Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes

This is a debate about a controversial issue. To avoid further wikistress, a serious and non-involved tone is preferred. If in doubt, err on the side of pomposity. Please don't use this page to discuss whether wikipedia should use honorific prefixes in biographies. If somebody does, please move their comments to the archives, or revert if too troublesome.

For off-topic and archived discussion, see /archive.

Help needed

I suggested this interim policy at the on-going ratification poll after it became obvious that the last round of debates and polls failed to bring agreement on the issue. So far, users Mackensen, John Kenney, Whig and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (on his talk page) have expressed general support.

My idea for moving the stalemate on this issue forward is to research, collect and digest information about honorifics and how and when they are used in various kinds of sources, occasions and places. Another useful thing would be an overview of how the issue developed on Wikipedia and what kinds of arguments users on both sides of the issue used to advance their viewpoint.

Although the recent controversy was concerned primarily with styles, I believe that the study should include all honorifics. The recent poll has shown that many people don't understand the fine differences between between various kinds and flavours of honorifics and their use, and we certainly don't know enough about how it works and what it means in different countries and cultures. I'll readily admit that I'm baffled. And of course, styles are often used in conjunction with other honorifics, so any study of styles would really be incomplete without them.

My hope is that by learning more about honorifics, we will come to agree on more issues relevant to this guideline, and just maybe we'll manage to agree on what its final text should be. For this work to be respected as neutral and benevolent, we need contributors from both sides of the debate. If we manage to write a common proposal, there's a fair chance that community will support our argument. If not, we'll have plenty of material for several good articles. If we succeed in carrying out a common project about an issue we seriously dissagree about, and do it in a civil and collegial manner, that we'll be an achievement in itself.

The project will require a lot of research, sifting, pruning and other grunt work. We all have do things in real life and this will take a considerable amount of time. If several contributors from both sides of the debate are willing to help, I'll set up the page for the project and try to invest as much time as I can afford to. Zocky 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People who are willing to help

...

If there is a more widespread support for this path, I will replace the current text of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes with the proposed interim policy and set up a page for the debate.

My idea is to collect and digest applicable information from Wikipedia and the real world before turning our attention to proposed solution(s). If there are at least three editors from both sides willing to participate and put in the time and effort to research and document the issue (and behave civilly and colegially while doing it), we have a good chance of moving this debate forward a great deal. Zocky 06:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposition. I really wish we had a clear solution for styles, but as we don't already, I think this is a good way to go until we can all agree. This should satisfy both sides (for now), and we can buy some time to make a final decision. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is not acceptable to me, because it does not yet address the constructive criticisms I made at the ratification poll page. I would be willing to support this effort, as I said there, but my concerns have not been as yet addressed. Whig 08:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address your concerns on your talk page. I hope we can work it out so that you find it acceptable. Zocky 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

The proposed interim policy hopes to be acceptable to as many users as possible. Here are some issues that were considered in its wording.

Current status of the debate

There's no agreement on whether and which honorifics should be used.
There's a general agreement that not all kinds of honorific prefixes are equally controversial.
There's no agreement about whether we need consensus to remove them or to add them in the first place.
Many people, especially those from countries where honorifics are not used, are not familiar with distinctions between different kinds of honorifics.

Voting methods for the first poll

The wording allows both for a simple up or down vote, if we put forward a single proposal, and approval voting otherwise. Preference voting has proven controversial (at least on this issue) and just to avoid useless arguments, we shouldn't opt for it unless we have a good reason.

New articles

The wording implies that the use of honorifics in new articles is up to whoever writes them. We can make it explicit, if needed.

Time frame

The time frame for this cycle (end by 25 June) takes into consideration the fact that July is a common time for summer holidays in northern hemisphere, meaning that many editors will be off Wikipedia.

What if the second poll ends with between 50% and 75% support?

We're back where we're now. We can then decide how to proceed. We can return to edit warring, organize a new debate(s) or new poll(s), or we can extend the interim agreement and go do something else, hoping that other people will resolve it in time. There's no deadline.

Suggestion for simplification

The following section of the style guide instigated much else.

Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate. For example:

Sir Elton John

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa

St John the Apostle; St Francis of Assisi; St Stephen

Reverend Al Sharpton

The Right Honourable Tony Blair

His Holiness Pope John Paul II

Dato' Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad

Exceptions to this rule include cases where titles or honorifics have been transformed into universally known names, as with Genghis Khan, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa. Even the articles on Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin follow the general rule above.

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for their use in article titles.

My main suggestion would be to have an up or down vote on just this, whether to have this in the style guide or not.

My thinking is that such a vote would be simple while still allowing flexibility. Maurreen 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that people would rather shout around than invest some work. If noone is willing to help with preparing a new proposal, we'll have to do exactly what you propose. Zocky 08:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've just had a vote, and it was non-conclusive. There's no reason to suppose another vote on the same point would be any different. Incidentally, the Jesus article does not use the term Jesus Christ (last time I looked it mentioned it once, but every so often it gets removed). Kind regards, jguk 21:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; though it showed that the above was NOT supported by most users (and the above text was put in place without consensus) it was not in and of itself a consensus. A referendum in order to establish whether or not styles should be included in articles is currently underway. If it fails, it will revert to "anarchy", or "each page chooses on its own", which is a nicer way of saying "permanent deadlock", because if we cannot get a Wikiwide policy passed an individual page is likely going to have a hard time getting a consensus (75%) as well, if they have more than a couple editors. Titanium Dragon 03:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Permanent deadlock" as you call it happens all over the place on WP. Indeed, WP:NPOV notes that we accept such inconsistencies. In the past each page chose on its own, and whilst there were disputes, they were never as great as this one. Also, a site-wide policy means there are "winners" and "losers", which does not help harmony on WP. Each page on its own is the closest to a happy medium as we are likely to get. Kind regards, jguk 08:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of people who have said you edit in bad faith and the fact that you unilaterally changed the biographical guidelines page leading to this mess I would say you are opposing this. I think the very way people view things (complaining about honorable being added to Hilary Clinton's article, His Excellency to President Bush's, or Dear Leader to Kim Jong-il's article) shows that styles are POV. You dispute this because you want the Pope to be referred to as his holiness. However, you have never had the majority, and the status quo before yours and a few other users' push for adding styles was that no one had them. Thus, if you cannot get 3/4ths of Wikipedians to support your way, it should be removed. And over half preferred not to have styles appended.

The fact that so many Wikipedians have spoken about using styles not being NPOV alone should preclude their usage. Your RfCs against opponents of yours, despite the fact that you are the one with a half dozen accusations of editing in bad faith spanning a number of articles, shows that you do not truly value the input of others and simply want to push the usage of style onto Wikipedians. You speak of winners and losers, which shows how you are thinking about this - rather than thinking about what is best or what is neutral, you wish to win. Titanium Dragon 07:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)