Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎ | Biography

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asbestos (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 1 May 2005 (→‎Alternative 1: Explanation of my vote.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Dear Leader Kim Jong-il

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

The alternatives listed below can be ranked according to preference. You are encouraged to respond under each alternative with your signature and timestamp (please use four tildes: ~~~~) giving your order of preference for that alternative, for example:

Alternative 1:

  • First choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 2:

  • Third choice, comments ~~~~

Alternative 3:

  • Second choice, comments ~~~~

You do not have to rank more than one choice. If you wish to vote for only one or two, for instance, just respond under those headings with your ranking of those alternatives. Alternatives which you do not rank will automatically be given a lower ranking than those you ranked explicitly. If you do respond under multiple alternatives, and have no preference between two or more, you may rank them with the same preference. Unsigned votes will not be counted.

After May 14, 2005 (UTC), voting will be closed and the results counted using the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method to establish a consensus. If you do not understand what this means, please refer to the article itself and the more general article on Condorcet methods of vote counting. In a nutshell, these approaches seek to find the solution which has the least opposition, rather than the strongest plurality, therefore being the most acceptable alternative to the largest majority of the community by common consent.

Question

Should biographical entries in the Wikipedia begin with a prefixed style of formal address?

Alternative 1

Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article. For instance:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II...
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI...
Dear Leader Kim Jong-il...
  • Of course. Although I'm not sure that Kim Jong-il can properly be said to have a style in the same way as the Queen and the Pope. This is the quickest and simplest way of presenting the information that someone has a style. It draws least attention to it (as the alternative is a long sentence or paragraph describing a style - which is normally irrelevant to the biographical article). It is also what we are currently doing - a method that has built up over time, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If this is your first choice, please state so in those terms. Whig 08:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear - stop trying to corral the vote.
My intention is only to clarify the vote, not corral it. I take the wording above to mean that Alternative 1 is jguk's First choice and his comments to the other alternatives (unless ranked explicitly) indicate no preference for any of them. This means he will be considered to have ranked them below the first alternative, but not in any preference to one another. Whig 23:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. Maurreen 08:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First (and only) choice. Keep their formal styles, in particular those used by the press and foreign dignitaries (which therefore means that I do not think any random person who invents a style for himself deserves to get called by it on WP). — Asbestos | Talk 11:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • People are suggesting that my comments don't match my vote. I disagree. My definition of "formal style" is that in my comment above, and under this definition my comments agree with the vote. I don't believe that if Sollog were to start calling himself "his most bodacious mesiah" that would count as a formal style, as noone else would formally call him that. However, since I don't actually believe that a vote carried out in this manner will achieve anything, I'm not particularly fussed how my vote is interpreted... — Asbestos | Talk 11:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First and only choice. Again, this is a non-optional, non-issue. The rest of the world does it, why shouldn't we?? Bratschetalk random 13:16, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Though I might think Kim Jong-il is a nut, that is the title he uses as the North Korean leader, and we have to show that. Zscout370 (talk) 14:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. Jonathunder 15:00, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. Note that some votes like that of Asbestos and Jguk are not really for this option: a vote for this means that "any random person" does get a style. Instead, styles should be mentioned rather than used (Use-mention_distinction). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:24, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • First choice . BTW the Kim one is wrong. He may use that, but the diplomatic world doesn't. We have got to use the official diplomatic one, not the 'makey-up' one of a dictator used by his supporters. FearÉIREANN 18:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. Wikipedia does not, at this time, follow Formal Style, although I'm trying to change this.[1] Since we don't accord the respect of Formal Style to everyone, it should not be enforced solely for dignitaries.--ghost 22:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. Neutralitytalk 02:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. These are style of address, and WP is not addressing anyone. Flyers13 00:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2

Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided, for instance:

Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader...

If you choose this alternative, please specify the rule or convention by which you believe exceptions should be carved out; should formal styles be mandatorily prefixed in some biographical articles, optionally in some cases, improperly in others?

  • This is a non-option. Someone either has a formal style or not. There is no possible controversy here - it is just a case of looking for and supplying reliable sources as to whether someone does or does not have a formal style (in the way that the Queen and Pope do). Because of our (unwritten) policy that disputed info must be backed up by a source to be included in an article - alternative 1 already achieves what is sought here, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 2. Whig 08:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear - stop trying to corral the vote.
  • Second Choice Though I voted for the first option, if people are truely offended with the title, or with a situation like that of Kim Jong-il, then this will be a better option. Zscout370 (talk) 14:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. Jonathunder 14:59, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. Incidentally, per Zscout, I am "truly offended" by the use of the style "His Holiness" in reference to a Catholic Pope. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:26, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Third choice. BTW you may be offended, but that is a POV and wikipedia doesn't do POVs. The issue is - is that their style? Whether some people like it or not is irrelevant. FearÉIREANN 18:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • With the Pope, he is address by most Catholics and national leaders as the Holy Father. As Jtdirl pointed out, only the North Korean people call Kim Jong-il Dear Leader. So if people do not like the first option, then that is why this is my second choice. As long as the style in included in the article, perhaps in the first few lines, I will be happy. Zscout370 (talk) 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth choice. I don't like this option unless someone can come up with a NPOV way of carving out the exceptions, but I prefer it to having to use the prefixed-style in all cases even in extreme cases. Whig 21:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. This is an attempt at political correctness. Although well intentioned, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."--ghost 23:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. An appalling POV nightmare. Either do it for everyone or for no one, whether popes or KKK Grand Imperial Wizards. Flyers13 00:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth choice. Neutralitytalk 02:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative 3

No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. For instance:

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, styled Her Majesty...
Pope Benedict XVI, styled His Holiness...
Kim Jong-il, styled Dear Leader...
  • This is nonsense. Why say "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom..." when we can just say the much shorter "Her Majesty Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom...". This option (I can't bring myself to say "alternative" 3 as you can't have more than 2 alternatives) will just make articles look naff. Also, it's a wholly artificial construct, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 3. Whig 08:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote.
  • Second choice. Maurreen 08:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Jonathunder 14:46, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • First choice. This usage, of course, follows all printed encyclopedias and respected news sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:31, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I've never seen this style adopted in any printed encyclopaedia or any news source (respected or otherwise), jguk 17:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • A reluctant second choice. It is also wrong to say people are addressed that way. There are a number of methods of address in different contexts (Her Majesty, Your Majesty, Ma'am, Your Holiness, His Holiness, Holy Father, Most Holy Father, etc). The correct term is styled, because it is an official formal style (ie, His Holiness, Her Majesty, His Excellency, the Right Honourable, etc), not an address that we are talking about. It is an important difference. FearÉIREANN 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. The examples given should not be taken as formulas that must be followed precisely, so long as the formal style is provided in the introductory paragraph as prescribed. So the comment by FearÉIREANN above that we should use the precise term styled does not require a different convention than this one. Whig 21:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair point, Whig. My reluctant vote was reluctant for different reasons but it sets my mind a bit that we will be careful to use correct terminology in practice. (Thanks, BTW for all your hard work, Whig.) FearÉIREANN 21:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. Neutralitytalk 22:50, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • First choice. See above.--ghost 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. Don't waste intro paragraph space on a relatively minor point. Flyers13 00:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 4

No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3. Please specify the convention you prefer and explain why you think it is preferable.

  • First choice. Maurreen 08:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Articles should probably include the formal style, but that need not be mandated. It shouldn't be used in front of the name, but anywhere is OK.
  • Second choice would be exactly what Maurreen proposes above. Jonathunder 14:48, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • I can't see how this "alternative" will help. Option 1 is the quickest, simplest and easiest way, and has the benefit of being the one we currently use, jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 4. Whig 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote.
Whig's not corraling anyone. If you choose not to vote, it's your loss. But then don't whine if you lose.--ghost 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. In agreement with Maurreen also. The use of style might be treated as an "interesting fact" in a biographical entry. Probably mentioned in the initial paragraph (after the first sentence), but not automatically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • Fifth choce. Unworkable, illogical and impractical in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN 18:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Second choice. This option would allow the formal style to be given elsewhere in the article than the introductory paragraph, for instance. Whig 21:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fifth choice. I can't think of a better option.--ghost 23:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Fifth choice means you think that this is your least preferred alternative. Your statement above that you "can't think of a better option" suggested that some clarification might be necessary. Whig 11:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice. Include it, but bury it in the text somewhere as appropriate to the individual case. Flyers13 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second choice. Concur with Maurreen and Flyers13. Neutralitytalk 02:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative 5

None of the above. You may rank this choice first or after any alternatives that you find acceptable. If this alternative wins over all others, the survey results should be set aside and the question should be given further discussion or ultimately archived.

  • Oh great - anarchy! jguk 08:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unless you specify otherwise, your statement above will be taken as "no preference" for Alternative 5. Whig 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My comments are quite clear, stop trying to corral the vote.
Whig's not corraling anyone. If you choose not to vote, it's your loss. But then don't whine if you lose.--ghost 23:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • A deeply reluctant fourth choice, only because one if even worse. FearÉIREANN 18:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. While I think it would be a shame if this alternative wins, I consider the use of prefixed-style to be POV in at least some cases, and if used with exceptions subject to endless disputes over when it is and is not, therefore those options are undesirable to me. Whig 21:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fourth Choice. If we must choose between offending one group vs. another, this option will offend all equally.--ghost 23:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How about this: if this option is picked, then should the different pages decide this issue for themselves? Zscout370 (talk) 22:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Third choice. Meh. Just for voting completeness. Flyers13 00:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third choice. If this option wins, we could consider removing mention of these styles from the conventions. Maurreen 07:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any discussion relating to the survey itself and not intended to indicate a preference for a particular alternative should go here.

Votes should begin with a * and not a # because of the nature of the way we are tabulating these. Also, it is very important that when responding under multiple alternatives, you clearly indicate your first, second, third, preference as such. Where commentary appears without a designation of a preference order, we will have to count that as a no-preference (equivalent to no response under that heading). Whig 08:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's all this - first choice, second choice, etc.. This seems like an attempt to corral the vote so that whatever comments people make, Whig will count up the votes using whatever way gives him a "majority" for the decision he wants. WP usually operates through consensus - I am concerned that the way this "vote" is being conducted is attempt to impose the political beliefs of some on the community, and is not a bona fide attempt to gauge consensus (which is easy to gauge by seeing what WP practice actually is), jguk 09:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fan-fucking-tastic. We have a vote using a method we don't understand and get told what is consensus by the vote organisers! Of course, I could guess from Whig's name that he is just politicking! jguk 09:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this survey has been in discussion for a week on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and that while many different opinions with respect to the framework and wording having been expressed and taken into consideration over that time, jguk has been the lone voice of objection against this survey taking place at all. Whig 10:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My opposition is to the lack of attempt at consensus. Indeed, the voting rules established above are against WP policy. Policy is made by consensus, which first is attempted without a vote, and if one is needed, is supported by 75-80% of those voting. The so-called "rules" to this page could see you try to claim something as "policy" despite only 25% of those voting supporting it. This is not the way we do things, jguk 10:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I object to the format of this survey. The Wikipedia:Survey guidelines are designed so that surveys reflect consensus. This survey seems designed to find whichever alternative is "hated the least", and make it into written policy. My understanding of Wikipedia's policy has always been that policy is only made when there is clear concsensus. If none of the alternatives acheive consensus, there is not a project-wide policy. -- Creidieki 11:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Though I think that the format of this poll is quite odd from various ones that I have seen, unless something is suggested then this is what we got. Though, I personally think Whig is trying to make every vote clear, not trying to corral votes into one column. Zscout370 (talk) 15:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The voting system followed in this poll is similar that of Instant-runoff voting which is used by the U.S. Green Party and the New Mexico Republican Party for their primaries, as well as some parlimentary elections in Australia and Ireland. It has been suggested for use in the U.S. Presidential elections. Following these guidelines, there will not be policy set by a 25% vote. The vote can be retallied repeatedly until the % needed is reached. If you don't like it, Whig worked hard putting it together, so help him improve it. Ignorance is no excuse.--ghost 22:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This survey is using a Condorcet method which avoids many of the serious flaws of IRV. Please read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Whig 22:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is this: Under each Alternative, there will be two columns: Support and Oppose. Users who like the idea sign underneath the support, and those who hate the idea can go to oppose and sign. Thanks for the little lesson on this voting system, but I got lost while reading how it works. I would also like to direct Wikipedians to the Wikipedia:Template_standardisation contest to see the suggestion I gave in action. Zscout370 (talk) 23:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Zscout, the survey is underway already, so changes are not desirable to the frame at this time. Preferential voting is not a big deal, IMHO, and this method is more likely to produce a consensus where we might have two or more polarized positions with simultaneously strong support and opposition. Whig 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If voters like Jtdirl, Asbestos, or others wish to vote for use of style only where the style is used "widely", "diplomatically", "inoffensively, or according to some other limiting criteria, they really should be voting for Alternative 2 instead! Alternative 1, as helpfully provided by Whig, is for the formal style to be used in all cases where it is know--i.e. Kim Jong-Il, Anti-Popes, Discordian Popes, etc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 2005 May 1 (UTC) (sorry I failed to sign initially; I removed the comments requesting the signature just to improve flow, not to slight Whig).

I'd like to thank Whig for putting the survey together. Maurreen 05:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the survey rules state that, "Alternatives which you do not rank will automatically be given a lower ranking than those you ranked explicitly," where a voter has ranked his/her First choice, Second choice, and then skipped Third choice before ranking Fourth choice and Fifth choice I will consider the unranked option Third choice unless there is substantial objection. This is what Neutralitytalk has done at the moment. I think the voter's intention is unambiguous. If someone had given just First choice and Fifth choice then the unranked alternatives should be considered as ranked below first and above fifth, but without any preference between the unranked alternatives. Please comment here if you wish. Whig 11:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's wholly unacceptable that we have a vote and then one user decides, based on his own favoured formula, what the result is. We can all read and we can all see whether there is any particular consensus for any decision being made. There's no need to override normal WP policy on this, jguk 11:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles&oldid=13082739"