This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Roots music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to roots, folk and traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago48 comments18 people in discussion
The general consensus is to use Nairne, keeping in mind that there could obviously be some necessary exceptions in order to resolve ambiguity (e.g., if the first name had to be used because something was phrased with ambiguous proximity to a different "Nairne").
The primary rationale for otherwise excluding titles/first names (e.g., "Lady" or "Carolina/Caroline," as some argued) is via MOS:SURNAME, which is a reflection of the prevailing community-wide consensus toward the vast majority of articles in the vast majority of circumstances. It could be overridden with clear local consensus to do so, but that does not appear to be the case here.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Eric Corbett: I see your point that "Th(e)re are several Nairnes and Oliphants", but that's actually a pretty common case, most biographies of any detail will also write about parents, spouses, siblings, and children with the same last name. And yet WP:LASTNAME is clear that we should use the last name to refer to the person after the first mention. I chose "Oliphant", since it seems she wrote most of her work before becoming Lady Nairne, but there is another alternative that the original author of this article chose, which is to use "Lady Nairne" - would you agree to that? --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Ms", "Miss", or "Mx" or by a pronoun.
It explains why:
Generally speaking, subjects should not be referred to by their given name. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which is not relevant—even if true.
There is the additional issue that the article subject is female. Wikipedia:Writing about women#Use surnames says that repeatedly using only her first name to refer to a woman "can serve to infantilize her". In contrast, the males in the article, excepting only "Carolina's father Laurence", are referred to by their last name: "Burns", "Purdie", "Nairne". "Carolina and Burns", which Eric Corbett just changed from "Nairne and Burns", is a particular contrast, using the woman's first name and the man's last name.
Also, though it shouldn't be the deciding factor, there is the subject's own usage. The last "Nairne" in the article is in a quote from the subject herself, in a letter to a friend, referring to her husband. Even in choosing a pseudonym for herself, she chose "Mrs. Bogan". It doesn't seem she was used to publically referring to adults by their first names, so I doubt she would welcome such familiarity from an encyclopedia.
Caroline. "Writing about women" is an essay, with all the lack of weight it deserves. For several reasons Caroline is better, with just one of those reasons being clarity. It's not just here that the first name is a better choice, but such crusading changes overlook the benefits and context. One size does not fit all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
What are the benefits, beyond the nebulous claim of clarity? Is there anything about this topic which makes it different from most other biographies, where we use WP:LASTNAME?Pburka (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Aside from your seemingly misguided belief that the MoS is the last stop shop for grammatical excellence, can you provide any benefits of not using her first name? CassiantoTalk22:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Surely those who want to deviate from the standard ought to be the ones to explain the benefits of ignoring rules, but the benefits of using her last name include: 1. consistency with the rest of the project; 2. an appropriately formal tone for an encyclopedia; and 3. consistency within the article itself (all men are referred to by last name). Pburka (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
You have conveniently ignored her father who is referrred to by his first name, and her husband who is referred to by his relationship as "her husband". And I have given my reasons for deviating from "the standard" - which is just a recommendation. Richerman(talk)23:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Status quo. Let's first of all remind ourselves that WP:LASTNAME is merely a guide, not the letter of the law, not helped by nonsense such as that spouted by The Drover's Wife that using first names is unencyclopedic. But the situation is rather more subtle than GRuban presents. Carolina wrote all of her published work anonymously, most of it before her marriage, when she would have been called Carolina Oliphant. But it wasn't until after her death that her work was attributed to her married name and title, i.e. Carolina Nairne, Baroness Nairne. It's about time GRuban abandoned his misguided crusade. Let's also remind ourselves that Lords quite commonly use only their last name. EricCorbett20:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, don't get how "that Lords quite commonly use only their last name" is an argument that we should use the Lady's first name. It would seem to be an argument to use the last name. Could you explain? --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I will, although I shouldn't have to. You said as part of your evidence that "The last 'Nairne' in the article is in a quote from the subject herself, in a letter to a friend, referring to her husband." Her husband was Lord Nairne, geddit? EricCorbett21:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Carolina Eric Corbett's argument makes a lot of sense. Also it does give sensible advice in Wikipedia:Writing about women where it says "First names are sometimes needed for clarity. For example, when writing about a family with the same surname, after the initial introductions they can all be referred to by first names. A first name might also be used when a surname is long and double-barreled, and its repetition would be awkward to read and write. When a decision is made to use first names for editorial reasons, use them for both women and men". Her father's is referred to by his first name, as "Oliphant" would be confusing, and for all the other males mentioned there is no reason to use their first names as they're not of the same familyand only mentioned in passing, so it would just cause confusion. The one exception is her husband who has the same names as his son and so is, quite correctly, referred to as just "her husband". Richerman(talk)22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nairne as being the proper usage of marital last name which she would have used during her lifetime. Meanwhile the article is purple-prose ridden a bit at this point. Wikipedia is not literature - nor ought it pretend to be. No other member of the family is dealt with in detail, so we are not going to have confusion rampant. Only in places where confusion is likely ought first names be used. Collect (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Where is the purple prose, or do you mean that there are too many long words that you don't understand? Or are you so unused to seeing competently written prose on Wikipedia? And what has the level of detail other members of her family are dealt with got to do with the price of fish? EricCorbett15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Um -- can you show me two people with the same grandparents who are not cousins or closer? Does saying that two people with the same grandparents are cousins add anything substantive to an encyclopedia article, for example? Frankly, if they were not cousins, I would certainly think that fact would help readers. Then the issue is how useful "subsequently" being sentenced to death helps the sentence which includes the following year. I find it hard to be sentenced previously in the following year but your mileage appears to vary. The only other question appears to be whether obscuring names in a prayerbook is substantively different from covering the names. I fear that if the word "obscured" is found in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (requires a subscription) that this might be an improper borrowing from that source. [1] shows her own words ... and the term she herself uses is "pasted over" for which I think "covered" is a far better term than "obscured" indeed. And her own book is likely a better source than the one cited in any case. ( "Life and Songs of the Baroness Nairne: With a Memoir and Poems of Caroline Oliphant the Younger by Baroness Carolina Oliphant Nairne" page 18 of the Memoirs should be a reasonably reliable source?) Does this sourcing and reasoning sufficiently handle your cavils? Collect (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
My mileage does indeed vary from yours, thankfully. Just to take a couple of examples from your idiotic list: ""... who had commanded the second line of the Jacobite army at the Battle of Prestonpans in 1745 and subsequently been sentenced to death the following year." He could have been sentenced to death for another reason entirely than his involvement in the Battle of Prestonpans, which is the meaning of subsequently. And Carolina's parents could have been cousins via a different relationship than being grandchildren of Lord Nairne – we each have two sets of grandparents for instance. But what of the "purple prose"? Or am I seeing confirmation of a comment made by Charles Harrington Elster in 2005: "Purple prose doesn't seem to have become wholly pejorative until the twentieth century, when steep declines in the vocabulary and reading comprehension of college-educated Americans caused a panic in the education establishment and the newspaper industry". EricCorbett22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I fear I find your assertion that I am idiotic is a tad off-putting in real discussions.
"Subsequently" has the definition of "following or coming after" per Chambers. "Subsequently" has no lexicographical connection with your assertion of causality. (Perhaps you conflated the word with "consequently"? I am careful with word usage).
Secondly, the point is that first cousins have to share a grandparent There is no other way to be first cousins!
Lastly you appear to think it is idiotic to use a memoir written by the actual historical person as a reliable source but she is the only person from whom that item is known to be documented in the first place! Guess where Oxford picked it up?
I've read quite a few RFCs, many of which, sadly, fall far short of what we might hope to find in such a discussion, namely, an exposition of positions, supported by evidence in the form of guidelines, and policies, and written in a neutral way, with an emphasis on logic and dispassionate persuasion. That said, the characterization of arguments as "idiotic" is a blemish—it would be unwelcome even were it true, but especially so when off-base. I happen to be packing for a trip, so do not have time now to examine the strengths of the arguments - my past experience is that Eric is often right, and that's typically my default assumption, but I typically make the same assumption when Collect is involved, so I am not about to add my assessment of the strengths of the arguments without careful review, which will take time I do not have at the moment. Luckily, I don't need to assess which argument is more persuasive, as my narrow point is that calling an argument "idiotic" is not desirable even when true, and definitely not when the argument has some merit. It would be nice if it were withdrawn, although my experience is that this request is unlikely to be honored, so I'll settle for simply asking that all parties recommit to discussing reasonably. The underlying facts are quite interesting, and deserve further exposition.S Philbrick(Talk)01:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
(applause). To shorten the arguments for: WP:LASTNAME. The main arguments against are that she changed her last name - which is true of most of our female and a number of our male subjects; and shares her last name(s) with other people in her article - which is true of almost all of our subjects. If those arguments were to suffice, we might as well say that WP:LASTNAME has no meaning. --GRuban (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
The use of a consistent "house style" - enshrined in an authoritative "manual of style" has for a very long time been considered very important in collaboratively produced publications such as newspapers, magazines, almanacs and encyclopedias. The resulting consistency has all kinds of obvious benefits - I expect Mr. Corbett, without too much intellectual effort, could list many of these himself, so I won't waste time and space with such a list here. The case of a collaboratively (written and) edited website like Wikipedia is not necessarily identical with (say) a print encyclopedia like Britannica - for instance we use United States spelling for some articles and British spelling for others, and are generally rather freer with our "house rules". On the other hand to say the any section of our own manual of style "has no meaning" is (trying very hard here not to use a naughty word) completely inappropriate. Please, everyone, recognize that the preservation of our Wikipedia house style is (or should be) a prime consideration. MOS articles are NOT mere "essays" - or if they are they need upgrading to become authoritative rules, not to be broken except for a very good reason. Assuming the relevant MOS rule applies to a particular case as it clearly DOES in this case, creating exceptions to our house rules needs to be done with due consideration, and documentation needs to be added to the relevant MOS article so that the new exception can be applied as consistently as the original rule. In any case the onus is absolutely on the party wishing to change the rule that this will result in and improvement to overall house style, as well as a particular article. "All else confusion". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
This is still me - breaking my last post by raising my own personal take on this particular case rather than a general comment. The use of "Caroline" instead of "Lady Nairne" grates almost intolerably - it is not only has nothing whatever to be said for it (and you can say all day that it is "clearer" without making that nebulous contention any truer) but it is also disturbingly patronising and sexist (and would have been considered so in the VERY distant days of my own youth, when our culture in relation to such things was very different). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I will confess that the issue of consistency has been troubling me, but not the inconsistency with the MoS you refer to. I am all in favour of the guidance offered by a manual of style, but it is at the end of the day just that. Guidance. No, the inconsistency that's been bothering me is between this article and another I wrote a few days ago on one of Carolina's songs, "The Laird o' Cockpen". The arguments I've put forward here don't apply in that latter case, and there I think that Nairne would be quite appropriate. So for that reason I've edited this article accordingly. EricCorbett14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
{outdent}
There are two issues here:
1. The first is the notion that an MOS is "mere" guidance. This is taking an unjustifiably light-hearted view and needs scotching. A "meaningful" MOS ought, by very definition, to be followed strictly and literally unless there is a very good reason indeed for making an exception in a particular case. Otherwise, as another editor has remarked, there is no point in having an MOS at all. Simple as that.
2. The second issue (or set of closely related issues) relates directly to this article:
a. What would is the correct style be, following the letter of the MOS?
b. Does this read well, and is it clear? If not, is there good and sufficient reason for making an exception to the MOS as it has been generally applied in this case?
c. IF there is a sufficient reason for making an exception to the MOS as above, do we need to change the MOS to allow for this situation in other contexts? (in other words, does the MOS need to be improved)?
My own viewpoint is that issue 2a, in the article as most recently edited, is still problematic. Does the MOS actually require we use a married woman's surname at every point where she is mentioned, even when she was a small child? or might an occasional "Carolina" actually serve as legitimate "elegant variation" at such points without breaking our house rules, or commonsense avoidance of apparent sexism? I think it might, on reflection. And, at least initially, doesn't the MOS give us a very good precedent for "Lady Nairne" - as in the original text before this whole thing blew up? Having read the thing (which I probably should have done first) I really think it does! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Whether you like it or not, the MoS is mere guidance, and stating the bleedin' obvious by saying so is by no means "an unjustifiably light-hearted view". If you want the MoS to become mandatory, you need to have that discussion elsewhere.If you post on that subject again here I will delete your posting as an irrelevant distraction. Your "sexism" argument I take for what it is, and have no sympathy with it. And yet you still fail to recognise a more important point than whatever the MoS says, which is how reliable sources refer to Carolina Nairne. You really can't have your cake and eat it. EricCorbett16:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I thought you had more or less accepted that we DO need to have consistently applied "house rules", albeit they are not set in stone. I still suspect we differ less than you imagine. Have another look at the MOS on this point and you may find it agrees with your case more closely than you realised, anyway. In any case I have (fairly) extensively edited the article itself - applying the MOS, and rewording some obscure prose and other infelicities. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ihave read the MoS, which is partly why I was so confident in holding my ground on this issue. As I said above, what has swung me into the name change camp is consistency between articles on Carolina Nairne and her work. Most of what you've done seems fine to me. Let's hope it also seems fine to those so volubly in favour of a name change based solely on their interpretation of the MoS rather than what it actually says. EricCorbett19:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nairne as default, when necessary use 'Carolina Nairne' or 'Lady Nairne' for clarity. We don't need to use 'maiden name' except in early life and/or lead to establish 'birth name'. This is exactly how we behave towards innumerable actors and writers with an 'adopted' name (ie we don't use their birth name until they become professionally active, so why should we use 'maiden' name until a woman is married if she is better known by her married name?). There are reasons other than consistency (which itself is desirable, but not essential), which include that use of first name, as in RL, implies an informal closeness to the subject, which is not an appropriate 'tone' for a WP article. Normally we only deviate from this with children, which again mirrors the practice of RL. Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nairne by default; I concur with Pincrete. All of this junk-waving about "MoS is just a guideline" and "Writing about women is just an essay" is hot air; it has nothing to do with whether the reasoning in them, and the consensus that agreed on that reasoning, is sound. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nairne by default, per Pincrete and John. Using her last name maintains the encyclopaedic tone we're supposed to strive for and is the accepted practice in Wikipedia per LASTNAME. I do not see compelling reasons to deviate from the norm as there are very few instances where there is any confusion about which Nairne is being discussed. Ca2james (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Lady Nairne or just Nairne. Something that I think has been glossed over is the fact that the long standing consensus on this page was to use last names, with occassional first name to distinguish. I don't think there's a convincing reason to go against the original style, let alone ignore the wider consensus of MOS guidance. I side with Pincrete and others above, I see no good reason to abandon the existing style and abandon the MOS. WP:LASTNAME has almost 500 page watchers and represents a pretty wide consensus. Following the advice doesn't lead to absurd, difficult, or unclear results so I don't think there's a practical reason to make an exception. I think Lady Nairne solves the distinction problem, so after that it's just personal taste and on that I'd still side with guidance pages. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]10:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I did. But I guess you oppose WP:AGF since it's just a guideline. I looked through the page history and based my comment on the previous versions that didn't use Nairne and that started the RfC. If you think the issue's already been resolved, you should have removed the RfC tag and closed the discussion. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]22:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
You're partially correct, but I don't oppose WP:AGF because it's just a guideline, I oppose it because it's a self-evidently stupid idea. As for closing this RfC, I didn't open it and I'm not one of the godly administrators tasked with judging consensus, so it's not for me to say whether or not it's run its course. And why you chose to comment on an old version of the article that was not in dispute remains something of a mystery. EricCorbett14:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nairne, with first names or titles given when necessary for disambiguation, and the first name only used stand-alone when referring to her youth. While I greatly respect the opinions of those who want to use her first name by default, and entirely understand the arguments for doing so, "surname by default" seems to be the format that best serves readers, as it's the name format readers are most likely to have come across when reading similar material both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I had the same "notable woman who had a lot of relatives with the same surname, all of whom have to be discussed in-depth in the article" issue with Eilley Bowers, and ultimately came to the same conclusion there as well. ‑ Iridescent22:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I have a subscription to the BNA at the moment and whilst searching for information on Carolina Nairne I came across a reference to a book The Scottish Songstress, written by her great grand-niece about her life and work, which is available online hereRicherman(talk)22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
From further searching on the BNA I've found that her best known song for many years was Land o'the Leal[2] which was attributed to Burns for a long time. On the website I've given it says she claimed herself to have written it, but in the newspaper article I have from 1884 it seems the controversy was still ongoing but the editor says he is in possession of a letter from a member of her family saying she had written it. I've also got the lyrics of Would Ye Be Young Again? if they're of interest. Richerman(talk)23:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've also found an interesting titbit in the The Evening Telegraph (Dundee) 10 October 1888 in an article entitled "CAROLINA, BARONESS NAIRNE. THE PERTHSHIRE POETESS. (From the Sun.)":『One of her songs, The Attainted Scottish Nobles, was sung to George IV. on his vi»it to Scotland in 1822, and learning that the author of it was the wife of one of the gentlemen who had suffered for their fidelity to the Stuart cause, had the courtesy restore to Major Nairne his title of Baron』This is confirmed on page 48 and 49 of The Scottish Songstress, where it adds that the petition was brought before the king by Sir Walter Scott. I would add it myself but it would mean rejigging the text so I'll leave that up to the main editors. Richerman(talk)00:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that source Richerman. I'm sure you'll understand that I have no intention of doing anything more with this article in the current climate. I achieved what I set out to, which was to update the article – which was largely based on the 1911 DNB – into something that was less of an embarrassment. I realise of course that that's an ephemeral thing, as it will no doubt turn into the usual gray goo soon enough, but I have no power to do anything about that. It's become an unproductive time sink from my perspective, and there's so many other things to be getting on with anyway. There's no article on "The land o' the leal", for instance, but I'll not be rushing to help with that any time soon. One might have thought that WP would be supportive of any effort to improve the coverage of women, but evidently not. EricCorbett02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ah, fair enough. There seem to be lots of others interested in getting it just right so expect they'll be happy to get stuck in and sort it out - BTW shouldn't that be "grey goo" in British English? :-) Richerman(talk)10:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'll let them have that one then. I asked a long question on the science reference desk about car tyres once and some kind soul went through my post and changed every instance of tyres to tires. I told him thanks, but no thanks. Richerman(talk)14:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
