles that seem to almost become part of the name - like Lord or Prince (see Rowan Williams and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh for examples) - elsewhere go right before the name, not up in the top with "The Right Hon." or "The Reverend". To me, "Sir" seems far more like it's in the same category as Lord or Prince than as "His Excellency". Katechon08 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. First, because MOS:SIR already says that "The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name" and our invariable practice has been to put it in bold, along with the other parts of the name, in the first in-text mention, and there is no reason the same practice is not followed in infoboxes.

Secondly, because no other work of reference places "Sir" with titles such as "Excellency" in a line before the first name of the person, a practice which looks goofy and unprofessional.

Thirdly, because "Sir" with the rest of the name was standard across Wikipedia until one or two editors mass-edited thousands of articles to change its placement circa 2022, and subsequently used this fait accompli to argue in favour of their position (all of this is well-documented across extensive discussions; and it is ironic OP has been flagged for disruptive editing when he is merely trying to undo other people's disruptive editing).

And lastly (I have other points because I am going to stop here) because "Sir" in accepted usage goes with the first name (so "Sir Winston", "Sir Alec") which is not true for the pre-nominal titles such as "Excellency"). This particular topic has been litigated extensively here and elsewhere for years and no one has yet advanced a convincing argument for placing "Sir" in the prefix field. Atchom (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a prefix, not a part of the person's name? That's how every other title works; the fact that "Sir" involves a silly ritual with a sword instead of a silly ritual with a laying on of hands or a silly ritual with a cap and gown seems irrelevant to me. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A knighthood is not comparable to an academic degree. Walco1 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Gawaon (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can obtain a doctorate degree and style themselves as doctor, a knighthood is a state recognition for meritorious service. Even the present guidelines on the infobox recognize this, stating that the honorific prefix parameter "is for honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods, 'The Honourable', and 'His/Her Excellency'; do not use it for routine things like 'Dr.' or 'Ms.'" Walco1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really get it. Both aware awarded by the state, both are not easy to get, both are merit-based, both are used in formal contexts etc. To me the similarities look certainly much bigger than the differences, meaning that an equivalent treatment would make a lot of sense. Gawaon (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Degrees are awarded by universities, knighthoods by the state. "In the UK, approximately 2% of people have a PhD" compared to only 21 KGs, 16 KTs, 50 GBCs, etc., etc. I am not implying a doctorate is easy to come by, it is just widely considered less significant than a knighthood. The "equivalent treatment" here would either be include Dr. in the infobox or not include Sir, neither of which is not what is being advocated for here. Walco1 (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether my doctorate was easy or hard to get seems to me irrelevant to the question of whether the title "Dr." is part of my name (it's not). It's very hard to become the pope, but all our articles on individual popes seem to correctly understand that "Pope" is a prefix. --JBL (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion of doctors is irrelevant to the question at hand. Popes are not knights. Walco1 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What myself and other users and trying to articulate that yes, "Sir" and "Dame" are prefixes, but it is not like other prefixes such as His/Her Excellency and The Right Honourable and should not be treated as much. It is not black and white and the policy should not treat it as such for all the reasons stated above. Walco1 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should include titles in infoboxes with the names. The simple fact is it is not the person's name. It is already included elsewhere in the article, and so what benefit is added by putting it in the infobox as part of the name? Also, this seems to be prioritizing a British ritual over other titles. – notwally (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• strongly oppose - this is against the spirit of our honorifics policy, and privileges one narrow category of title above others. "Sir Whooptidoo" and "Dame Bigdeal" were born as naked squalling infants, and ate, drank and excreted like thee or me. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's a political objection against the existence of titles, not a policy-based argument. Atchom (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it's an argument against giving some honorifics more weight than others. Gawaon (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you're gonna beat up on me ad hominem, Atchom , get the details right. I am a Quaker and have a long heritage of disdain for honorifics behind me. But my argument is based on policy, not on my faith or my politics. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  ""Sir Whooptidoo" and "Dame Bigdeal" were born as naked squalling infants, and ate, drank and excreted like thee or me." Oh yes, very policy-based and not political at all. Atchom (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Because no Quaker has ever accepted a knighthood, have they? Oh no! So what being a Quaker has to do with disliking honours I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  You misunderstand me, Necro; we traditionally refuse the use of honorifics (not the honors themselves). Why should we say "Your Majesty" to somebody who is not necessarily majestic, "His Grace" of somebody who may be graceless, etc.? Mr., Miss, Mrs. are all forms of "master" and "mistress", and I call no man "master". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I should point out that Sir Ben Kingsley appears to be rather infamous for insisting on the use of his title! So this is clearly not universal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• comment - Long discussion at Template talk:Infobox person here, informal RfC here. Adding "Sir" to the name line seems to have been generally opposed and it does not look like there has been any change in consensus. IMHO, (i.e. I actually don't have a dog in this fight) this should be settled at Template talk:Infobox person, its the actual "decision switch" where the honorifics get sorted and displayed.There should not be mass changes across Wikipedia to push one version or the other. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There were a few editors who had very strong feelings against Sir in the Name field. One made thousands of edits over time to establish a fait accompli and was called out for it. Another was blocked for doing sockpuppetry on point. A lot of the arguments against are also not policy-based but are based on a general dislike of titles (indeed there are several here). Atchom (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment it forms part of the name in the lead. Walco1 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The title is not part of the actual name, it's a prefix, as you already stated above. Also, you appear to be making a majority of the comments here. Try not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. – notwally (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle. I used to think otherwise (mainly along the lines that "Sir" isn't really a name), and still don't believe the argument for either side is particularly clear-cut, but I do think now that, on balance, "Sir" (and "Dame") should be in |name= rather than |honorific_prefix=. A few thoughts:

1. Stylistically, it looks a bit awkward to write e.g. "The Right Honourable Sir" in |honorific_prefix=, which could give the false impression that it's a single honorific, so splitting it over the two parameters would help. It would also correspond to the cadence of natural language: for instance, if you listen to Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker of the Commons) calling members to speak in Parliament, he says "The Right Honourable, Sir Keir Starmer" instead of "The Right Honourable Sir, Keir Starmer".
2. I note that MOS:SIR does not explicitly specify where in the infobox it should go, so under the current reading it could go in either parameter. But, as pointed out above, "Sir" is already consistently bolded in the lead, so it makes sense that the infobox could mimic this use by putting it in |name=.
3. Some of the previous discussions touched on knighthoods/damehoods being "name-changing" honours – i.e. it changes the recipient's name, in a way, and manifests itself by the fact that knights/dames are customarily referred to as "Sir Ian" or "Dame Judi" (although we do not use this convention on Wikipedia). So I argue that it is not technically wrong to treat "Sir"/"Dame" as part of the name. In addition, although not entirely analogous, all peers with biographical infoboxes already have "The Lord/Lady/Baroness/etc. Smith" in |name=. If we're content to go that far with our treatment of forms of address, perhaps adding titles of knighthood shouldn't be too controversial in comparison.

Given that I don't think MOS:SIR actually says anything about where to put "Sir", however, I see the question here as whether any change should be made to the MOS to standardize the practice across the encyclopedia. I wouldn't be opposed to doing so, but equally I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that Template:Infobox person is probably the better place to put the guideline. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal: the line "name" should be used for names, the line "honorific_prefix" should be used for honorific prefices, and "Sir" is an honorific prefix, not part of a person's name. The attempts to argue otherwise above are striking in their incoherence and lack of any identifiable logical structure beyond bare assertion. --JBL (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, concur that fact that the title "Sir" is an honorific not part of an individual's name and as such should be dealt with as such. No different to Admiral or Field Marshall or even "Hon.". Potentially the thin end of a wedge into the future. Dan arndt (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as above and per OrangeMike in particular - name is for names only, Sir is a honorific and goes in the honorific prefix line. GiantSnowman 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal: this kind of privileging of one type of title above others is unjustifiable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Omnipaedista, Orangemike and others. Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, hence we must not privilege some country-specific honorifics over others. Let them all be treated equally. Gawaon (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Completely agree. The alternative looks utterly ludicrous. Some anti-title editors have been pushing this for years. It's bolded in the first line of the article for a reason. Nobody is privileging anything over anything. When someone is knighted they are forever after Sir John (or whatever). The title has effectively become part of their name (no bickering about legalities, please; effectively it is the case). It is not in the same category as "The Honourable" or "Dr" or "Professor" or "General" or whatever, which is why we bold Sir/Dame in the first line and do not even include most others. It's not "the thin end of the wedge" because this has been the convention for years and nobody has argued with any support that any other honorifics should be treated this way. NPOV arguments are clearly ludicrous, since titles are a fact; they just show anti-title POV. We all know that most countries do not use them, but for the UK and other Commonwealth countries that retain them they are a fact of life and should not be relegated because other countries (and some of their citizens) don't approve of them. That is the clear POV here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's striking how many of the comments here are not policy-based but are explicitly based on a particular political view. Atchom (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Precisely. Too many "I don't like titles so we shouldn't emphasise them despite the fact they are emphasised in their country of origin" POV statements. With the laughable claim that using titles somehow conflicts with NPOV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  And, frankly, it beggars belief that Walco1 was accused of vandalism and threatened with a block for these edits. Experienced editors (and administrators) really should know better. It is most certainly not vandalism, the threat needs to be retracted and an apology issued. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded, particularly as he was merely reversing a mass-edit campaign which was disruptive. Atchom (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with the proposal and with Necrothesp above. Comments referring to things like "a silly ritual with a sword" reveal the anti-titles bias behind a lot of this. As has been said above, these titles just are treated differently in real life from things like "Dr" and "The Right Honourable", regardless of how Wikipedians think they should be treated. No one is going around referring to "the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak" except in the most formal of contexts, but "Sir Keir Starmer" is what he is called on a regular basis. (Random example: the current lead story in the "Politics" section of the BBC News website.) We record how things operate in the real world, not how we think they should work according to our prejudices and biases. Proteus (Talk) 14:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Anti-titles bias" what does that even mean? I have a title, I am quite proud of it, I get miffed if people don't use it in the appropriate context; but it's not part of my name. What this seems to actually be about is British monarchists making fools of themselves, as they are wont to do. Everyone everywhere in the world calls the man Pope Francis (unlike, say, Kier Starmer, who does not get "Sir"'d outside of the UK) but no one thinks "Pope" is part of his name because that would be ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Anti-titles bias" what does that even mean? You're clearly being facetious rather than trying to engage in debate, but taking your question at face value, it's people who don't approve of traditional monarchic practices (like knighting people and giving them peerages) trying to impose their views on the rest of the world by treating such practices with contempt and ridiculing those who don't (by making such comments as "British monarchists making fools of themselves, as they are wont to do"). We get it - you don't think he should be called "Sir Keir Starmer". That's absolutely fine - you can think what you want. But WP reflects reality, and reality is that that is what he is called, regardless of your personal views.

  unlike, say, Kier Starmer, who does not get "Sir"'d outside of the UK If it's a country-specific issue we're talking about here, then surely the practices of the country he lives in are what matters? But your assertion isn't even true - another random example is this press release from yesterday where the US State Department calls him "Sir Keir Starmer". (Note not "The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer", highlighting the distinction I pointed out between "The Right Honourable" and "Sir".) Proteus (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Interestingly, the BBC style guide notes that "Starmer, Keir prefers not to be called 'Sir Keir'." Gawaon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is nothing in any of your comments that appears to address the subject of this discussion. I get it, you're a monarchist, you feel very deeply in the preservation of feudalistic traditions for determining which people are inferior to which other people; millions of Britons seem to share these views, and I would not dream of asking you to change them. But they have nothing at all to do with the question under consideration here. --JBL (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose OrangeMike, JBL, and Omnipaedista have astutely laid out the reasons why this silly suggestion ought not to be implemented. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The award of an honour doesn't change a person's forename(s); the recipient may use their pre-nominal title – though A clergyman of the Church of England does not use the prefix 'Sir' before his name(Debrett's) – and encourage or insist on its use by others, but their first name remains the same. Elton John's first name remains Elton and Judi Dench's first name is not Dame. NebY (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • And Marshall Mathers' name is not Eminem, but that's still what we put in the name field of the infobox! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    Elton John:

    | honorific-prefix = [[Knight Bachelor|Sir]]<!--Not an OVERLINK violation when link is piped-->

    | name = Elton John

    | honorific_suffix = {{postnominals|country=GBR|size=100%|CH|CBE}} NebY (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes but that's for completely unrelated reasons; Elton John is not a pseudonym. --JBL (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Knightoods/Damehoods awarded by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (and wider Commonwealth realms) are name changing titles and used widely in those countries as well as in common use as such. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  In my experience they are used the same was as 'Lord' etc is - and I note nobody is proposing to try and include that as a 'name'... GiantSnowman 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why would anyone propose what is already practice on WP? See Patrick Vallance, where his title as a Baron is appropriately used in both the lead and infobox, also note that as his name has now altered to that of a Baron, the Sir has been removed appropriately. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? Peers always have their titles as names in infobox. Atchom (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, the reference cited by Nford24 as evidence for "name changing titles" says: "If public support for the honours system is to be maintained over the long term, it needs to have a clearer, simpler structure ... Name-changing honours are especially baffling, and carry connotations of social divisiveness. Simon Jenkins and Peter Harper were among those distinguished people who were delighted with the recognition of a knighthood but unhappy at using the title; a number of members of the House of Lords exhibit a similar sort of discomfort and avoid using their titles. Increasingly, titles appear to be an embarrassment rather than a cause for celebration. As we have noted, many other Commonwealth countries have abandoned knighthoods and other name-changing titles, without damaging their public life in any noticeable way." So it's not exactly an uncritical endorsement and, despite using the phrase "name-changing honours" once then immediately goes on to talk about "titles" which may or may not be used. Gawaon (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  You’ve also specifically cut out the part where it discusses knighthoods. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I did cut the sentence "We found that few people have any grasp of the difference between a CB and a CBE, or why some people become GBEs, some KBEs and some are simply Knights Bachelor", which seemed less relevant, though I can wholeheartedly agree with it. (I too don't have the slightest idea what the difference might be, or why anyone would care.) Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  “I too don't have the slightest idea what the difference might be, or why anyone would care.” Yet that very subject is why we’re all here taking about the correct placement of ‘Sir/Dame’ with the name on the name line. My reference demonstrates that people don’t know or understand the subject matter an any great extent and you’ve just reinforced. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  And that is precisely why those of us who do know the difference add them to articles. Because this is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias impart knowledge. Admitting your ignorance and appearing to be proud of it hardly strengthens your arguments in a debate relating to an encyclopaedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Simon Jenkins and Peter Harper were among those distinguished people who were delighted with the recognition of a knighthood but unhappy at using the title; a number of members of the House of Lords exhibit a similar sort of discomfort and avoid using their titles. Increasingly, titles appear to be an embarrassment rather than a cause for celebration. What utter cherrypicking. So, because a couple of people don't like titles and shout about it, that by extension means that they're increasingly an embarrassment? What complete drivel. What about the vast majority of people who proudly accept their titles without braying about it? I should mention (if it's necessary to do so) that it's extremely bad form to emphasise that you have any sort of title or honorific, so not using them is actually polite (just as it's rude to sign yourself as "Mr John Smith" or "Dr John Smith" rather than simple "John Smith"). That doesn't mean you're embarrassed by them. It just means you know what good manners are. Which I should hope most recipients of a title do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This would conflate hono(u)rifics and names; the idea of "anti-title POV" is without logical foundation. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Honorifics" is spelt the same way everywhere! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Nationality

Could someone provide some clarification on MOS:NATIONALITY? There is currently an ongoing RfC at Talk:Nina Dobrev, and according to the guidelines, she should be described as both Canadian and Bulgarian since she was a citizen of both countries when she became notable. Some editors, however, have argued that if she didn't gain her notability in Bulgaria, her Bulgarian nationality should be omitted.

The guidelines mention that the context for the person's notability includes the nationalities they had at the time they became notable, but no relevant examples for cases like Dobrev's (e.g. Pedro Pascal and Kim Cattrall) are given afterwards which allows room for various interpretations of the section's first sentence. --Coconutyou3 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles

There are two questions:

1. Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
2. If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
   A. X is an American retired actor.
   B. X is a retired American actor.

Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• C - Neither Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• No and Neither: the order of adjectives in English is not something that we ought to be prescribing in the MOS, it's a matter of grammar. Option B is the standard order, whereas option A sounds distinctly odd to this native speaker. As to whether "retired" or "former" should be in the opening sentence, I would say no as a general rule – though there are no doubt exceptional cases where "former"/"retired" is actually a defining characteristic, such as for a person currently notable in one field and formerly notable in a totally different capacity. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Previous discussion on same question here (2022). Schazjmd (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option A is generally wrong: A proper adjective (e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref: Adjective Word Order at Study.com. Nurg (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant. Gawaon (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former" is needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as former political prisoner) and the word former is leading to possible ambiguity, it should always be possible to remove the ambiguity without making it harder to read, e.g. Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner, not Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist or Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist. Mgp28 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• No And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-bold formatting of quotation marks in lead

Where in the MoS does it address the proper formatting of names that include quotation marks, such as Clarence Charles "Ducky" Nash?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the name is properly formatted as Clarence Charles "Ducky" Nash (as opposed to Clarence Charles "Ducky" Nash)

I've just had someone revert an edit I made to B. J. McLeod, calling it improper. I had changed the formatting to resemble the first example, and the editor returned it to the second.

If, indeed, I was correct, I'd like to point this person in the right direction, but I can't seem to find the guideline one way or the other.

Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDQUOTE ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 1980fast (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Arabic names

I think we need to amend the MOS:FULLNAME section relating to Arabic names that cites the example of Muammar Gaddafi. Contrary to names in most other countries, Arabic names do not include middle names, but rather a chain of names. While although Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi would have had this name on his government documents, it is not really their name per se; Muhammad would be his father, and Abu Minyar would be his paternal grandfather. It is good to see that MOS:FULLNAME was aware of this and recommends avoiding the mention of the full Arabic name in the opening sentence, but it still nevertheless seems to encourage its inclusion in the very next sentence in the opening paragraph. I think this is still redundant and it should be amended to recommend its inclusion only in the body, or also in the lede as a footnote. Arabic biographies are being cluttered with these redundant full names so this amendment important in my opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)