This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments8 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names. (See also {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing.)
Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent. Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Govt
American Indians and Alaska Natives are members of the original Indigenous peoples of North America. Tribal nations have been recognized as sovereign since their first interaction with European settlers. The United States continues to recognize this unique political status and relationship. National Congress of American Indians
Tribal enrollment requirements preserve the unique character and traditions of each tribe. The tribes establish membership criteria based on shared customs, traditions, language and tribal blood. Tribal enrollment criteria are set forth in tribal constitutions, articles of incorporation or ordinances. The criterion varies from tribe to tribe, so uniform membership requirements do not exist.Department of the Interior
Canada recognizes that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right of self-government guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act , 1982. Negotiated agreements put decision-making power into the hands of Indigenous governments who make their own choices about how to deliver programs and services to their communities. This can include making decisions about how to better protect their culture and language, educate their students, manage their own lands and develop new business partnerships that create jobs and other benefits for their citizens. Canadian Government
@David Fuchs: this is not simply "a couple individuals" discussing this. Tribal sovereignty is recognized by the Unites States and Canada to this day and historically through the creation of treaties. Please provide sources that show tribal nations are not sovereign nations and do not determine their own citizenship before removing again. You can discuss wording, but it's a federal fact these are sovereign nations that determine their own citizenship laws. oncamera (talk page)18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
With some very limited exceptions, the opening sentence of a biography should deal with nationality only, not religion/ethnicity/being indigenous etc. If that status is somewhat relevant, it can be mentioned later in the lede. GiantSnowman18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Being enrolled in a tribe isn't actually about race, it's citizenship. For example, Shania Twain holds a status card and is included in the rolls of a First Nations tribe even thought she has no Native ancestry because she was legally adopted by a First Nations man as a child. And any case, most Native / First Nations people who are written about on Wikipedia tend to work in fields related to their tribes, culture etc. oncamera (talk page)18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"National" in its citizenship sense is the recognized international state. So saying someone is U.S. national is not saying they are not American Indian or anything else Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think this is a common misunderstanding of what the WP:MOS actually says. The MOS does not say that nationality = Westphalian citizenship; it says that In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident - and indigenous nationality is a prime example of a set of cases where the original rule doesn't work as a rote formula. In fact, if a BLP subject is, say, a Navajo whose career is based in Navajo national territory, it would be a more natural application of the rule to use Navajo instead of, or in addition to, American nationality. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Iroquois passport is an example of times tribes have used their tribal sovereignty as sovereign nations and has had various success/failure, so you can't say they are absolutely not recognized internationally. The Iroquois passport evolved from negotiations with the US State Department, Canada, Britain and other countries and has been used since 1977. Israel and Ireland both recently accepted these passports. oncamera (talk page)19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That article says that it a "expression of sovereignty", other than an actual legal document, and says that "The governments in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have refused to endorse the document as valid document for international travel. Additionally, the document does not appear on the list of forms of acceptable identification to cross into Canada." GiantSnowman19:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Taiwan is not recognized by China as an independent nation, should Category:Taiwanese people be merged to Chinese people? You can see how using one nation's refusal of sovereign recognition can be a slippery slope. The fact is, the Iroquois passport has been accepted as valid by other international nations, even in recent years. oncamera (talk page)19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Taiwan is recognised by the majority of the world and was formerly a UN member. Is the same of the Iroquois or any other Native nation? GiantSnowman19:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're in the process of that, actually.
In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 3 of the UNDRIP states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” As such, each nation of Indigenous peoples has an internationally recognized right to freely exercise its own origins, system of organization and political formation. Having self recognition in the definition was a victory, as nation-states had fought for the right to retain the power to define who is Indigenous. The United States (along with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) initially voted against the Declaration, reversing its position two years later.
Indigenous peoples are frequently classified as a racial minority. However, it is important to understand that “Native American” or “American Indian” are not strictly racial categories. Being a member of a tribal nation provides a membership status. Because of tribes’ status as sovereign nations, Indigenous peoples/tribes are political entities. Whether an individual is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe depends on the membership rules of each individual tribe. Those requirements usually have some basis in “blood quantum” ancestry, however, other criteria may also be used. A DNA test cannot tell you that you are Native American, because that status is defined by belonging to a tribal nation or community. “Native American” or “American Indian” thus differs from racial minority groups because it entails membership and that membership connotes a distinct historical and political relationship with the federal government.UCLA: Are Indigenous peoples a racial minority? oncamera (talk page)19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the US Department of of the Interior - "Tribal nations are pre-existing sovereigns over which states have historically lacked authority. One of the roles of the federal government, since the time of this Nation's founding, has been to protect Tribal nations from state regulation, intrusion, and overreach."
From the NCAI - "American Indians and Alaska Natives are members of the original Indigenous peoples of North America. Tribal nations have been recognized as sovereign since their first interaction with European settlers. The United States continues to recognize this unique political status and relationship."
I can not believe that there are fellow Wikipedians that are advocating the denial of tribal nation statehood without a single shred of evidence provided by reliable sources. Linking to a Wikipedia list is not a reliable source as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
The United Nations recognized Indigenous peoples right to self-determination and self-government and encourages other states to recognize and affirm such. The United States is one such state that does so for sovereign tribal nations within it's physical borders that it maintains treaties with.
Members of a Indigenous or tribal nation are citizens of a sovereign nation and should be treated as all other citizens of sovereign nations around the world. --ARoseWolf19:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
As stated above, MOS says In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident, which doesn't mean the Westphalian system (which is "a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory"). oncamera (talk page)22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The infobox parameters under discussion are "citizenship" and "nationality". If you would like change these parameters to "Westphalian nationality" or "sovereign statehood", you could certainly make that proposal but that would need to be a separate discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I stand corrected. I have them coupled in my mind because they usually echo each other. There's even less constraints of what goes in the lead sentence and lead section. I don't understand why it is so onerous to you for Native American people to list our tribal citizen in our introductions. That's exactly what we do in real life. Yuchitown (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, I'm not disagreeing with that inclusion in the lead - refer to my more lengthy reply below. And please try to keep straight who you're talking to in a discussion, if you're going to personalize the arguments. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"International sovereignty" isn't a real term in the literature, maybe you mean international recognition. Tribal sovereignty, at least in the United States, is based (among other things) on international agreements (treaties) between nations. See Kalt and Singertribes are not merely clubs; they are sovereigns – domestic dependent nations who never voluntarily relinquished their powers over their territory. Moreover, the treaties and statutes recognizing the reserved rights of tribes implicitly affirm tribal political powers of their retained lands. Treaties are literally de jure recognition of a separate sovereign.
And just to be clear, tribal citizenship also has very real world effects in the United States on things like criminal jurisdiction. For example, state and municipal courts do not have criminal jurisdiction over tribal citizens who commit a crime on an Indian reservation. Tribal citizenship, at least for federally recognized tribes, is at the least unambiguously recognized by the United States. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you point to where you're getting your definition of "international sovereignty"? Because asserting it is a different type of sovereignty without defining how is not really helpful. Sovereignty (whose page doesn't mention the term "international sovereignty") is already a fuzzy concept in both law and political theory, so if you're using a more nuanced version of the phrase you should probably explain it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A grand total of two people weighed in on adding the verbiage; it has never been vetted or approved by any sort of critical mass of editors that should be necessary to add something to an existing guideline. None of the stuff you're saying above is relevant to the fact that consensus hasn't been established to put the content in, and the fact that plenty of people have argued against your novel interpretations of it to try and end-run around people calling you out on it. Start an RfC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's no moving goalposts. I just think a neutral RfC, should you be able to craft one, would be far more useful for the wiki. Most people don't follow all the Manual of Style pages. Wider participation is good, right? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, this is a fraught issue... but I believe it boils down to how we determine someone's nationality (which is technically distinct from citizenship, though there's a lot of overlap). Looking at this issue just for Native Americans...
Native Americans are considered American citizens [2]. Native Americans are self-governing and have some legal jurisdictions; however, by most accounts, Native American nations do not have international sovereignty - what they have tribal sovereignty[3]. And the United States retains ultimate international sovereignty over tribal lands. So, if we're asking about the nationality of a Native American in an international scope, the general answer would probably be "American."
However, nationality differs a bit from citizenship - citizenship is more about duty/allegiance to a state, whereas nationality is more about legally belonging to a nation. And the United States recognizes Native American tribes as "dependent domestic nations" [4]. So I think there's also nothing wrong wtih referring to someone by their Native nationality.
It seems that according to current policy, we could refer to someone's tribal nationality in the first sentence of the lead (provided, of course, said nationality is relevant to their notability). "Native American (X Nation)" seems to be to a comparable phrase to "American" in terms of this first sentence. At the least, it provides the same "where are they from" information.
That said, I don't agree with the inclusion of or as a clause after their names, as shown at WP:NATIVEIDENTITY with the example "Deb Haaland (Laguna Pueblo)". While that form may work for style within articles, it's too specialized a way of referring to someone to be used in the first sentence of a lead.
(Also, the example being added is pretty poor - the text added here isn't the actual first sentence of the lead of the article. It's also redundant, linking Cherokee twice). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good points, but note also that all American citizens are also American nationals , the two go together in that situation (but not all American Nationals are American citizens). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know that Native American voices are always going to be outnumbered here (and, while Wikipedia publicly laments lack of Indigenous inclusion, it provides no support for those of us here), but I am still going to try to not have our tribal citizenship suppressed on this platform. Tribal sovereignty proceeds the existence of the United States and Canada; treaties with tribal nations are the supreme law of the land (U.S. Senate). The Jay Treaty still allows First Nations and Native American people to freely cross the U.S.–Canadian border. Not all people enrolled in Native American tribes even live in the United States. People use their tribal IDs at airports, etc. For notability issues, typically tribal citizenship is the defining feature of many Native peoples' core identity. It's usually the first thing we list after our names. Why are you so invested in removing this information from its place in Native biographies? What do you gain from not allowing us to list our tribal citizenship, as we do in real life? Yuchitown (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support inclusion For some individuals, tribal citizenship is a defining characteristic. That said, there should be care to ensure that the subject is, in fact, a citizen of their tribal nation. --Enos733 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, so why do you not want it in the infobox and in the lead sentence where it usually is for almost every Native American biography and has been for years? Yuchitown (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support having tribal citizenship be included. It is citizenship in a sovereign nation, not just someone's race or ethnicity. Agree with Yuchitown that tribal sovereignty is often the defining aspect of someone's identity in the way that citizenship to a country might be for someone else. It is legally this way, as PhotogenicScientist said. In the US, they are domestic dependent nations, and are sovereign entities. This doesn't mean that people should put Native American in the same way that they might say "American" in the lede, but it should definitely be allowed to say their citizenship just as any other person. PersusjCP (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. My experience is that (1) Native American activists feel strongly that only people listed on official tribal rolls should be listed here as Native Americans (as opposed to the many people with an unverifiable family story of Cherokee ancestry), and that personal statements of Native American heritage are unacceptable as a substitute, but (2) membership on tribal rolls is difficult or impossible to verify. At best, in some cases we have newspaper stories about tribal leaders stating their membership, or published obituaries that are maybe more believable than those family stories, but most such sources are nonexistent for most living Native American people. That puts us between a rock and a hard place: we cannot include this information if it is not verifiable, but it is not verifiable. Demanding that we must include this information (when we cannot include it because we cannot verify it) is a non-starter. Anyone more knowledgeable in these issues want to clarify? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A WP:RS stating one's membership in a specific tribe has been the precedent as of yet, but like you said, a lot of the time they only say that someone is "of __ descent" which isn't enough to declare citizenship. In that case, I think it should be as per usual, such as if they were born in the US, then default to American. However, if it can be reliably sourced, it should be in the lede (and put the heritage somewhere later in the opening paragraphs or something, as you would with other ethnicity markers) PersusjCP (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a conversation about nationality not ancestry. Tribal newspapers, many of which are online, and other Native media mention tribal citizens all the time. Yuchitown (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
David - I don't see this addition as being a requirement, but as an option. I would also suggest that this information should not added to the lede unless the subject is especially known for being a tribal citizen. On sourcing, there are some individuals, especially tribal citizens who serve on a tribal council, where tribal citizenship can be verified, as well as tribal newspapers as Yuchitown says above. - Enos733 (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I support restoring the guidance. It's helpful, and it's generally aligned with other parts of the MOS that emphasize nationality over ethnicity. I agree that it can be difficult to verify whether someone is actually enrolled in a tribe, but we have to take the word of reliable sources (and sometimes uncontested self-description) as we would in any other case of nationality. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. Not if the position is the person can't claim it unless they are enrolled. In other words the statement 'X is Cherokee" in the source does not prove they are a "national". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, but if a reliable source makes the claim "X belongs to the Cherokee nation", why would we treat that different from any other claim a reliable source may make? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's my point. The source may not refer to enrollment in a dependent nation at all, just join the person (biographical subject) to the name of the various peoples, eg. not the Pottawatomie Band of Oklahoma, but the Pottawatomie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That seems like a semantic difference, and an edge case example. I don't see why something like that would preclude the proposed change to this MOS page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Our lived experience as citizens of our tribal nations, for example the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, are not "edge case examples" or "semantic differences." During COVID when the tribes had to lock down their reservations and Pueblo, and the tribes were providing vaccinations, it was life or death. I wish people could familiarize themselves with the subject on hand instead of trying to weigh down discussions based on personal opinions. Yuchitown (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Edge case? That makes no sense, there are multiple dependent nations with specific names and also other names used generally. It is likely in almost every case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see the problem, when there appear to be multiple bands (nations?) within a Native group... two people may both be "Cherokee", while their nationalities are actually "United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians" and "Cherokee Nation"(?). Similar issue in the Potawatomi example - it looks like their official name is just "Potawatomi," so a person belonging to the Oklahoma band may consider themselves "Potawatomi". But they also might consider themselves as "Citizen Potawatomi Nation"....
Unless there are serious complaints from actual Native people, I think the best way to handle nationality is to associate them with the more inclusive nationality (e.g. Cherokee, Potawatomi, etc). That seems to be the most in-line with how other nationalities are handled in leads. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
But even were you to allow that, you have not indicated what to do when the person is only linked with a general name, and not a particular dependent nation, and you can't assume they are a dependent national. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Doesn't really matter, does it? As long as their being "Cherokee" is documented in a reliable source, and relevant to their notability. Then there's no issue with us simply saying "X is Cherokee" in the lead. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
What a person says about themselves is not reliable. In most of these sources they are just regurgitating what the subject says about themselves without thinking because most non-Natives don't understand the dynamic. That is why we look for Native media or Native sources to make the declaration. Non-Native sources aren't affected one way or the other. But tribal nations are potentially affected. Most sources wouldn't question if you said "I am American", especially if you are in fact in the US stating it. But what if they found that you were not born in the US to American parents (birth) and there is no record of your attempts to become a citizen of the US through any legal process (naturalization)? That is the two ways you can legally become an American. Would Wikipedia still state you are American? The issue is Native American sovereign nations do not have physical borders and so they may be scattered among multiple physical nations but they have their own distinctive laws for citizenship. The way we determine who is Native American is by who claims you not who you claim to be. --ARoseWolf14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. You have no basis to assume or presume anyone is unreliable especially in BLP or RS (should you have specific evidence in an individual's case then present the evidence in RS, and don't make it original research) you can't assume or presume, nor wish away what RS say. You make a very poor argument because carrying it to its logical end, we must assume and presume what you are saying is unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
...and sometimes uncontested self-description... Our category structure for people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent - without independent reliable sources either confirming or questioning that self-identification - are placed in categories such as Category:People who self-identify as being of Native American descent. This places them in the category tree under Category:Transracial (identity) and Category:Native American-related controversies, alongside proven frauds. Being of Indigenous descent and being a current member of a First Nation/tribe aren't the same, but it would be surprising if simple self-identification of membership were accepted as sufficient, given the highly skeptical default approach to claims of descent.--Trystan (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree; this is about citizenship, not ethnicity. We generally include citizenship in the lead (when we know it, and often perhaps inappropriately when we can only guess at it). We more often do not include ethnicity, unless it is specifically relevant. As such, I agree that Native American tribal citizenship, when known and verifiable, should be included. Perhaps a good example here is Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, a single citizenship that mixes multiple ethnicities. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support including tribal citizenship in lead. I agree that tribal citizenship belongs in the lead when it can be verified in an independent reliable source, in particular sources from the Indigenous press/media or the tribe itself. If the citizenship/nationality is coming directly from the person who is the subject of the article or a non-reliable source, it should default to American or Canadian, whichever is relevant. Reiterating what has been said above that this discussion is about citizenship/nationality, and not about ethnicity, ancestry, heritage, or race. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment - Wikidata data modeling would offer insight Wikidata does not have a recommended best practice for this either, and I think this challenge would be easier to solve at Wikidata than it is here in Wikipedia. If anyone wants to meet at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America to explore data modeling options then I would participate. Last year at WikiConference North America a group presented "Indigenous Artists and Wikidata", which, while insightful, also determined that experts and stakeholders did not yet agree on how to describe the relationship between people and indigenous community affiliations. Bluerasberry (talk)18:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually dislike the proposed form of the addition here. First, adding the nation or tribe “parenthetically, or as a clause after their names” is no better than simply allowing people to write prose that works clearly case by case. And as for the example of Wilma Mankiller, she is already notable for her tribal affiliation. She does not need the parenthetical, nor any additional justification for mentioning her tribal citizenship. Her article would be worse with that addition, and as such, the article doesn’t actually use the parenthetical as it’s written above. If we are to give an example with the intention of saying that any random bio who has/had tribal citizenship should have that citizenship in the lead, it should be one who is not notable for any reasons connected to their tribal status.
And at that point, I don’t know that I see it as much different to giving the American state as part of their dominant context; sometimes it will be relevant (if the person gained notability predominantly in the context of the tribal nation), other times it won’t be (if their notability was gained more as a citizen of the rest of their “country”), and we surely shouldn’t mandate, nor proscribe it at this level. — HTGS (talk)07:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support inclusion of tribal citizenship in lead. Native American tribes are sovereign nations with citizenship. It is not a matter of race, ethnicity, ancestry, phenotype, or color. The argument that tribal citizenship doesn't belong in the lead because tribes are domestic dependent nations is a nonsense. We do not waste our time quibbling over whether or not to mention in the lead that Bad Bunny is Puerto Rican, Duffy is Welsh, Samantha Barks is Manx, Heather Nova is Bermudian, Mari Boine is Sámi, Lemanu Peleti Mauga is Samoan, Tiare Aguilera Hey is Rapa Nui, Berta Cáceres is Lenca, Rigoberta Menchú is Kʼicheʼ, Roch Wamytan is Kanak, Masrour Barzani is Kurdish, Evelyn Wever-Croes is Aruban, and Eivør is Faroese. This should be simple. I am disappointed that some editors, who seem to have a drive-by knowledge of the issues at hand, have been quick to dismiss, demean, curse at, threaten, pearl-clutch, or otherwise speak down to or over Native editors on these matters. This is not respectful. It behooves non-Native editors to take a moment to familiarize themselves with the topic and engage with what Native editors have to say. Mistakes will happen, nobody's perfect, but active listening and learning is crucial for collaboration. Certainly, if we want to avoid the bias that Wikipedia readily admits exists, we must avoid behavior that discourages Native participation. Notably, there is consensus for inclusion among the Native and Native-allied editors who regularly edit on Native subjects. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose Per the reasons I have outlined at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States, this is a very controversial issue. Making this an official MOS guideline is strongly discouraged because many unrecognized could be left out. Throughout the world, indigenous identity is primarily ethnic, no matter how much you try to legislate it. Official tribal enrollment is absolutely not the same thing as being a U.S., Canadian, or U.K. citizen, and we should leave politics out of indigenous identity.
To recap my position (from the category discussion):
Federal recognition is a controversial topic.
We should look at serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, not solely on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair to every indigenous group.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals people according to "tribal citizenship" would be extremely offensive to some. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label YazidisorAlevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
Same goes for China. There are also many unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
As a result, I would strongly recommend leaving this out of MOS biography policies and to evaluate each article on a case-by-case basis. Equiyamnaya (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what ethnic groups in the middle east have to do with tribal governments in the US and Canada. Federally recognized tribes are more than just ethnic groups, in fact, many tribal governments represent several or many different ethnicities within the nation (e.g. the Tulalip Tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, etc): they have a community, legal jurisdiction, (often) a land base that they govern, and as others have stated, tribal ID's are acceptable forms of ID for tribal citizens. They have a nation-to-nation relationship in the United States (and with the Crown in Canada). It isn't simply deciding to categorize people based on their tribal citizenship vs ethnic origin, it is treating them the same as you would the citizen of any other sovereign nation. PersusjCP (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exactly this. Thank you, PersusjCP. If an editor wants to include that a subject is a descendent of or mention their ethnic heritage they can do that within the article. This is focused explicitly on those whose citizenship lies with a recognized, meaning a government has signed a binding treaty with, sovereign tribal nation. That is what recognition is. Governments decide who to sign treaties with all the time and those treaties give recognition. The US government is not deciding who is legitimate as these sovereign tribes were always sovereign, even as they were forced to move off their lands and onto reservations, even as programs were developed that forced assimilation, they still maintained their political distinction. The US government acknowledged the mistake of forcing the disbandment of tribal governments and restored it with federal recognition of the treaties they agreed to. Enrolled members were always citizens of their respective tribal nations and that citizenship should be recognized. --ARoseWolf11:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion
HiMapReader, 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
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)Reply
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)Reply
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[5] - 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
FWIW, I would think that changing betoinclude 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)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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:
Is this practice in line with Wikipedia consensus on the use of biographical infoboxes and honorary honorific titles? And if so…
Should this practice be limited to British peers, or should it apply to all peerage systems and/or titles of nobility?
Should some clarification be added to the guidelines here (and/or at the infobox documentation) to make this less confusing and contentious?
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! GiantSnowman18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago9 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Myinsistence 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
OrTaniyoluwa (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 RebeccaorNifer 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 23 hours ago55 comments18 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Degrees are awarded by universities, knighthoods by the state. "In the UK, approximately 2% of people have a PhD"[1] 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 | Talk19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 | Talk15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
""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)Reply
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 | Talk15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
comment - Long discussion at Template talk:Infobox personhere, 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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:
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".
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=.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Oppose as above and per OrangeMike in particular - name is for names only, Sir is a honorific and goes in the honorific prefix line. GiantSnowman10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
"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)Reply
"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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Support Knightoods/Damehoods awarded by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (and wider Commonwealth realms) are name changing titles[2] 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)Reply
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'... GiantSnowman20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
“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)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 activistorJerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist. Mgp28 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
