Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| (374 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO|noarchive=yes}} |
{{talk header|shortcut=WT:MOSBIO|noarchive=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| algo = old(45d) |
| algo = old(45d) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 10: | ||
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WPMOS}} |
|||
{{archive box|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|search=yes| |
{{archive box|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|search=yes| |
||
*[[/Archive April 2005|2005 categorized contributions]] |
*[[/Archive April 2005|2005 categorized contributions]] |
||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles == |
|||
== Unimportant age details at time of death == |
|||
When is it useful or encyclopedic to say something like "he died seven and a half weeks before his 93rd birthday" instead of "he died at age 92"? I might be convinced to allow something like "she died one day before her 100th birthday", but where do we draw the line? [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]], I see no point in including that sort of content. The age at death should be sufficient. [[User:Teblick|Eddie Blick]] ([[User talk:Teblick|talk]]) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:At a minimum, I would expect a reliable source to mention it, establishing some significance.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks to you both for the response. There are hundreds of these, including some like this: "exactly two weeks before his 95th birthday". What precision! But what good does it do for any reader? I will nibble away at this pile of excessive drivel. [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]], a related point is that in many cases where such expressions appear the date of birth is unsourced. Therefore any expression of a span before or after a birthday would be unsourced, also (unless the span is stated in the obituary or has some other reliable source). [[User:Teblick|Eddie Blick]] ([[User talk:Teblick|talk]]) 00:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: While I agree that a line should be drawn, if the detail is reliably sourced, I don't see how it benefits the reader to provide a less precise range rather than a more precise one. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers, and I would generally be opposed to any sweeping campaign of removing these details, absent a lack of sourcing. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If the specific date of death is provided, can't the reader determine for themself how much of a "partial year" of age they had at the time of their death? I don't really see any need to include something extraneous like that, especially when it's already there for anyone who actually is interested. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I find such details to be excessive, with the damage being distraction and undue weight. Birthday anniversaries just aren't (usually) that important. It is appropriate in some nonencyclopedic writing that is trying to add some color to the story, but Wikipedia should stick to plain facts. I think some editors would even reject this as analysis of the sources (assuming the sources just give the birth and death dates). [[User:Giraffedata|Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)]] ([[User talk:Giraffedata|talk]]) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Since 99.7% of our dear departed did not die on their birthday, for uniformity we should either specify the proximity to their birthday or omit it. If everybody gets the birthday mention, who's going to pitch in and add it to the hundreds of thousands of articles that don't yet have it? Easier to remove it from the relatively few articles where the subject's niece or nephew added this unencyclopedic trivia. [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I am sure that newspapers have some rule for this. It is very common for news reports to indicate this proximity where it is close (within a few weeks). Taken to the opposite extreme, why do we say of someone, "he died at age 92" rather than "he died in his 90s"? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 04:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In my first post at the top of this discussion, I asked "where do we draw the line?" To me, "until his death three months before his 56th birthday" is only slightly less preposterous than "until his death ten months before his 56th birthday". [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 05:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{tq|where do we draw the line"|q=yes}}: YMMV. Depending on where and when, some are satisfied if it's verifiable (or even via [[WP:CALC]]), others may get into whether it's [[WP:DUE]]. Ultimately, there's the [[WP:ONUS]] policy: {{tq2|While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. }}—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Saying that someone died weeks before their birthday is more informative to the reader than merely stating their age. Within two weeks is probably a reasonable cutoff, unless we are talking about some milestone (100th birthday, for example), perhaps for which celebratory plans were already in the works (see, e.g., [[Betty White#Betty White: A Celebration (2022)]]). [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I think if a reliable source deems it important enough to mention, so should we. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with BD, we certainly do not need any campaign to remove all such mentions. We are writing for the facts, yes, but that does not mean we should strive to make this place completely devoid of colour (anyone else still running Vector 2022?) We are not robots, but if anyone wants a rule, then yes, it seems '''silly to mention a birthday if it was more than a month out''', and removing that seems fine to me. Beyond that, personally '''I wouldn’t {{em|add}} such detail without it being closer than a week''' on either side, but to remove it is more of a waste of time than many, {{em|many}} other things you could be doing instead. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Consensus on adding disabilities (blind/deaf) in biographical article first sentence? == |
|||
Disabilities are almost never mentioned in first sentences, just nationality and occupation. See [[:Category:Deaf actors]] for examples. However this article [[Kaylee Hottle|(Kaylee Hottle]]) seems to be breaking established status quo. [[User:Gamowebbed|🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳]] ([[User talk:Gamowebbed|talk]]) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*The first sentence should highlight attributes that the subject is most ''notable'' for. Which attributes should be mentioned is very subject specific. Sometimes an attribute is crucial to a person’s notability (ie the person is notable ''because'' of that attribute), while the same attribute may be trivial to the notability of another person. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Does [[WP:SELFID]] come into play at all? How does the subject of the article consider themselves? An actress who is deaf, or a deaf actress? [[User:Soetermans|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">soetermans</span>]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|<sup>↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''TALK'''</span></sup>]] 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not for the opening sentence. That should be based on independent sources. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:When it is central to the subject's notability, it should be mentioned. When not, not. An example where it is central and mentioned is [[Chieko Asakawa]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I gotta be honest, in both of the articles mentioned above I would make sure the disability is in the lead, and maybe the second sentence, but I wouldn’t put it in the first sentence as they are. Most people should be regarded for their work first, then their disability. The fact that they are deaf or blind is not the primary reason these people are notable, but it has clearly had a strong impact. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::If nationality is there, then I don't see why disability can't be (as long as it's important to their notability). [[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] ([[User talk:Zanahary|talk]]) 22:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::We can’t load everything into the first sentence. Which attributes/aspects to put in the first sentence depends on the specific person. There is no single way to do it. Even nationality (which is ''usually'' presented in the first sentence) can be presented in a later sentence if there are other aspects of the person that are deemed more relevant to notability. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 00:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think the first sentence should include the primary things which made the person notable. For [[Helen Keller]], that probably would include her disabilities; that was a crucial part of her notability. For [[Ray Charles]], not so much—he was primarily notable for being a musician, not for being blind. So, there's no "one size fits all" solution there, it has to be done case by case. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This whole quandary of trying to put all the notable things a person is known for in the lede sentence, against the need to write neutrally and dispassionately about a topic is a long standing problem. The lede sentence dies not need to full encapsulate the person, that is the purpose of the entire lede. More notable factors should be mentioned earlier but that doesn't necessarily mean the first sentence if that creates awkward tone per NPOV. This sometimes means that was a person is most notable for may not be mentioned in the first sentence but in a sentence or two later as to give context to why that notability exists or came about.<span id="Masem:1717013603239:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Biography" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
=="Serving/serves/served as"== |
|||
I have been active in creating and editing business biographies here for many years. For a few weeks now I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc". The latter is more concise, and I think clearer and more neutral. The edit summary I have typically given is "copyedit, more neutral language". None of my edits have been reverted. On my talk page, [[User_talk:Edwardx#"serving_as"_non-neutral?]], [[User:Anastrophe|Anastrophe]] has asked "can you point me to the policy or discussion where it was determined that "serving as" is non-neutral language?". |
|||
[[MOS:OPENPARABIO]] reads "The first sentence should usually state ... One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I think that "serves as" is subjective and contentious. Private sector companies, PR and the business press encourage us to (at least subconciously) see some sort of equivalence between private sector business roles and what might traditionally have been called "public service". |
|||
For business biographies this seems clear-cut. But what about politicians, armed forces personnel, roles in not-for-profit organisations, and unpaid roles? I think that we should consider removing "serving/serves/served as" from all articles, and would much appreciate hearing the views of other editors. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 19:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for starting this, Edwardx. I'll repeat my question/arguments from Edwardx's talk page here, for further clarity. First largely responds to the question of use for military, politicians, etc. |
|||
:{{tq|"[...] I'm still unclear in what way describing someone as serving a particular position or role is non-neutral - it doesn't sympathize with nor disparage the subject in any way that I can discern. Politicians and military personnel work within the broader scope of what is commonly and accurately characterized as "public service". With the exception of extremely minor public service, such as serving on a small town's city council, where the members only fill that role part-time and earn a living elsewhere, those in public service aren't expected to work for free. Being paid doesn't change what their role is."}} |
|||
:And reply to the contention that the biz press encourages its use so that we subconsciously see an equivalence with public service: |
|||
:{{tq|"But is that the case? I hate to throw out the original research argument, but that's what this appears to be. Absent a concrete policy stating that the terminology is overtly violating WP:NEUTRAL, rather than an individual editor's notion about what the term might mean, I think you should bring the matter up in the appropriate place for broader discussion, rather than imposing this as a blanket change. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support your opinion on this. I've seen 'serving as' used to describe a "low level" customer service representative position - that's why it's described as "customer service".}} |
|||
:Look forward to other perspectives as well. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I would prefer to see this sort of phrasing only for unpaid roles that one might actually consider as service rather than employment. Or maybe for someone serving in the armed forces; that's also commonly called service. But not for just a job, CEO or otherwise. "Served as" has the connotation that to hold this position is a service to society, and (in cases where it is just a job rather than obviously being a service) we should avoid that. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I broadly agree with Edwardx's edits, though there may well be cases where "serves" is appropriate. However, I disagree with the edit summary. I don't think it is a matter of neutrality. I would use an edit summary along the lines of "plain English". The text being removed is often just verbiage, and not the great writing we aspire to. If a link was desired for plain English, there is the essay [[Wikipedia:Use plain English]]. [[User:Nurg|Nurg]] ([[User talk:Nurg|talk]]) 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: We also need to consider narrative flow. It is utterly tedious to read an article where every sentence is "Smith was this, and then Smith was that, and after that Smith was the other thing". Phrases like "served as" break up the tedium, which is sometimes necessary for readability. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This is dubious... repetitive prose usually derives from syntax problems, in which case the solution is not to start substituting synonyms. See [[WP:ELEVAR]]. |
|||
:::::"serves as" is usually not the simplest and most direct way of solving the sentence. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 01:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: It is bog-standard terminology, however. See, e.g., William Francis Rocheleau, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=elbzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA8 Great American Industries: Manufactures]'' (1900), p. 8: "The stick '''served as''' a lever, and the stone as a weight". No lofty subjective praise is read into that. It is more descriptive than "was". [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Sure, it's an extremely commonplace construction, it's just usually not the simplest one. |
|||
:::::::Your "stick served as a lever" example is actually a different usage of "to serve" — it means in the sense of using something to achieve another purpose, like a field serving as a parking lot. Joe Biden is not serving as the US president in the same sense. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I don't see how False Title applies to this at all, as it has nothing to do with adding or substituting synonyms; it actually argues against excessive brevity. Wikipedia, just as the False Title essay points out, is, unlike newspapers, not constrained for space. Good/great writing is not ''only'' about writing in the simplest, most terse, manner. |
|||
::::::I've found some past discussions here on WP about the matter, but nothing outside of WP that suggests there's something nefarious or dissembling or puffery-ish about use of serving as/serves as/served as etc. |
|||
::::::The past discussions: |
|||
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#%22Serving_as%22_in_lede_of_politics_articles |
|||
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcia_Fudge/Archive_1#How_should_we_word_the_lead_sentence? |
|||
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_7 |
|||
::::::The last one there has the most discussion, and while I only skimmed through it, the sense seemed to be that it's not problematic per se, and certainly not harmful, but ''could be but isn't strictly'' puffery/PoV. |
|||
::::::In my ''personal'' opinion which holds zero weight, it strikes me as over-policing of speech. Also of no weight at all but interesting, from etymonline, '[...] Sense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c. [...]" - all of which seems to be its use in this context. |
|||
::::::Amusingly, in its earliest usage in the late 12th century, it had the connotation of 'be a slave'. Quite the opposite of puffery! Fortunately, this is not the 12th century. |
|||
::::::When people have asked me in the past what I do for a living, I can recall saying, for example, 'well, in one aspect of my job I served as [...], but I also served as [...]" when describing my job functions within a company, since in many of my jobs I wore multiple hats. Perhaps though I was overcompensating for a lack of self-esteem. |
|||
::::::My sense - in terms of WP and non-rigid standards/practices - is that we should just do as we do with date formatting, BC/BCE, and other things - if it's one way in an article, leave it that way, if it's the other way, leave it that way. I don't think it needs wholesale replacement. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::My bad — I linked to the wrong essay entirely. [[WP:ELEVAR]] is what I was thinking of. Sorry for the confusion. [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 19:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: Nice essay. Just an essay, though, and one that provides no counterpoint to the problem of repetitive monotony, which makes it harder to actually maintain focus while reading a text. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition, there can be a middle ground, and there are definitely circumstances where "served as" is more informative to the reader than merely "was". A person can hold an office in name only and do nothing in it, and it can accurately be said that the person "was" whatever the title of the office was, but not that they "served as" the holder of that office. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Apart from elegant variation, we there is also avoidance of [[Wikipedia:close paraphrasing|close paraphrasing]], the need to phrase things differently to the source. (I agree that "served" is usually better than "was".) [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll just add the relevant essay here, since to my surprise it hasn't been mentioned yet. [[WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED]] [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I see that {{ping|Edwardx}} continues to purge the terms "serves", "served" etc from articles, but with no rationale, just 'copyedit'. I repeat my objections - however mild - to this, as there's no policy or guideline or even reliable source that I can find that states that those terms are bad/wrong/inappropriate/manipulative/disembling/deceitful/nefarious/must be purged from Wikipedia. |
|||
I, and probably most people, wouldn't get the impression that [[Jamie Dimon]] is a public servant if his bio noted that he 'serves as the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of JPMorgan Chase'. I see no difference between "serves as", "acts as", "works as". It means filling a role and doing a job. It's plain english. |
|||
It doesn't praise or denigrate to say "X served as regional manager" rather than "X was regional manager", or even "X acted as regional manager". WP:ELEVAR suggests avoidance of ''excessive'' use of variable wording, particularly where it introduces confusion. I don't think it argues that variety in terminology is to be avoided at all costs. |
|||
As I suggested before, if an editor runs across an existing article and it uses 'is/was' or 'serves/served' etc., leave it as you found it, as both are reasonable. Absent some guidance that these words are problematic, I think that's a fair compromise. |
|||
As there's no clear consensus above, perhaps someone can link to any reliable sources outside WP that argues that there's something inherently problematic with the terms. I can't find any. The terms are used broadly in business, politics, academia, research, activism, and more. We shouldn't be making up language rules based on whims. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] please stop making this change. It is the equivalent of changing “till” to “until”; both forms are acceptable, and you have better ways to spend your time than policing the way people use English. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 22:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::While I don't necessarily disagree with the edit on one level (per my comment earlier), I have only made such an edit myself as part of a larger and more significant edit (as far as I recall). In the context of the copy editing that can be done, it is quite a minor issue. To address the last sentence of Edwardx's post, I don't think there should be a campaign to remove the wording from all articles. I suggest to Edwardx that they focus rather on more worthwhile edits. [[User:Nurg|Nurg]] ([[User talk:Nurg|talk]]) 23:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I just did a random spotcheck of some of Edwardx's "copyedit" edits. All three of the edits I reviewed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_Financial_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1220107024], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Kalinske&diff=prev&oldid=1220106803], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Penn&diff=prev&oldid=1220093223]) look like improvements to me and good examples of where simple "be" verbs do the job better than "serve". [[User:Popcornfud|Popcornfud]] ([[User talk:Popcornfud|talk]]) 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks to everyone for their varied and interesting thoughts, and especially to [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]] for uncovering some earlier pertinent discussions. Stepping outside of Wikipedia for a wider view (and we should be seeking to mirror what is written in reliable secondary sources anyway), I have been looking at how obituaries in the leading reliable sources and profiles in Britannica.com, Biography.com, Forbes.com, Simple Wikipedia, etc. None of them use "serves/served as" to describe for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles. For political and military people, they generally avoid it in the opening sentence, and often in the entire first paragraph. We should be seeking to emulate the best secondary sources. The nuances of language matter, especially in the lead, which is all that most of our readers bother with. Using "serves/served as" can be seen as a value judgement, it is needlessly verbose and we should prefer plain English. |
|||
::My (reconsidered) view is that we should not use "serves/served as" to describe any for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles, and we should avoid it in the first paragraph of any biography. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I see that the removal of "serves/served" etc continues apace, now eliminating it even from military service. I am compiling some information regarding this matter which I'll post later. I still await any ''reliable sources'' that state that 'served/serving' etc biased/subjective/a value judgement/to be avoided. I am only going through Britannica.com thus far, and the claim that 'none of them use serves/served as to describe for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles' is not reproducible. |
|||
:::When the difference between "verbose" and "plain" is a matter three letters, I think we're in trouble of reducing WP to a very low literacy threshold. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC){{od}} |
|||
Collapsed below is a list of biography entries from brittanica.com. I've done my best to randomly poke around through different disciplines but it's obviously not comprehensive; in fact, the list is short, because I've spent way too much time finessing the formatting to wikitext; that's also why I haven't bothered with visiting the other online encyclopedias, I've put more than enough work into this as it is. I prefer to make decisions based on information, not speculation or personal observations in a vacuum. |
|||
I have excluded any person whose notability is ''primarily'' in public service – politicians, military leaders – or where the only use of 'serves/served/serving/' etc. is in regard public service outside of their primary notability. If I had included its use in public service bios, I'd estimate the list would be half-again larger. |
|||
The split between 'public service' and 'not public service' is not black & white at times, and I'm open to striking any for which a compelling argument against inclusion is tendered. I would note, however, that in earlier discussion the split was on formal public service, i.e. political/government/military service, which seemed less of an issue in discussion. Working for a publicly-''funded'' organization, or one that receives some level of government funding, doesn't explicitly mean it's "public service", imo. |
|||
I've restricted findings to occurrences in the first or second graf; only the latter is noted when it occurs. Editor Edwardx is not confining the removal to the first or second graf, I would note – all instances are seemingly being removed, but I haven't reviewed every single edit; if I'm mistaken, apologies. |
|||
The only elisions are when the use is in the first sentence, as it would mean including birthdate/place etc. |
|||
I could discern no obvious inclination or reluctance on Brittanica in using the term. Brittanica seems to have no issue with its use in business bios. I acknowledge my own confirmation bias in this, as I hope others would of their own findings. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top |title=Click at right to show/hide ___ }} |
|||
'''André Lwoff''' – French biologist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He spent most of his research career at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, ''serving on'' the board of directors from 1966 to 1972. From 1959 to 1968 he was also a professor of microbiology at the Sorbonne in Paris. When he retired from the Pasteur Institute in 1968, he ''served as ''director of the Cancer Research Institute at nearby Villejuif until 1972." |
|||
'''Andrew Dickson White''' – American educator and diplomat (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After graduating from Yale in 1853, White studied in Europe for the next three years, ''serving also as'' attaché at the U.S. legation''(sic)'' at St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1854–55." (grey area) |
|||
'''Anna Wintour''' – British editor (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"Wintour was the daughter of Charles Vere Wintour, who twice ''served as'' editor of London's Evening Standard newspaper."<br /> |
|||
"After working as a fashion editor for a series of New York magazines, she ''served as'' editor (1986) of British Vogue and as editor (1987) of House & Garden, which she controversially relaunched in the United States as HG." |
|||
'''Azim Premji''' – Indian businessman:<br /> |
|||
"[...] Indian business entrepreneur who ''served as'' chairman of Wipro Limited, guiding the company through four decades of diversification and growth to emerge as a world leader in the software industry." |
|||
'''Barry Diller''' – American media executive:<br /> |
|||
"American media executive who ''served as'' CEO of numerous companies, most notably Twentieth Century-Fox (1984–92), where he created the Fox Network, and IAC/InterActiveCorp (2003–10), an Internet venture." |
|||
'''Beno Gutenberg''' – American seismologist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"Gutenberg ''served as'' a professor of geophysics and director of the seismological laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, from 1930 to 1957, when he retired." |
|||
'''Carlo Rubbia''' – Italian physicist:<br /> |
|||
"In 1988 he left Harvard, and from 1989 to 1994 he ''served as'' director general of CERN" |
|||
'''Carol Ann Duffy''' – British poet:<br /> |
|||
"In 2009–19 she ''served as'' the first woman poet laureate of Great Britain." |
|||
'''Columbus O'D. Iselin''' – American oceanographer (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"For Harvard he ''served as'' assistant curator of oceanography (1929–48) and research oceanographer of the Museum of Comparative Zoology." |
|||
'''Craig C. Mello''' – American geneticist: (indirect usage)<br /> |
|||
"His curiosity was largely influenced by his father, James Mello, a paleontologist who had ''served as'' the associate director of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C." (grey area) |
|||
'''Denis Diderot''' – French philosopher:<br /> |
|||
"[...] was a French man of letters and philosopher who, from 1745 to 1772, ''served as'' chief editor of the Encyclopédie, one of the principal works of the Age of Enlightenment." |
|||
'''Dumas Malone''' – American historian, editor, author:<br /> |
|||
"He edited the Dictionary of American Biography from 1929 to 1936 and the Political Science Quarterly from 1953 to 1958 and ''served as'' director of the Harvard University Press from 1936 to 1943." |
|||
'''Ellen Fitz Pendleton''' – American educator:<br /> |
|||
"American educator who ''served as'' president of Wellesley (Massachusetts) College for a quarter of a century." |
|||
'''Fenton J. A. Hort''' – British biblical scholar:<br /> |
|||
"In 1856 he was ordained in the Anglican Church and for 15 years ''served as'' a minister near Cambridge." |
|||
'''Franz Mehring''' – German historian and journalist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"Thereafter, he edited the socialist Leipziger Volkszeitung and ''served on'' the staff of the party's official publication, Neue Zeit ("New Age")." |
|||
'''Fukui Toshihiko''' – Japanese economist and banker:<br /> |
|||
"Japanese economist and banker who ''served as'' governor of the Bank of Japan (BOJ) from 2003 to 2008." |
|||
'''Georges Cuvier''' – French zoologist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After graduation Cuvier ''served in 1788–95 as'' a tutor, during which time he wrote original studies of marine invertebrates, particularly the mollusks." |
|||
'''Henry Dunster''' – American minister and educator (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"Dunster was educated at the University of Cambridge (B.A., 1631; M.A., 1634) and then taught school and ''served as'' curate of Bury." |
|||
'''Hunter S. Thompson''' – American journalist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' a sports editor for a base newspaper and continued his journalism career after being discharged in 1957." (this during military service, but, grey area) |
|||
'''Ignacy Krasicki''' – Polish poet (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' one of the closest cultural counselors to King Stanisław II August Poniatowski; in 1795 he was named archbishop of Gniezno." (grey area) |
|||
'''Indra Nooyi''' – American business executive:<br /> |
|||
"Nooyi ''served as'' the company's CEO (2006–18) and chairman of the board (2007–19)." |
|||
'''Ita Buttrose''' – Australian journalist, editor, businesswoman:<br /> |
|||
"[...] Australian journalist, editor, and businesswoman who was the founding editor (1972–75) of the highly popular Australian women's magazine Cleo and the first woman to ''serve as'' editor in chief (1981–84) of the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers in Sydney." |
|||
'''Jackie Milburn''' – British football player:<br /> |
|||
"He retired in 1956 and, after ''serving briefly as'' a manager for Ipswich Town (1963–64), became a sports journalist with the Sunday Sun and News of the World." |
|||
'''James Manning''' – American educator:<br /> |
|||
"[...] was a U.S. Baptist clergyman who founded Rhode Island College (renamed Brown University in 1804) and ''served as'' its first president." |
|||
'''Jerzy Neyman''' – Polish mathematician and statistician (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After ''serving as'' a lecturer at the Institute of Technology, Kharkov, in Ukraine, from 1917 to 1921, Neyman was appointed statistician of the Institute of Agriculture at Bydgoszcz, Poland."<br /> |
|||
"He ''served on'' the staff of University College, London, from 1934 to 1938, and then immigrated to the United States, where he joined the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, becoming chairman of a new department of statistics in 1955 and residing as a U.S. citizen for the rest of his life." |
|||
'''John McPhee''' – American journalist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' an associate editor at Time magazine (1957–64) and a staff writer at The New Yorker (from 1965)." |
|||
'''John Pond''' – British astronomer:<br /> |
|||
"Pond was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1807 and ''served from 1811 to 1835 as'' astronomer royal." (grey area) |
|||
'''Lei Jun''' – Chinese entrepreneur:<br /> |
|||
"[...] Chinese business executive who was a cofounder (2010) of electronics maker Xiaomi Corp.; he also ''served as'' chairman and CEO." |
|||
'''Lene Hau''' – Danish scientist:<br /> |
|||
"Hau also took a position at the Rowland Institute in 1991, ''serving as'' principal investigator for the Atom Cooling Group until 1999." |
|||
'''Lou Gerstner''' – American businessman:<br /> |
|||
"American businessman best known for the pivotal role he played in revitalizing the ailing IBM in the mid-1990s; he ''served as'' CEO of the company from 1993 to 2002." |
|||
'''Maria Ramos''' – Portuguese South African economist and businesswoman:<br /> |
|||
"Portuguese South African economist and businesswoman who ''served as'' CEO of the transportation company Transnet (2004–09) and later of the financial group Absa (2009–19)." |
|||
'''Marissa Mayer''' – American software engineer and businesswoman:<br /> |
|||
She later'' served as'' CEO and president of Yahoo! Inc. (2012–17). |
|||
'''Martin Evans''' – British scientist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"In 1978 he joined the faculty at Cambridge, and in 1999 he accepted a post at Cardiff University, where he later became president (2009–12) and ''served as'' the school's chancellor (2012–17)." |
|||
'''Meg Whitman''' – American business executive and politician:<br /> |
|||
"[...] American business executive and politician who ''served as'' president and CEO of eBay (1998–2008), an online auction company, and later of the technology company Hewlett Packard (2011–15)."<br /> |
|||
"After the latter restructured, she ''served as'' CEO of Hewlett Packard Enterprise (2015–18)." |
|||
'''Moses Hess''' – German author and zionist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
Hess saw a material application of his beliefs in an idealistic, somewhat anarchic socialism, and he organized workers' groups while propagating his ideas in the radical newspaper Rheinische Zeitung ("Rhinelander Gazette"), for which he ''served as'' Paris correspondent from 1842 to 1843. |
|||
'''Myron C. Taylor''' – American financier and diplomat (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"At the behest of J.P. Morgan he became a director of United States Steel, ''serving as'' chairman of its finance committee from 1927 to 1934 and as chairman of the board and chief executive officer from 1932 to 1938." |
|||
'''Nora Perry''' – American journalist and poet:<br /> |
|||
"She ''served as'' Boston correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and the Providence Journal for a time while continuing to contribute stories, serials, and poems to various other periodicals." |
|||
'''Ohno Taiichi''' – Japanese businessman (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' assembly shop manager in Toyota's vehicle-making operations, then quickly climbed the corporate ladder as his manufacturing expertise was recognized." |
|||
'''Ozzie Guillen''' – American baseball player, coach, and manager (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After four years in the minors, Guillen was traded to the White Sox, where he ''served as'' the team's starting shortstop for 13 years (1985–97)." |
|||
'''Patricia A. Woertz''' – American business executive:<br /> |
|||
"[...] American businesswoman who ''served as'' president and CEO of the agricultural processing corporation Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) from 2006 to 2014." |
|||
'''Paul Gervais''' – French paleontologist and zoologist:<br /> |
|||
"At Montpellier, he ''served as'' professor of zoology and comparative anatomy (1845–65) and became dean of the faculty of sciences (1856)." |
|||
'''Paul Nurse''' – British scientist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He also held various positions at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF; now Cancer Research UK), notably ''serving as'' director-general (1996–2002) and chief executive (2002–03)." |
|||
'''Ray Stannard Baker''' – American writer (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"At Wilson's request, Baker ''served as'' head of the American Press Bureau at the Paris peace conference (1919), where the two were in close and constant association." |
|||
'''Reed Hastings''' – American entrepreneur:<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' its CEO (1998–2020) and co-CEO (2020–23) before becoming executive chairman (2023– )." |
|||
'''Rex W. Tillerson''' – American businessman and statesman (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He later ''served as'' the general manager (1989–92) for Exxon's oil and gas production in a region that spanned Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas." |
|||
'''Rex Warner''' – British writer (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"In the 1940s he ''served as'' director of the British Institute in Athens." (grey area?) |
|||
'''Robert Nardelli''' – American businessman:<br /> |
|||
"American businessman who ''served as'' CEO of Home Depot (2000–07) and Chrysler (2007–09)" |
|||
'''Roger Ailes''' – American television producer and political consultant:<br /> |
|||
"He began a career in television the year that he graduated from Ohio University (B.A., 1962), ''serving as'' a property assistant for the Cleveland-based program The Mike Douglas Show."<br |
|||
"By 1965 he was working as a producer for the show, and in 1967–68 he ''served as'' executive producer, receiving an Emmy Award for his […]" (remainder unavailable to non-subscriber; I thank Brittanica for how much they ''do'' make available) |
|||
'''Rubem Braga''' – Brazilian journalist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"For a three-year period (1961–63) he ''served as'' Brazilian ambassador in Morocco." (grey) |
|||
'''Saad al-Hariri''' – prime minister of Lebanon (lede begins with 'Lebanese businessman') (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After receiving a degree in international business from Georgetown University (1992), Washington, D.C., Hariri worked at Saudi Oger, a large Saudi Arabia-based firm owned by his father, where he oversaw construction work and ''served as'' a maintenance contractor for the Saudi royal palaces." |
|||
'''Shirley M. Tilghman''' – Canadian molecular biologist:<br /> |
|||
"[...] is a Canadian molecular biologist and the first woman to ''serve as'' president of Princeton University (2001–13)." |
|||
'''Sir Julian Huxley''' – British biologist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He later became professor of zoology at King's College, London University; ''served for seven years as'' secretary to the Zoological Society of London, transforming the zoo at Regent's Park and being actively involved in the development of that at Whipsnade in Bedfordshire; and became a Fellow of the Royal Society." |
|||
'''Sir Michael Ernest Sadler''' – English educator (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"He ''served as'' secretary of the Oxford University Extension lectures subcommittee from 1885 to 1895 and as steward of Christ Church, Oxford, from 1886 to 1895." |
|||
'''Tom Brokaw''' – American television journalist and author (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"Brokaw ''served as'' NBC's White House correspondent during the Watergate scandal and worked on the floor of the Democratic and Republican national conventions in 1976."<br /> |
|||
"From 1976 to 1982 he ''served as'' a host of NBC's popular morning program Today." |
|||
'''Ulf von Euler''' – Swedish physiologist (2nd):<br /> |
|||
"After his graduation from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Euler ''served on'' the faculty of the institute from 1930 to 1971." |
|||
'''Umberto Agnelli''' – Italian industrialist:<br /> |
|||
"[...] was an Italian automotive executive and grandson of Giovanni Agnelli, the founder of Fiat SpA. He ''served as'' the company's chairman from 2003 to 2004." |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 11:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1724756467}} |
|||
'''Ursula Burns''' – American executive:<br /> |
|||
There are two questions: |
|||
"American business executive who ''served as'' CEO (2009–16) and chairman (2010–17) of the international document-management and business-services company Xerox Corporation."<br /> |
|||
#Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles? |
|||
"She was the first African American woman to ''serve as'' CEO of a Fortune 500 company and the first female to accede to the position of CEO of such a company in succession after another female." |
|||
#If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?{{br}}'''A'''. X is an American retired actor.{{br}}'''B'''. X is a retired American actor. |
|||
[[User:Khiikiat|Khiikiat]] ([[User talk:Khiikiat|talk]]) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''C - Neither''' Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''W. Averell Harriman''' – American diplomat (2nd):<br /> |
|||
*'''No and Neither''': the [[Adjective#Order|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{{snd}}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. [[User:Rosbif73|Rosbif73]] ([[User talk:Rosbif73|talk]]) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"The son of the railroad magnate Edward Henry Harriman, he began his employment with the Union Pacific Railroad Company in 1915; he ''served as'' chairman of the board in 1932–46." |
|||
*'''Comment''' Previous discussion on same question [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2022_archive#Word_order_when_former/retired here] (2022). [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option A is generally wrong''': A [[proper adjective]] (e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref: [https://study.com/academy/lesson/adjective-word-order-rules-examples.html Adjective Word Order at Study.com]. [[User:Nurg|Nurg]] ([[User talk:Nurg|talk]]) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No'''. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former" ''is'' needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as {{xt|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. {{xt|Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner}}, not {{!xt|Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist}} or {{!xt|Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist}}. [[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No''' And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No and neither'''. MOS is not a guide to English grammar like others pointed above. The hyper-specific guidance leans into [[WP:CREEP]] territory. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''Walter Cronkite''' – (2nd):<br /> |
|||
*'''Almost never "former American"''' as ''former'' is a unique adjective in that it modifies the following word, implying that they are no longer an American ([https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/the-study-of-adjective-order-and-gsssacpm.html "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". ''Slate'']). That would only be appropriate in rare cases like [[Wayne Brabender]], who renounced his citizenship.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 02:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"Before returning to the United States, he ''served as'' UP bureau chief in Moscow (1946–48)." |
|||
* '''B''' If appropriate, "retired" may be used instead of "former", this should be noted in the MOS. Per [[User:Nurg|Nurg]], '''A''' is grammatically incorrect, and per [[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]], "former American actor" is wrong. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 12:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''William Rainey Harper''' – American educator:<br /> |
|||
*:Yes, the key is "if appropriate". ''Retired'' is sometimes misleading, e.g. athletes who retire from playing in their 30s or 40s, but still work in other fields until their 60s or later. Or former child actors. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"[...] was an American Hebraist who ''served as'' leader of the Chautauqua Institution and as the first president of the University of Chicago. |
|||
*'''No'''. The MOS doesn't need to try and determine every individual thing. Some things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis; and I don't think the argument has been convincingly made that this is a situation where one framing makes a better default than the other or where uniformity would benefit the wiki. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''A''' is the ''only'' correct answer - a professional does not retire from their nationality, only their profession. Therefore bios should say 'American former/retired actor' and NOT 'former/retired American actor'. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Profesional English is illogical, and attempting to right it would needlessly and substantively degrade our reputation. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''No, neither and C''' using retired in this way is best avoided. You can always add "who retired in..." or similar. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Why say in 1 word what you can say in 10, eh! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No and Neither''' I feel this isn't something the MOS needs to specify - nor do I see much reasoning for why we should. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''William S. Paley''' – American executive:<br /> |
|||
:'''{{tooltip|¬ ,¬ ∨|a pretentious way of saying no and neither}} '''. This seems like a SNOW close. Also, this issue has been raised independently at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of "former" to describe occupations]]. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"He transformed the small radio network into a media empire, ''serving as'' president (1928–46), chairman of the board (1946–83), founder chairman (1983–86), acting chairman (1986–87), and chairman (1987–90)." |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== Gender identity: removing "waiter/waitress/server" == |
|||
So, I posted factual information here two days ago that clearly shows that {{tq|"[...]the leading reliable sources and profiles in Britannica.com [...]}} use 'served/serves' in biographies for people in {{tq|"[...] for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles [...]"}}, contrary to the claim that none of them do, and that it is used {{tq|[...] in the opening sentence, and often in the entire first paragraph."}} I agree that {{tq|"We should be seeking to emulate the best secondary sources"}}, and one of the best sources uses the terms. I can find no reliable secondary sources - none, anywhere - that claim or even allude that {{tq|"Using "serves/served as" can be seen as a value judgement [...]"}}. Yet the purging of the term continues. We should not be making wholesale changes to WP based upon vague feelings, when we have objective evidence that the terms are acceptable for one of the best reliable sources. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|GnocchiFan|David Eppstein}} I'm not in the interest of edit warring on a high-profile guideline, so I won't revert twice, but I would encourage David to self-revert back to the status quo, at least until a proper consensus develops. |
|||
:Perhaps we can have a compromise. It seems perfectly fine to change “serves as” in the present tense, for simplicity, but for those positions once-held, the past tense should not be changed. What do you think, @[[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]]? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Obviously, language is evolving to ungender many nouns, and there are many where traditionally male forms are now acceptable for all people. And of course we shouldn't go out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. {{wt|en|firewoman}}, {{wt|en|doctoress}} when the gender-neutral ''firefighter'' and ''doctor'' exist and are widely accepted. |
|||
Perhaps there's a UK/US component here, and certainly there's a lot of personal preference, but whenever I read ''"Joe Biden is serving as the Nth president"'' or some-such, I wonder what the REAL president is up to while this Biden stand-in fellow does his job. This is a usage not dissimilar to Popcornfud's example above ''"Q. is it really a car park? A. No, but it will serve"'', ie is an adequate substitute. Clearly military serve abroad and in their particular branch and it is not uncommon to thus refer to diplomats, but isn't it the most common usage for political/public roles that "Biden is" and "Trump was" president. What useful purpose does the more elaborate phrasing serve? [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
Again, we keep going with personal opinions and speculation, and apparently evidence is not helpful at best, dismissed at worst (while we're here, Pincrete can you explain your addition of "Italic text" to the William Rainey Harper entry in the collapsed section above?) |
|||
I've never come across the notion that the term confuses people into thinking there is a shadow presidency or other conflations. It seems a stretch, and only if one is overthinking the plain language presented. In my opinion. |
|||
The various iterations of how the term 'serve/s/d' is used ''differently'' aren't a strong argument against ''this'' usage - shall we digress, for example, into the definition and usage of the term 'set', in all its 430 (and growing) distinct usages? If I said "I set the chair aside me", is it likely someone would misinterpret that to mean that I congealed a chair next to me? |
|||
I'll refer to sources 'outside of' WP and outside of our own personal opinions (and, again, actually provide the results, rather than 'summarizing' it through my own lens). While not acceptable as reliable secondary sources, they provide a look into what large-language-models "think". I chose three of the better known AI. |
|||
{{collapse top |title=Click at right to show/hide ___ }} |
|||
<h3>ChatGPT</h3> |
|||
'''1.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"What does it mean to "serve as" a position?"''' |
|||
''ChatGPT'': "To "serve as" a position typically means to fulfill the duties and responsibilities associated with that position. For example, if someone serves as the CEO of a company, it means they are in the role of CEO and are performing the tasks and making the decisions expected of someone in that position. It implies active engagement and participation in the role, rather than merely holding the title." |
|||
'''2.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?"''' |
|||
''ChatGPT'': "No, the term "serves as" in relation to a job or position doesn't inherently imply a value judgment. It merely indicates the function or role someone holds within an organization or context. Whether that person performs their duties well or not is separate from the statement itself. For example, saying someone "serves as the manager" doesn't pass judgment on their managerial skills; it simply states their position within the company." |
|||
<h3>Google Gemini</h3> |
|||
'''1.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"What does it mean to "serve as" a position?"''' |
|||
''Gemini'': When someone "serves as" a position, it means they hold that position and fulfill its duties and responsibilities. Here's a breakdown: |
|||
* '''Position:''' This refers to a specific role or job title within an organization, company, or government. It outlines the expected tasks and authorities associated with that role. |
|||
* '''Serve:''' In this context, "serve" means to perform the duties and obligations that come with the position. It emphasizes the act of fulfilling the role's purpose. |
|||
For example: |
|||
* "Sarah is currently serving as the CEO of the company." (This means Sarah holds the position of CEO and is actively carrying out the responsibilities of that position.) |
|||
* "The council member will serve as a representative for the local community." (This indicates the council member's role is to act on behalf of the community.) |
|||
Here are some synonyms for "serve as": |
|||
* Hold |
|||
* Occupy |
|||
* Fill |
|||
* Discharge the duties of |
|||
* Be in office as |
|||
'''2.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?"''' |
|||
''Gemini'': "No, the term "serves as" in relation to a job typically doesn't imply a value judgment. Here's why: |
|||
* '''Focus on Function:''' As mentioned before, "serves as" emphasizes the practical aspect of fulfilling a role. It highlights the function of the job, not its perceived importance or worth. |
|||
* '''Neutral Tone:''' The term doesn't inherently suggest the job is good or bad, high-paying or low-paying. It simply describes the position someone holds. |
|||
For example: |
|||
* "John serves as a sanitation worker, keeping our streets clean." (This statement focuses on the function of John's job, not its perceived prestige.) |
|||
* "Maria serves as the CEO of a tech startup, leading a team of innovative developers." (Here, "serves as" describes Maria's position without implying its value compared to other CEO roles.) |
|||
However, there are some situations where the context can introduce a subtle judgment: |
|||
* '''Emphasis on Unexpected Role:''' If "serves as" is used to highlight someone taking on a job that might seem unusual for them, it could imply a temporary or unexpected situation: |
|||
** "The famous actor served as a waiter during his time in acting school." (This suggests the job may not be his usual line of work.) |
|||
Even in this case, the judgment is more about the unexpectedness of the situation, not the job itself. |
|||
Overall, "serves as" remains a neutral way to describe someone's role in a job. The surrounding context is more likely to introduce a value judgment than the term itself." |
|||
<h3>Anthropic Claude</h3> |
|||
'''1.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"What does it mean to "serve as" a position?"''' |
|||
''Claude'': The phrase "to serve as" something typically means to function in a particular role or capacity. Some examples: |
|||
- She serves as the president of the company. |
|||
(Meaning she holds and performs the duties of the president role) |
|||
- This document will serve as a contract between the two parties. |
|||
(Meaning this document will function as and be treated as the official contract) |
|||
- The internship will serve as valuable work experience. |
|||
(Meaning the internship will provide and act as beneficial work experience) |
|||
- This valley serves as a wildlife corridor. |
|||
(Meaning this valley functions as a route/pathway that wildlife use to travel between habitats) |
|||
So in general, to "serve as" a position, role, thing, etc. means to act in that capacity or perform the purpose/function of that position, role or thing. It denotes taking on the responsibilities, duties or purpose associated with whatever is stated after "serve as." Let me know if this explanation makes sense! |
|||
'''2.)''' |
|||
Me: '''"Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?"''' |
|||
''Claude'': "When used in relation to a job or position that someone holds, the term "serves as" does not inherently imply a positive or negative value judgment. It is still simply stating what role or capacity that person is functioning in. |
|||
For example: |
|||
"John serves as the company's CEO." |
|||
This is just a factual statement about the position John holds, without any implied criticism or praise of his performance in that role. |
|||
"She serves as the head of the marketing department." |
|||
Again, this is just objectively describing her job title and responsibilities, not making a subjective assessment of how well she does that job. |
|||
"He currently serves as a judge on the district court." |
|||
Stating the position or occupation someone has, without judging whether they are good or bad at being a judge. |
|||
The phrase "serves as" is still just descriptive and denotative in this context, not connotative or evaluative. It does not automatically signal whether the person is doing a good or poor job in that role. |
|||
Only additional context clues, like describing the person as "effectively serves as" or "poorly serves as" would start to imply an evaluative judgment of their performance. But the base "serves as" phrase alone is still just stating the role itself, not judging the quality of their service in that role. It remains an objective descriptor when used in relation to jobs or positions. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc"}}: Good. Having such a role is not "service" in any meaningful sense, and using that term in that context is clearly promotional/aggrandizing ([[MOS:PEACOCK]]). We might get a consensus that the term is more properly applicable to the military, maybe to political office and civil service positions, and conceivably even to ecclesiastical roles, but after 20+ years it's clear there is no consensus appetite for using such language with regard to commercial job titles and board/officer positions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 03:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Have you read the discussion above? Your opinion is noted; however, the ''evidence'' suggests that you are wrong. No editor has yet provided any evidence - only personal opinion - regarding the matter. I've presented evidence that it is not peacock wording, and that other leading reliable sources (Brittanica) have no disinclination to using the term. There's nothing promotional or aggrandizing to state that someone hold a particular job or fills a particular position. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 03:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
For a lot of people, "served" contains an implication of positivity. This is easiest to see in non-uses of the term. According to us (Wikipedia), [[Elizabeth Holmes]] didn't "serve" as CEO of Theranos; [[Sam Bankman-Fried]] didn't "serve" as CEO of FTX; [[Gregory W. Becker]] didn't "serve" as CEO of Silicon Valley Bank; [[Richard S. Fuld Jr.]] didn't "serve" as the final CEO of Lehman Brothers; [[Kenneth Lay]] didn't "serve" as CEO of Enron; Putin doesn't "serve" as President of Russia; (let's jump straight to it...) Hitler didn't "serve" as Chancellor of Germany (but the [[Konrad Adenauer|first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany]] did). (Brittanica follows this pattern for ones I've found, except Putin, who acquired "served" in 2008 and still has it.) This association of "serve" with something positive or at least self-sacrificing doesn't hold in all cases, of course, but there's plenty of evidence that it exists. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:This phenomenon is perhaps a combination of two definitions of "serve" found in various dictionaries – "provide with something that is needed" and "work for; to do your duty to". That's Cambridge dictionaries. Britannica has: "to provide what is needed by or for (someone or something)" and "to hold a particular office, position, etc. : to perform a duty or job". Examples from Collins: "If you serve your country, an organization, or a person, you do useful work for them" and "If you serve in a particular place or as a particular official, you perform official duties". By using "serve" for various leaders, we can be seen as impying that, in addition to leading, their acts as leaders were useful or needed. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 16:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|"For a lot of people [...]"}} Can you quantify this? If I wrote "For a lot of people, "served" contains no implication, positive or negative", would that hold any more water? Instead, I think a more honest construct would be that "Some people ''infer'' that "served" expresses praise; some other people don't make that inferrence". {{tq|"This is easiest to see in non-uses of the term."}} Is it easy though? The Elizabeth Holmes article here appears to have not used the term either before or after her fall. Same for Sam Bankman-Fried. Gregory Becker's article did use it - until Edwardx removed it this past January, so that's a null example. Contrarily, here on WP |
|||
::José Napoleón Duarte 'served as president of El Salvador' |
|||
::Joseph Stalin 'was the longest-serving leader of the Soviet Union' |
|||
::Pol Pot 'served as General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea' |
|||
::Saddam Hussein 'served as the fifth president of Iraq from 1979 to 2003' |
|||
::What is 'easy to see' is that there are no easy to see patterns of its usage across an array of biographies, both on WP and Brittanica - probably because it doesn't imply praise, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are some folks who believe Stalin got a bad rap. |
|||
::{{tq|"By using "serve" for various leaders, we can be seen as impying that, in addition to leading, their acts as leaders were useful or needed.}} Only the Collins' definition adds a modifier that could be inferred to mean 'praise' - 'useful' (and that is some seriously weak "praise"). In all of the others, it describes utility. Alone, the term is neutral; only if we add modifiers does it carry a value judgment. What ''is'' a value judgement is how ''some'' editors ''infer'' praise in an otherwise neutral term. I don't think we're required to dumb-down wikipedia to cater to the whims of some editors. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 20:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::For a lot of people is implicit in its non-use in high-profile articles on Wikipedia, which is edited by... a lot of people; it's also supported by basic dictionary definitions: surely "useful" is a positive quality; and surely the definitions that refer to providing what is needed are indicating something positive, too. Yes, "a lot of people" applies to the opposite view, too. But what's the benefit of using "serve" when for plenty of people (backed up by basic dictionary definitions) it implies something positive? Why not use another word ("be" is the obvious choice) that is unlikely to cause any such interpretation from anyone? (Noting that I agree with some of the readability points above – eg, don't use the same word repeatedly.) [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{tq|For a lot of people, "served" contains an implication of positivity.}} Not necessarily. For example, prison sentences; "serving one's sentence" is the most common way of referring to someone's time incarcerated. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 20:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::That's a different case, based on a different meaning of the word; I don't think anyone's proposing changing that. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not, they're based on the same meaning. See the {{google|serve definition|Google definition}}, {{tq|q=y|spend (a period) in office, in an apprenticeship, or in prison.}} ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 20:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
If a (traditionally) gendered term for an occupation exists, which we (or sources) would normally use for a cis person in that profession, then I think it's generally preferable that articles should insistently use those terms when describing binary trans people, and try to avoid them when describing non-binary people. This prescription circumvents an... unfortunate trend where speakers (unconsciously or maliciously) use ungendered language specifically for trans men and women, while gendering our cis counterparts. |
|||
== RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence == |
|||
In this specific case I think referring to a trans woman as either a "server" or a "waitress" is fine. It's possible that a better example exists. But given the choice we should consistently refer to trans women film performers as ''actresses'' rather than ''actors''. Even though that term is slowly coming to be understood as gender-neutral, it is traditionally male-specific. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 19:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1717095668}} |
|||
Regarding [[MOS:FIRSTBIO]], which says in part {{tq|The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.}} Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? [[Jeffrey Epstein]] and [[Harvey Weinstein]] are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe this falls into RGW territory, but I think it should list the crime specifically. “Sex offender” can mean anything from rape in a dark alley to being gay before 2003, it doesn’t really tell the reader anything and depending on the crime it can actively mislead them. Same for felonies in general. |
|||
:Whereas if you say “convicted rapist”, that maintains notability while being unambiguous. Likewise for felonies, “convicted felon” doesn’t really say anything. Did they commit arson or did they bounce a check? [[User:Snokalok|Snokalok]] ([[User talk:Snokalok|talk]]) 18:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It depends. The opening sentence of an article should explain what the subject is primarily notable for. Someone like Jeffrey Dhalmer is really only notable for his crimes. The opening sentence appropriately focuses on his mass murder. People like Epstein and Weinstein, on the other hand, are notable for a lot besides their crimes. While we definitely should NOT ignore their crimes, we should not highlight their crimes ''over'' the other things that make them notable. A more ''nuanced'' opening sentence is more appropriate (Epstein was a businessman who committed sex crimes… Weinstein was a Hollywood film producer who committed sex crimes). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd say the answer is almost always no, at least for the felon part. That's rarely why these kinds of individuals are notable in sum total, and it almost always feels like a smear rather than neutral statement of fact ([[Safiya Bukhari]] is a convicted felon, but that's absolutely not the summation of her career, to pick another example.) Even if someone like Donald Trump got convicted, which would be an immensely historic and notable event in America, it still wouldn't make sense to say the most important thing about him was that he had a criminal conviction in the first breaths. The only places I think it makes sense is when the person's claim to notability is central to why they even have an entry (such as their criminal acts being the only reason they have an article.) There's also the issue of the fact that "sex offender" or "felon" is a massive gamut of potential crimes and would essentially lump without elaboration; to take the previous entries together, that a civil rights activist who got a patently unfair trial is equivalent to a Hollywood sex pest. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Almost always no. If their crimes are a major enough aspect for a first-sentence mention, it should almost always be possible to be more precise. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with Snokalok. We should describe the actual crime (and not just when the perpetrator is independently notable). So for instance, [[HH Holmes]] is described as a {{tq|con artist and serial killer}}, not just as a felon. |
|||
:In these particular cases, [[Harvey Weinstein]] would be described as a "convicted rapist" and [[Jeffery Epstein]] as a "convicted child sex trafficker". In both of these cases, I think enough of their notability is for the crimes that this should be a first sentence mention. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It should be '''case by case''' weighing the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] about the person. I don't think a blanket rule prohibiting the use of "convicted felon" is logical. Otherwise we might as well change FIRSTBIO to only include the first reason the person was notable. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: It depends on if their crime is the reason for their notability. In most cases it's better to treat it with more detail and context further on, e.g. {{tq|X is an American musician and entertainer. In 20xx they were convicted on Y counts of Z.}} [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree with everyone here. When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!", but realizes that the details would make the person seem not evil enough. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude per [[WP:LABEL]] and instead describe the conviction in the first sentence if that is their main notability. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:This is an issue that's come up at DYK and ITN. The common problem is that if you are trying to say something about a person in one sentence, there is nearly no way there is sufficient context in that one sentence to explain that subjective negatively-toned phrase (even if 100% objectively true) and provide the context that is appropriate to explain what for or other aspects related to that, which makes the phrase stand out as non-impartial or dispassionate writing. Where there is more space to supply the full details (like what they were convicted of), such as later in the lede or within the body, that language is fine. BLP does not require listing everything a person is notable for in one lede sentence, and to me it makes much more sense to wait a sentence or two, or even one or two lede paragraphs, to address such topics so that the lede works from the most objective material to more subjective later, using to opportunity in later paragraphs to give that context and breathing room. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>The only exception here would be for a person where their only means of notability is from doing or suspected of a crime, in which case it's hard to say anything else for a lede sentence.<span id="Masem:1714079666245:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNManual_of_Style/Biography" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|||
:For both those people, without reading either article, I would expect to see details of their crimes in the {{em|second}} sentence, but not the first. This conforms with what you have quoted above, and I see no need to change it. In most cases I would not write simply “convicted X”. These people are notable for their crimes, not for the fact that they were convicted. We lead with the conviction because we don’t want to be unclear and to avoid allegations of libel. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Unless the primary reason someone is notable is a crime or crimes they committed, no, I don't think we should be describing them in the first sentence as "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender". And really anywhere in the article we should report what RS are reporting, and unless are RS are calling them those things, we shouldn't either. We should report what RS are saying: "In 2014, X was convicted of a sex crime." "In 2024, Y was convicted of securities fraud." Or whatever. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:To me, this is where a bio is really no different than any other article. I could start off an article about, say... [[capacitor]]s by saying, "A capacitor is a component used in making pulsed-power energy weapons." But what I have there is a headline meant to grab attention, yet tells me absolutely nothing about ''what'' the subject is. The first sentence of any article should answer the question of what in the broadest, simplest terms possible, and that rarely consists of some label. It will be vague, but that's fine. Details are for later. Only in cases where that's all the subject is notable for, such as [[Charles Manson]], would that even make sense. In most cases, the person is something else, whether notable for it or not, but that something provides context for whatever crime or label they became notable for. For example, [[Mary Kay Letourneau]] begins "...was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child." The label is rather redundant and pointless, but is also preceding the context needed to explain it, so it's awkward to read. What she "was" was a school teacher. That provides context for what she did, which was have sex with her student. One needs to precede the other for the story to flow coherently, and the same is true for any article. Every sentence is context for the following sentences. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think this is what you're saying is {{tq|...was an American <s>sex offender and</s> teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child}} works better? If so, I agree. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, that's partly what I mean. I agree with many here that much of the use of labels is often more a case of recentism and emotion. Labels are a convenient way of boiling something down to a pure stereotype, which makes them very effective at eliciting an emotional response. But they're not one bit objective and an example of a poor way to write an article. We're no longer conveying facts but trying to provoke a gut-reaction emotional response to persuade the reader to a particular opinion, and those who say otherwise would only be fooling themselves. As an example of a well written article, see [[Adolph Hitler]]. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and a mass murderer. He was, but we don't need to resort to name calling and such emotionally charged words to convey it, nor does it need to be in the first sentence. We start off with his role in German government and the Nazi party, which is the logical place to start, and then go on to describe all the horrible things he did. Those horrible things speak very loudly of their own accord, we don't need to add labels as a big exclamation point. That's what a very well-written article should look like, and a bio of a living person is no different. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I fully agree with you, and also see parallels to discussions regarding a select few political articles starting with "....is an American far-right politician" ... but perhaps that is a wholly separate conversation. To me, labels shoehorned into the lead sentence like this doesn't seem encyclopedic and gets into RGW territory. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] ([[User talk:Connormah|talk]]) 20:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks [[User:Connormah|Connormah]], but it's more than just shoehorning labels into the first sentence. This is where it gets difficult to explain to people, so bear with me here, but much of what separates good writing from bad is counterintuitive. People put all this huge emphasis on the importance of the first sentence, but for all the wrong reasons. The first sentence, also called the "topic sentence", is simply to provide a starting point, and it's important only for providing the necessary context for the next sentences. But it's not --by far-- the most important sentence of the article nor the one people will remember. What people will always remember is the last sentence, and --by far-- the most important sentence of the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". Note in the Hitler article, the thesis sentence is where we describe his genocide. That's why the article is so well written, and why these others read like they were written by 4th graders. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Exactly. I've been trying to highlight this problem for years, but this is a succinct way of explaining why the lede sentence doesn't need to be crammed with everything a topic is notable - as long as that's achieved by the lede paragraph or in some cases the whole lede, if we are properly summarizing the article. I believe a lot of the current problematic examples are driven by editors that feel that these bad behaviors must be called out ASAP, but that just doesn't gel with good encyclopedic writing. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Very well put by both of you - I agree fully. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] ([[User talk:Connormah|talk]]) 04:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I've been right there with you, Masem, at least at BLPN. It's just so counterintuitive that it goes in one ear and out the other, but I'm not making this stuff up. Plenty of sources out there to confirm this, which is why I think a lot of these problems could be solved if we simply had some guidelines on good writing practices. I don't think it's a problem we can solve by simply adding more rules, because rules can never encompass every possibility. But if people could see that what they're arguing for is really a hinderance to the goal they're trying to achieve, maybe they'd be less apt to put so much emphasis on the first sentence. Everything before the thesis sentence is merely a starting point and a pathway leading up to the most important aspect of the subject. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I oppose the use of the terms "convicted felon" and "sex offender" in the first sentence of biographies except for cases where 1) the commission of those crimes is the primary reason for the subject's notability and 2) there isn't a better way to describe the subject and their crimes. I believe the use of those terms comes across like an attempt to smear or shame the subject, but more importantly I think describing the specific crimes a person was convicted for (if DUE) provides a more accurate picture for readers. [[User:Hatman31|Hatman31]] ([[User talk:Hatman31|talk]]) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*One thing I would add to the above discussion is that the main reasons a person is notable can shift over time as the body of reliable sources about them grows; it isn't fixed in time at the point they first became notable. For Epstein in particular, surely the coverage of him as a high-profile sex trafficker far outstrips whatever notability he had in other aspects of his life, and the lead sentence should reflect that.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 02:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I agree that someone like Epstein is now most written about because of the girls, but being a highly connected, mega-rich financier facilitated his deeds. Putting "American financier who …" and then summarising the crimes, is a more efficient way of providing context IMO. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*What is the reason behind saying "convicted"? [[User:Senorangel|Senorangel]] ([[User talk:Senorangel|talk]]) 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Because that makes it obvious that we're not accusing them of a crime out of nowhere, we are reporting the results of the court. It's important to be careful with accusations of crime because of the possibility of libel. We wouldn't have wanted to say, for instance, that [[OJ Simpson]] is a murderer in Wikivoice because he was never convicted. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 05:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::"Convicted" does not seem to be necessary because, in the absence of court rulings, the first sentence should not describe a person as a criminal. The RFC proposes "convicted criminal", not "convicted of a crime". It appears to strengthen the case for a crime, not trying to be careful with the accusation. [[User:Senorangel|Senorangel]] ([[User talk:Senorangel|talk]]) 04:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*{{TQ|When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!"}} Stylistically, and in more efficiently fully relating the narrative {{tq|Letourneau ... was an American <s>sex offender and</s> teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child}} works better. As does {{tq|Weinstein ... was an American <s>convicted rapist</s> film producer who was found guilty in ???? to XX counts of rape and other sex offences}} ditto how one would write Epstein or [[Jimmy Savile]] as their profession followed by their 'crime' stated explicitly wherever possible. I have so often found myself arguing that, except in a small number of cases, the previous life is a significant component of the notoriety, not an afterthought. Even if Weinstein is now mainly regarded as an offender, his role in the film world facilitated those offences, ditto Savile, Epstein and [[Mary Kay Letourneau]]. So ''"profession who did this"'' is the most concise way to give context to the crimes. Nobody bothers to write articles ''(either in the real world or on WP)'' about un-finished sex trials committed 45 years ago, unless the accused is [[Roman Polanski|famous for other reasons]]. So even to those who write about his crimes, or who despise him for his crimes, he's the internationally known film director who had sex with a 13 year old model not the accused sex offender who happened to make successful films. I don't also see the sense of 'felon' or 'sex offender' when the charges can be stated explicitly. If it's worth telling me that someone committed a crime, it's worth telling me what it was, otherwise we might just as well say 'bad person'. Where subject's SOLE notability is their crime, this obviously doesn't apply, but those cases are rare and tend to be the most heinous crimes.[[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 07:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:100% agreed. If I hadn’t read this I would have written something substantially the same. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 05:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. There definitely ''are'' articles where it gets crammed into the lead in a weird or unnecessary manner, but it's also true that sometimes someone's crimes can overshadow prior notability (we would not, for instance, describe [[John Wilkes Booth]] ''solely'' as a stage actor in the first sentence of his lead, even though he was famous as that before he became famous for something else.) I would similarly characterize Epstein as someone whose primary notability is now his crimes. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I think that [[John Wilkes Booth]]'s first sentence is perfect and would not be improved by adding the phrase "convicted felon" to it. (Well, obviously, since he was never actually convicted, but you get what I mean.) |
|||
*:Part of the confusion here is that while nobody likes the proposition as phrased, the opinions on what to do instead are going in two very different directions. To somewhat oversimplify, one is that we should avoid saying bad things about the subject of the article in the first sentence, and the other is that we should be more specific about the bad things we say about the subject of the article in the first sentence. The way the RFC is currently framed, these two opinions seem to both be taken as "no" when actually they're opposites: if we can't describe Epstein as a convicted child sex trafficker in the first sentence of his article, I would very much prefer "convicted sex offender" to nothing. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I disagree that it's about avoiding {{xt|saying bad things about the subject of the article in the first sentence}}. For me it has nothing to do with that. |
|||
*::There are two questions here. The first is the terminology RS are using. If the very best RS are using "Convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein", we use it too. If they're instead using "Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking," that's what we use. I see that NPR is using "Court documents made public on Wednesday disclosed the names of dozens of powerful men with alleged connections to convicted sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein",[https://www.npr.org/2024/01/03/1222130537/jeffrey-epstein-court-records-reveal-men-clinton-prince-andrew] so that would for me be the argument to use that term. |
|||
*::Whether it goes in the first sentence is a second question. The lead sentence ''identifies'' the person. We don't put every possible label they could be identified with in there; we use the important ones ''for identifying the person'', and we decide which are important by what RS are using as identifiers. Has nothing to do with good or bad. What matters is whether multiple of the best RS are using a term as a ''primary descriptor''. If multiple of the best RS are identifying Epstein as a "financier and convicted sex trafficker", we call him that in the first sentence too. If instead they're saying things like "Financier Jeffrey Epstein, who after being convicted of sex trafficking committed suicide in jail," then no. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I did say it was an oversimplification, so thank you for giving your side of the story. |
|||
*:::That being said, I also don't agree with this take. We rely on the sources for facts, not wording. [[WP:OUROWNWORDS]] is just an essay but it explains why this is so better than I could. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Well, as you say that's an essay, not policy, and particularly in the case of the lead sentence for living people, exact wording can be very important. When we're deciding how to identify people, we should follow RS. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Exact wording ''can'' be very important, which is exactly why we shouldn't dodge the responsibility to craft the best possible wording. There are a variety of problems with pawning off our responsibility to word things appropriately in this way. |
|||
*:::::For one, Wikipedia is not a newspaper (or book, or other type of RS) and often the way newspapers word things is contrary to how an encyclopedia would. There are many entries in the [[WP:MOS]] where the way we word things is contrary to how many newspapers would. The one that comes to mind immediately is [[MOS:ENGVAR]]. |
|||
*:::::Second, newspapers (or books, or studies, etc etc) aren't Wikipedia and aren't obligated to follow Wikipedia policy. [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]/[[false balance]] calls out a specific common example of this, but several others exist. |
|||
*:::::Third, and arguably most importantly, Wikipedia policy allows for the possibility of sources that are biased but reliable for facts. I would never want to decide whether any particular line calls a certain politically charged historical event "the [[Nakba]]" vs "the [[Israeli War of Independence]]" based on which bias the source containing that fact happens to have. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::But Loki, if NYT/WSJ/NPR/BBC/whatever top quality source aren't calling someone a sex offender, if they're instead saying he was convicted of a sex crime, why would we decide to call him "a sex offender" in the lead rather than saying he was convicted of a sex crime? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::I don't like "sex offender" myself, but for the wording I prefer, the reason why we'd call someone a rapist rather than a person convicted of rape is because |
|||
*:::::::a) it scans better |
|||
*:::::::b) article subjects should have their major sources of notability introduced as early as possible |
|||
*:::::::c) the longer wording IMO introduces a level of skepticism that is incompatible with [[WP:NPOV]] unless we have a concrete reason to doubt it. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The first sentence is not required to be a full summary of why a person is notable; the lede in total needs to do that, however. |
|||
*:::If a person is sufficiently notable for more than just a conviction or equivalent, even if the conviction is likely more widely attached to the person than the other notable factors (as in all the cases we are discussing here), then having the lede sentence include the conviction can create a total lede that inappropriate in tone required by BLP and NPOV. It is far better to discuss something like a conviction in a separate sentence where one can include the necessary context, rather than forcing just the descriptor in the lede. |
|||
*:::Whenever I see articles that do place convictions in the lede sentence in these situations, it reads as if the editors have been trying to RGW to call out the person as "bad", which is not what we should be doing, Wikipedia should be written amorally to maintain its impartial and dispassionate tone. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I, for one, in my personal dialect, would use "waiter" for all people who serve food at sit-down restaurants, ''firefighter'' for all people whose job it is to fight fires, etc., regardless of gender. To me "waiter" is as gender-free as "doctor" and "firefighter". I don't want to be forced into using gendered noun forms for random subjects merely because those subjects prefer to use gendered pronouns, when I would normally use those nouns in a gender-free way. That is, I think we should act like your expressed sentiment above: "{{tq|And we obviously should not bend out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted}}." But I think that the example of ''requiring'' "waiter" for people who identify male, ''requiring'' "waitress" for people who identify as female, and ''forbidding'' both terms for people who identify in other ways, as the disputed MOS language does, is exactly counter to that sentiment. |
|||
:I think "convicted" in the lead sentence of already famous people is often swayed by recentism or campaign to [[WP:RGW]]. People like [[Kellen Winslow II]], who were not involved in a "trial of the century", probably have [[WP:UNDUE]] weight placed on their crime(s).—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:If the intended meaning is that ''when using gendered forms'' we should use the gendered form that matches the gender identify of the subject, then of course we should. For instance we should not use "waitress" for someone who does not identify as female, obviously. But if that is the intended meaning then it did not come across. If so, we should replace the disputed passage with something that conveys that intent more clearly. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I like DE's new version. I was ok with the status quo ante. I see this section used very frequently to deal with garden-variety transphobia, and I've never encountered a dispute over good-faith use of "waitress" vs. "server", or an analogue. I'm sure it happens occasionally. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I put the previous wording in while partly rewriting the section after the neopronouns RfC, to emphasize the scope of "gendered terms". I think this change still accomplishes that, so no objection here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you! I'd like to say that no malice was intended with my edit. {{U|David Eppstein}} expressed my concerns with the previous wording much better than I could myself, and I much prefer the current version. Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as I know this is a very contentious topic area. [[User:GnocchiFan|GnocchiFan]] ([[User talk:GnocchiFan|talk]]) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Titles and posts (i.e.jobs) == |
|||
*In general, it seems like almost every time I see something like "{{tq|, and convicted felon}}" in the lead of an article, it could be dropped without much issue. Usually, it does not seem relevant enough to the article to warrant being in the lead. There ''are'' a few people famous solely for their criminal acts, like famous serial killers or drug lords or whatever. In this case, we can just say "Alice Jones is a Swiss murderer" or "Bob Smith is a Canadian mafia boss" or whatever in the lead. This also has the advantage of being more accurate. In cases where it's like "Carol Glockenspiel is an Irish-Botswanan lawyer, politician, and convicted felon", where she was on the cover of magazines for all this other stuff 40 years and was disbarred after some kind of legal malpractice mumbo-jumbo -- is it really that important that we need to put in the very first sentence? |
|||
:Another thing that's worth noting is that "felony" encompasses a very broad range of things. [[Dennis Rader]] is a felon because he raped and murdered a dozen people; [[Jeff Skilling]] is a felon because he did the Enron scandal. [[Martha Stewart]] is a felon because she did insider trading, which is certainly bad, but she did not rape or murder anyone (as far as I know). We also have people like [[Tanya McDowell]], who spent five years in prison because she lied about where her house was so her son could go to school in a different district, or [https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/2021/03/25/flaw-system-why-70-year-old-facing-7-years-prison-alleged-candy-bar-theft/4746339001/ This guy], who probably doesn't pass GNG, but nonetheless is a felon because he stole a $2 candy bar. I don't want to get into a whole politics thing here, but there are a ton of people who are criminals for very dumb reasons, so it makes me a little uncomfortable to see stuff like this way up in the first sentence of an article. Sure, people are asswipes sometimes. But I think it's pretty obvious that, say, [[Kenneth Lay]] was an asswipe, and we don't need to say he was a "convicted felon" for this -- whereas there are a large number of people for whom this seems unfair or unnecessary. I think that being clear about the nature of the crime will make this distinction obvious: if replacing "is a felon" with the actual details of the crime makes the lead sentence sound idiotic and petty, then we know that including it in the lead sentence is idiotic and petty. and we know that we should probably not have it in there. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 05:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:(Brought here from WP:RFC/A) - Leaning towards the inclusion of more detailed summary of the crimes committed rather than a broad label. Seems most editors agree that "felon" is to vague a term to include into the first sentence. I would say we can't sugar coat Wikipedia, if a person is notable for being a criminal, it wouldn't be accurate to omit that information from the lead. Now it goes without saying that if it is included in the lead, there needs to be matching weight in the body and from reliable sources as to not violate [[WP:REDFLAG|blp protections]]. [[User:MaximusEditor|MaximusEditor]] ([[User talk:MaximusEditor|talk]]) 16:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It's more likely that its suitable in the lead, but not in the lead sentence ([[MOS:ROLEBIO]]). Too often the lead sentence is an excessive laundry list (and not just for felons). —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''' - The scope of this RFC is not clear. The section heading is "... lead {{em|sentence}}", but the description then quotes [[MOS:FIRSTBIO]] "The opening {{em|paragraph}} ...", before citing examples of "edit warring of the lead sentence". It is perfectly reasonable to mention a crime/felony in the lead paragraph but not necessarily the lead sentence. Another example is [[Rolf Harris]] - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolf_Harris&oldid=1184136900#%22convicted_child_sex_offender%22_in_first_sentence discussion] and subsequent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolf_Harris&oldid=1184136900#RfC:_Referring_to_subject_as_%22convicted_child_sex_offender%22_in_the_opening_sentence_of_the_lede RfC]. Perhaps this RFC should propose some alternative wording to {{section link|MOS:BIO|Opening_paragraph}} and/or {{section link|MOS:BIO|First sentence}} so it it clear exactly what is being proposed [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 06:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Where a post has more than one word we continually see very odd looking capitalisation (note my spelling. Please do not alter it. British spelling and conventions are important in this discussion) I have never seen such posts as Governor general or Lord lieutenant written in that way anywhere outside Wikipedia. They are always written "Governor General" or "Lord Lieutenant." Very occasionally you might see "governor general" or "lord lieutenant" To my mind using only one capital is incorrect anywhere. Does it happen differently in US? Is the "Vice President " written "vice President" or "Vice president ?" If so the rules should be different with articles about British subjects to articles about USA or other countries that do not follow British conventions. For the moment if I see somebody described as "Governor general of Canada," . "Lord lieutenant of Leicestershire " or "high Sheriff of Nottingham" I shall change them. [[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Officeholder aristocratic titles == |
|||
:This is not a [[WP:ENGVAR]] issue. The second word should not be lowercased if the first word is capitalised in any variety of English unless it's the first word of a sentence. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Capitalization of "president" == |
|||
Either there isn't any guidance or I haven't been able to find it, but I've not been able to find any guidance on how aristocratic names are treated in infoboxes or other box lists. I have included Lord Rosebery's infobox as an illustration of the issue. According to [[MOS:SURNAME]] the first use of an aristocrat's name should be in full, or using the title that they held at the time they held office. Additionally [[Wikipedia:NOPIPE]] suggests that piping the link from '[[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery]]' to the [[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery|Earl of Rosebery]] isn't the right approach. I also don't think simply listing the title without the holder's name is particularly effective, given that a father and son might hold the same office and this might be easily missed by readers. [[User:Ecrm87|Ecrm87]] ([[User talk:Ecrm87|talk]]) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
"The incident has been regarded as the most significant security failure by the Secret Service since [[attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan|the attempted assassination]] of president [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1981." |
|||
{{Excerpt|Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery|only=template|templates=Infobox officeholder|inline=yes}} |
|||
In this sentence, should "president" be capitalized? So far, [[Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Capitalization|a very brief discussion]] has been unable to provide an answer to this question, so I am raising this issue at this page. –<span style="box-shadow: 0px 0px 12px #000;border-radius:9em;padding:0 2px;background:#000">[[User:Gluonz|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Gluonz'''</span>]]<sup>''' [[User talk:Gluonz|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Gluonz|contribs]]'''</sup></span> 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Ecrm87|Ecrm87]] ([[User talk:Ecrm87|talk]]) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Should be capitalized. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:There's been sporadic, recurrent dispute about this. The upshot is that editors largely concentrated in the wikiprojects [[WP:PEERAGE]] and [[WP:ROYALTY]] have decided on their own, in what amounts to a [[WP:FAITACCOMPLI]] action, to repurpose various fields of {{tlx|infobox person}} and derivatives of it, to shoehorn aristocratic titles into the {{para|name}} (or sometimes other inappropriate) parameters, and have just gone and done this to tens of thousands of articles, despite this not being consistent with the templates' own documentation of the meaning of these parameters, or with [[MOS:BIO]] regarding such titles (covered in various subsections of [[MOS:PEOPLETITLES]]. In short, we have a disputed mess in which the infobox of, say, [[Margaret Thatcher]] claims that her {{em|name}} is "The Baroness Thatcher", which is obviously badly incorrect. That title belongs in one of the other parameters, {{para|honorific_suffix}}. To make matters worse, the {{para|honorific_prefix}} parameter (intended for things like "Duke" and "Dame") has been widely misused to insert a form of {{em|address}} that would be used only when writing a letter to such a person or perhaps when introducing them at a formal engagement, but which is not how they are normally referred to in writing by anyone ever. (The most common of these misuses is "The Rt. Hon." or "The Right Honourable".) And even the baroness part should not have "The" on it (that's used when describing the title in a stand-alone manner, not when used directly with the person's name). For the Thatcher case, the obviously solution is: {{para|name|Margaret Hilda Thatcher}}{{para|honorific_suffix|Baroness Thatcher<br />{{tlp|Post-nominals|country{{=}}GBR|size{{=}}100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}} }}, and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. Another potential solution is one or more additional parameters, e.g. for gentry/peerage titles, and possibly for formal address, though the latter is arguably not encyclopedic information (much less infobox-level core information), and is better covered at the article on the general class of title (i.e., it is "how to address peers of particular ranks" and "how to address knights/dames" and "how to address Scottish lairs and clan chiefs", and "how to address judges", and "how to address members of parliament", and etc., etc., etc. information, and not particular to someone's bio. A simpler solution is to just remove the address string, and put the aristrocratic titles in the extant {{para|honorific_suffix}} parameter; there's something to be said for such simplicity versus making a complex template even more complex without there being a clear reader-facing benefit.<!-- --><p>Anyway, there have been several abortive discussions about this at various places, but nothing has resulted in action, and this might have to be resolved with an RfC, perhaps at [[WP:VPPOL]] since it has implications for a large number of articles. I've had other projects going on which absorb most of my time, and this is why I've not bothered RfCing this already. It definitely does need to get resolved one way or another.<!-- --></p><p>PS, on the matter of link-piping with regard to such a person in other articles: It would depend on the context. If it's clear in the sentence that "the Earl of Rosebery" is in reference to a specific person known by that title at the time, then the piped link is not necessarily problematic, but only if the actual name of this person has been given previously in the same article. Far too often I run across piped links of this sort in a {{lang|la|non sequitur}} manner, seemingly put there by British editors who are personally familiar with who the subject of the link is, without considering that even many other British readers would not be and that virtually no one outside the UK will be. So, at least at first occurrence, using <code><nowiki>[[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery]],</nowiki></code> will be more appropriate. It might simply be <code><nowiki>[[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery|Earl of Rosebery]],</nowiki></code> in a later occurrence, since depending on the context we might take advantage of the new standard (since about a year ago) of linking once per major section yet also consider who the person is/was already adequately explained in a previous section. There's a bit of a tension between those two ideas. In various cases, such a title should just be left off, when it's not contextually pertinent and/or doesn't match typical RS usage; e.g. [[Christopher Guest]] is not normally referred to as [5th] Baron Haden-Guest except in reference to his brief stint as a parliamentarian, or in other peerage-pertinent contexts, but not as a actor-director-writer (where even the "Haden-" is almost universally dropped, at his own preference). On the other hand, any time the title is being referred to as the title itself, or in the plural, it should link to the article/section on the title not the present title-holder. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)</p> |
|||
::Agreed. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 15:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It’s even worse than [[User:SMcCandlish]]’s explanation of this issue. See for example the infobox for [[Selwyn Lloyd]], where the reader is informed that Lloyd’s successor as foreign secretary was one “The Earl of Home”; his time as leader of the house was under the PM Alec Douglas-Home. The casual reader is left unaware that these are one and the same person, whose status had changed between positions. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 13:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
:[[MOS:JOBTITLES]]: {{tq2|When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: {{xt|President Nixon}}, not {{!xt|president Nixon}}; {{xt|Pope John XXIII}}, not {{!xt|pope John XXIII}}.}} —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Looking at that thread, for an added twist, it would be "US president Ronald Reagan", as "US president" is a modified title. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::That’s unhelpful to readers and serves no useful purpose. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 05:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with everything so far In "President Ronald Reagan " it is part of his name. In "US president Ronald Reagan" it is not. But if it were written "President of the USA Ronald Reagan" that would be correct. It would not be part of Reagan's name but it is a specific office which is a name itself. [[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's just an assertion without evidence. If you are reading about 20th century British political history, you should expect a degree of specialised vocabulary. And titles are very much part of that. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 13:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*President, like other titles, should only be capitalized immediately before someone's name. In all other instances, it should be lowercase (recognizing there could be limited exceptions). --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::”Our readers ought to be better informed” -type arguments are not serious. This is an encyclopaedia. The [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE|purpose of the infobox]] is to reflect ''key facts for the page''. That Lloyd’s successor as foreign secretary and the prime minister while he was leader of the house are the same person is relevant to facts about Lloyd. By no stretch of the imagination is Alec Douglas-Home changing his name a key fact for the article about Selwyn Lloyd. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 14:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't think MoS is as simple as Chris the speller puts it . It says : |
|||
:::::::I don't know, the name of the predecessor or successor is pretty important to get right, as a matter of basic respect as much as anything else. How would you like it if someone else butchered your name? [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 17:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Capitals should be used "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:" |
|||
::::::::The purpose of the website is to best inform the reader. It’s not to honour people with styles of address. To answer your question; if I’d been dead for 30 years I doubt I’d give much, if any, thought to my name being "{{tq|butchered}}", tortured a description as that is of using someone’s [[WP:COMMONNAME|common]] and given name. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 18:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't think it matters whether this is in the body of the article or in the info box. Consider the following ststements: |
|||
:::::::::"Earl of Home" is common name. You're like the Jacobins over at French Wikipedia who insisted everyone had to be known by their "normal names" which led to stupid article names like "William Temple" for Lord Palmerston. [[User:Atchom|Atchom]] ([[User talk:Atchom|talk]]) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Alfred was not a king of England. |
|||
::::::::::You needn’t worry about <s>boxing shadows</s> fighting revolutionaries dead for two centuries. But their malign influence, and community consensus, has evidently determined that [[Alec Douglas-Home]] is the common name, hence the article title there. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Alfred was King of Wessex. |
|||
::::::::::Technically, Douglas-Home was still a peer when he succeeded to the premiership, but given that he disclaimed his peerage as quickly as possible in order to continue in office, I think it makes more sense to use his name as a commoner than to be technically correct (the best kind of correct). [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Athelstan was an English king and later became King of the English. |
|||
::::::::::Oh, I see I misunderstood the locus of the dispute. He was Earl of Home when he succeeded to the foreign ministry, and would have been referred to as such in the contemporary press. The peerage isn't an irrelevancy here—his article devotes a few sentences to Labour's objections to a peer in that position. This is to some extent a question of taste, but I don't think the benefit of consistency in imposing a single "common" name throughout the article outweighs the benefit of using the names a reader would find in an outside source, contemporary or otherwise. Ultimately infoboxes simply don't have the bandwidth for this kind of subtlety; the reader confused by the nuances of Douglas-Home's career will have to read the lead of his article rather than skimming the infobox of his predecessor. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 01:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Joe Biden is President of the United States |
|||
::You're right, this needs to be clarified but doing so would have a big impact. I don't have the knowledge or time to open an RfC myself. Is there anyone who is willing to do so? [[User:Ecrm87|Ecrm87]] ([[User talk:Ecrm87|talk]]) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States |
|||
:I don't know the answer. But concerning Selwyn Lloyd & all other Speakers of the GB/UK House of Commons? I'm curious as to why the prime minister is included in their infoboxes. The speaker doesn't serve under the prime minister. Same thing with the leader of the Opposition, who also doesn't serve under the prime minister. But, I guess that's another topic. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
*:All these appear to me to be correct. [[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
||
:[[Wikipedia:NOPIPE]] has four bullet points, none of which is relevant to the example given. Rosebery's full name appears at the upper left of his article; English is conventionally read from left to right, making that the "first use" specified by [[MOS:SURNAME]]. Father-to-son succession as hypothesized is so rare that I don't think it's worth altering general practice. I don't really think the infobox should be cluttered by a complete series of offices—those have been sensibly placed in templates at the bottom of the article since Wikipedia began, essentially—but it's rather late to expect people to use good judgment and discretion about infoboxes. [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles == |
|||
== Revisiting the issue of anachronistic demonyms being applied to historical figures == |
|||
What about cases where a person holding one of the above titles is mentionedn in an article, but is not the subject of the article themselves?? |
|||
When we can write "[Name] was an [actually historically correct demonym] [occupation/role], from [historical place], now in [modern place]", or even "[Name] was an [occupation/role] of [historical place], now in [modern place]" without a demonym at all – or using any equivalent wording like "today in [modern place]" or "in modern-day [modern place]" – then we not only have no good reason to write a grossly misleading "[Name] was a [history-distorting and reader-confusing anachronistic demonym] [occupation/roles], from [historical place]", there are also many good reasons to not do it. I think that this needs to be covered more explicitly in this guideline, probably using concrete examples along the lines of the generics I just wrote. |
|||
([[User:Edwin of Northumbria|Edwin of Northumbria]] ([[User talk:Edwin of Northumbria|talk]]) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)) |
|||
Multiple discussions, with unclear resolutions, have archived away here and at other pages. This classic example of the anachronism dispute is describing Christopher Columbus as "Italian" and even his voyages as an "Italian" endeavor, a viewpoint pushed especially by Italian-American interests as a matter of ethno-nationalistic pride. The problem is that Italy as anything like a nation-state did not exist in his period, and the Italian penninsula and mainland consisted of a number of independent states (typically with their own Italic languages, many of which still exist as minority languages; the one we today call Italian is actually Florentine). Columbus was Genoan, not "Italian", and his voyages were a Spanish project (and Spain actually was at least {{lang|la|de facto}} unified into a single nation by that point, unlike Italy). But there are many such disputes ("Chinese" is another fairly frequent one, and can be problematic for multiple reasons, including completely different ethno-linguistic groups in the region, and often multiple competing kingdoms/empires and other polities within the bounds of what today is mainland China). |
|||
:[[MOS:SIR]] may have the information you're looking for. ‑‑[[User:Neveselbert|Neveselbert]] ([[User talk:Neveselbert|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Neveselbert|contribs]] <b>·</b> [[Special:EmailUser/Neveselbert|email]]) 19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Usage of modern-day national labeling of historical figures and group is (at least in the cases about which I've seen recurrent dispute) rarely based on much actual evidence rather than opinionated assertions and personal (often diasporic) preferences. Even much of the evidence presented tends to be [[WP:NOR|OR]] distortion. E.g., it is easy to find RS using {{em|somewhere in them}} the term "Italian" in reference to someone like Columbus or Dante, but only as a shorthand {{em|after}} the author has explained where they were really from, Genoa and Florence respectively, and that these were independent states; or using the term with a particular cultural-geographic regional sense particular to the material in question and already laid out in detail in that work. Either of those is very distinct from the modern nation-state sense that WP would imply to almost all readers by saying "Columbus was Italian". But proponents of this wrongheaded anachronistic labeling in WP articles ignore the sources' highly contextual usage (when it can be found at all) and claim they can simply apply "Italian" to any such figure "because RS do it", despite our lead sections having no such clarifing prior contextual material or special in-context definition that has been explained. Plus, various sources about such figures are not actually reliable historical, ethnographical, or other works, but are lionzing biographies written too often by Italian (or Chinese, or whatever) Americans with a promotional slant (often, in the Columbus case, also promotional of Catholicism and of socio-political conservatism, and revisionism in support of that conservatism, especially against criticism of Columbus, the Catholic Church, and Imperial Spain as colonialist and violently exploitative). |
|||
== Capitalization in infoboxes == |
|||
Here's a point of evidence about historical English usage with regard to "Italians" in particular that is worth consideration: |
|||
* {{cite book |contribution=Settled or fleeting? London's medieval immigrant community revisited |first=Jessica |last=Lutkin |title=Medieval Merchants and Money: Essays in Honour of James L. Bolton |editor1-first=Martin |editor1-last=Allen |editor2-first=Matthew |editor2-last=Davies |publisher=University of London Press |date=2016 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv5132xh.13 |url-access=subscription}}. Full-text access to this is available (unusually, for JSTOR) since it's an open-access work. |
|||
In summary, the immigrant merchant and labourer populations in England from the late medieval to early modern periods were recorded distinctly as Venetian, Florentine, Genoan, Lucchese [Tuscan], Lombard, Milanese, etc. While "Italian" was sometimes used in this period (perhaps when it was known that the person was from somewhere in that region without more specifics being available), it clearly was not the default way to refer to such people in English, even historically. Rather, it has only become one in the modern era (and especially among Americans) after the Italian unification in 1871. It's interesting that "German" (sometimes "Teutonic") was more used in these English records (with more specific terms being rare, though "Saxon" appeared a few times), surely owing to the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was already using this term (and {{lang|de|Deutsche}} and cognates in the German langauges) by this era. Similarly to the German case, "French" was usually used instead of more specific terms like "Picard" or "Gascon", owing to it being a largely unified nation by then. But the Netherlands were not, and terms like "Fleming", "Zeelander", "Hollander", and "Gelderlander" appeared frequently along with a more generic "Dutch" (MidEng "Doche"); the Netherlands didn't exist as a unified country until the Batavian republic in 1975; while the United Provinces of the Netherlands dates back to 1579, and is sometimes mislabled "the Dutch Republic", it was actually a conferation of independent states, though it at least provided a then-extant rationale to begin lumping them all together as "Dutch". |
|||
A footnote throughout the MOS states "{{xt|Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.}}". This footnote is mentioned once in the relevant guideline here, [[MOS:JOBTITLES]]. However, as we see in most if not all infoboxes for politicians, sentence case is not applied to the offices they've held (the two articles primarily in question being [[Steve Beshear]] and [[Janet Mills]], though other examples of this include [[Joe Biden]], [[Barack Obama]], [[Kathy Hochul]], [[Glenn Youngkin]], etc, etc, etc). |
|||
There's a lot of other material like this available about demonyms and their historical usage in English, though much of it is paywalled and needs a [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ The Wikipedia Library] account or other institutional access means to get at the full text. |
|||
So the question to which I seek the comments of other editors would be whether or not these titles should be capitalized (eg. "75th Governor of Maine", "45th President of the United States", etc.)? Or whether they fall under the "descriptions" side of JOBTITLES or the "titles" side of JOBTITLES? [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Anyway, the upshot of this is that we have no reason to use misleading anachronistic labels like calling Columbus "Italian" when we can say accurately that he was Genoan, from a city in present-day Liguria, Italy. As I pointed out before, we would not refer to King Bridei V of the Picts (r. 761–763) as a "Scottish" ruler, but as Pictish and based in Fortriu, in present-day central to north Scotland. (The unification of what today is Scotland, merging Pictland with Gaelic Alba, didn't happen until 843; and inclusive of Strathclyde/Alt Clut, not until around the beginning of the 12th century). WP is {{em|mostly}} pretty good about this sort of thing, but there is a bad habit among certain clusters of editors of engaging in particular forms of anachronistic ethno-national labeling. "Italian" and "Chinese" are the most common I've run into, though I've also seen it done with "Spanish" before the unification of Spain, and with "Russian" as inclusive of places that were not at the time part of the CIS, or the USSR, or Imperial Russia. There are probably many other cases I've missed, in subject areas I don't wander into as often. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Courtesy ping: @[[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hon Prince Vincent Venman Bulus == |
|||
:'''Comment''': Quick correction to my opening statement: the aforementioned footnote is not once mentioned in JOBTITLES, but rather in [[MOS:PEOPLETITLES]] as a note on hyphenated/unhyphenated titles. [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 04:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:These look like proper names to me. Thus President of the United States, King of the Belgians, Sultan of Turkey, Lord Mayor of Sheffield, Chief of the Imperial General Staff etc, [[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The MoS says to use lower case for "37th president of the United States", and this is from long-standing consensus. This discussion, started by Estar8806, is not to ask if that looks right to all editors, but to determine whether this style also applies to templates such as infobox officeholder. The footnote in the MoS says it does, and nowhere in the MoS is there an exception for infoboxes. I see a lot of overcapitalization in infoboxes (e.g. "Actor, Singer, Playwright, Comedian") that in the body of articles is rare and quickly fixed, but that doesn't mean we should condone or encourage it in infoboxes. Does maintaining two standards, one for running text and one for items in infoboxes, help any readers, or make work easier for editors, or make WP look more professional? I don't see how. [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
biography [[User:Binfajnr1|Binfajnr1]] ([[User talk:Binfajnr1|talk]]) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not every office is commonly numbered. French presidents and UK prime ministers are examples of this. Does maintaining a separate standard for them versus those which are commonly numbered (like U.S. presidents or state governors) make Wikipedia look more professional? [[User:Estar8806|estar8806]] ([[User talk:Estar8806|talk]]) [[Special:Contributions/Estar8806 |★]] 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:We capitalize in these instances (i.e infoboxes) regardless of a numbering or not. Please let's not change this, thus cause more inconsistencies & possible edit wars. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::If what you do is common practice, shouldn't it be specified somewhere in the MoS? [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Question mark}} What do you want done? Can you be more specific & include some citations if you think Bulus is notable? [[User:Peaceray|Peaceray]] ([[User talk:Peaceray|talk]]) 13:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::By all means, write it in. Just pointing out, if you started downsizing at bios of (for example) Australian & New Zealand governors-general, prime ministers, etc. You'd likely get reverted by editors who frequent those pages. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I should say what I mean. What I should have said is that if a group of people are propagating a style, shouldn't they be doing it for a good reason instead of for no reason, and isn't the best reason that it is what editors have specified in the MoS after reaching a consensus? Won't people be tempted to use upper case for modified job titles in the body of an article if we have trained them to do so in infoboxes? Wikipedia does not capitalize common nouns in articles, titles, section headings or table headings (except the first word of a sentence), so what's the need for it in infoboxes? I'm not saying we need to change any case of French presidents or "Prime Minister of Australia" unless it is preceded by a modifier, as in "Quentin Elmhurst was a very unpopular prime minister of Australia" or "James Scullin (1930) became the first prime minister of Australia to exercise complete discretion ..." [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Gender identity rules == |
|||
:::::We capitalize in the infoboxes of office holders. Best to leave it that way, rather than stir up a mess. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please see my edit at "Capitalization of presidents" [[User:Spinney Hill|Spinney Hill]] ([[User talk:Spinney Hill|talk]]) 23:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have just edited [[Steve Beshear]] to use the infobox officeholder template as it was designed, and as editors were instructed. When this is done, "61st" and "Governor of Kentucky" are in two different parameters, and the tools I use to correct capitalization in running text don't see them. This discussion would have been precluded. [[User:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #C30;">'''Chris'''</span> <span style="color: #060;">'''the speller'''</span>]] [[User talk:Chris the speller|<span style="color: #900;"><sup>yack</sup></span>]] 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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." |
|||
== can popularity eclipse any other information from lead? == |
|||
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. |
|||
Following [[User talk:Haukurth#criticism of poor lead writing|a discussion]] with @[[User:Haukurth|Haukurth]] I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies. |
|||
I find it ridiculous when you write about some non binary in wikipedia |
|||
"Nemo began their interest in music at the age of three" |
|||
Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead? |
|||
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. [[User:אורי בלאס|אורי בלאס]] ([[User talk:אורי בלאס|talk]]) 05:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
According to [[MOS:LEAD]] the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from [[Steven Spielberg|Spielberg]], [[Taylor Swift|Swift]] or [[Blackpink]] this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the [[Stanley Kubrick]] page. |
|||
== Native American/First Nations citizenship == |
|||
My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? [[User:Cinemaandpolitics|Cinemaandpolitics]] ([[User talk:Cinemaandpolitics|talk]]) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I'm restoring the section on tribal citizenship per [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States]]. |
|||
*Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and '''citizens''' are made with their participation and consent. [https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-does-tribal-sovereignty-mean-american-indians-and-alaska-natives 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'''. [https://archive.ncai.org/about-tribes 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.''' [https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment 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'''. [https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100032275/1529354547314 Canadian Government] |
|||
{{Ping|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. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of [[Mick Jagger]] would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. [[User:Cinemaandpolitics|Cinemaandpolitics]] ([[User talk:Cinemaandpolitics|talk]]) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Being enrolled in a tribe isn't actually about race, it's citizenship. For example, [[Shania Twain]] holds a [[Indian Register|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. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::...that still does not mean it should be mentioned in the opening sentence of a biography. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::So citizenship doesn't go into the lead of articles? [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 18:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Not tribal citizenship, no. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::''Na·tion·al·i·ty: the status of belonging to a particular nation.'' Please provide sources that says tribal nations are not nations. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 18:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Tribal Sovereignty is not International Sovereignty, so it does not fit here. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please elaborate and provide sources that tribes are not sovereign nations. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Where is that definition on Wikipedia? Wikipedia denies sovereignty of Tribal nations exists. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[List of sovereign states]]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[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. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::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." [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::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. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::See Sovereignty [https://www.britannica.com/topic/sovereignty/Sovereignty-and-international-law<nowiki>] but its not that Wikipedia does not recognize anything, its that they are two different things. </nowiki> [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:A grand total of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2022_archive#MOS:ETHNICITY_and_citizenship 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. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 19:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Quit moving the goal posts and just have the discussion here like we're supposed to. [[User:Oncamera|<span style="color:#e0e0e0; font-family:georgia; background:#785673; letter-spacing: 1px;"> oncamera </span>]] <sub>[[User_Talk:Oncamera|<i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i>]]</sub> 19:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:33, 28 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Biography page. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
RfC: The position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles
[edit]There are two questions:
- Should guidance be added to the Manual of Style regarding the position of "retired" and "former" in the first sentence of biographical articles?
- If guidance is to be added, which form should be recommended?
A. X is an American retired actor.
B. X is a retired American actor.
Khiikiat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- C - Neither Not everything needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. I would omit the word “retired” from the first sentence (so: “X is an American actor”) and mention the retirement in a subsequent sentence later in the first paragraph. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No and Neither: the order of adjectives in English is not something that we ought to be prescribing in the MOS, it's a matter of grammar. Option B is the standard order, whereas option A sounds distinctly odd to this native speaker. As to whether "retired" or "former" should be in the opening sentence, I would say no as a general rule – though there are no doubt exceptional cases where "former"/"retired" is actually a defining characteristic, such as for a person currently notable in one field and formerly notable in a totally different capacity. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Previous discussion on same question here (2022). Schazjmd (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Option A is generally wrong: A proper adjective (e.g. 'American') goes closest to the noun, except for qualifier/purpose adjectives. Sample ref: Adjective Word Order at Study.com. Nurg (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- No to question 1 (too specialized), so question 2 is irrelevant. Gawaon (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. In general I would avoid "retired" or "former" in the opening sentence. If someone is notable for being an actor then that's what the first sentence should say. If they haven't acted for a while, that can be explained in more detail later. On those occasions when "former" is needed (such as someone being notable for having left a situation, such as former political prisoner) and the word former is leading to possible ambiguity, it should always be possible to remove the ambiguity without making it harder to read, e.g. Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian politician, former anti-apartheid activist and political prisoner, not Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a former Namibian anti-apartheid activist or Jerry Lukiiko Ekandjo is a Namibian former anti-apartheid activist. Mgp28 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- No And, like a few others here, I think the use of either adjective in the opening should be avoided unless being retired/former is a key component of understanding the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- No and neither. MOS is not a guide to English grammar like others pointed above. The hyper-specific guidance leans into WP:CREEP territory. Ca talk to me! 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Almost never "former American" as former is a unique adjective in that it modifies the following word, implying that they are no longer an American ("The Secret Rules of Adjective Order". Slate). That would only be appropriate in rare cases like Wayne Brabender, who renounced his citizenship.—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- B If appropriate, "retired" may be used instead of "former", this should be noted in the MOS. Per Nurg, A is grammatically incorrect, and per Bagumba, "former American actor" is wrong. LK (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the key is "if appropriate". Retired is sometimes misleading, e.g. athletes who retire from playing in their 30s or 40s, but still work in other fields until their 60s or later. Or former child actors. —Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. The MOS doesn't need to try and determine every individual thing. Some things need to be decided on a case-by-case basis; and I don't think the argument has been convincingly made that this is a situation where one framing makes a better default than the other or where uniformity would benefit the wiki. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- A is the only correct answer - a professional does not retire from their nationality, only their profession. Therefore bios should say 'American former/retired actor' and NOT 'former/retired American actor'. GiantSnowman 16:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Profesional English is illogical, and attempting to right it would needlessly and substantively degrade our reputation. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, neither and C using retired in this way is best avoided. You can always add "who retired in..." or similar. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why say in 1 word what you can say in 10, eh! GiantSnowman 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No and Neither I feel this isn't something the MOS needs to specify - nor do I see much reasoning for why we should. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- ¬ ,¬ ∨ . This seems like a SNOW close. Also, this issue has been raised independently at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Use of "former" to describe occupations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Gender identity: removing "waiter/waitress/server"
[edit]@GnocchiFan and David Eppstein: I'm not in the interest of edit warring on a high-profile guideline, so I won't revert twice, but I would encourage David to self-revert back to the status quo, at least until a proper consensus develops.
Obviously, language is evolving to ungender many nouns, and there are many where traditionally male forms are now acceptable for all people. And of course we shouldn't go out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted.
If a (traditionally) gendered term for an occupation exists, which we (or sources) would normally use for a cis person in that profession, then I think it's generally preferable that articles should insistently use those terms when describing binary trans people, and try to avoid them when describing non-binary people. This prescription circumvents an... unfortunate trend where speakers (unconsciously or maliciously) use ungendered language specifically for trans men and women, while gendering our cis counterparts.
In this specific case I think referring to a trans woman as either a "server" or a "waitress" is fine. It's possible that a better example exists. But given the choice we should consistently refer to trans women film performers as actresses rather than actors. Even though that term is slowly coming to be understood as gender-neutral, it is traditionally male-specific. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I, for one, in my personal dialect, would use "waiter" for all people who serve food at sit-down restaurants, firefighter for all people whose job it is to fight fires, etc., regardless of gender. To me "waiter" is as gender-free as "doctor" and "firefighter". I don't want to be forced into using gendered noun forms for random subjects merely because those subjects prefer to use gendered pronouns, when I would normally use those nouns in a gender-free way. That is, I think we should act like your expressed sentiment above: "
And we obviously should not bend out of our way to use archaic, uncommon, or invented forms e.g. firewoman, doctoress when the gender-neutral firefighter and doctor exist and are widely accepted
." But I think that the example of requiring "waiter" for people who identify male, requiring "waitress" for people who identify as female, and forbidding both terms for people who identify in other ways, as the disputed MOS language does, is exactly counter to that sentiment. - If the intended meaning is that when using gendered forms we should use the gendered form that matches the gender identify of the subject, then of course we should. For instance we should not use "waitress" for someone who does not identify as female, obviously. But if that is the intended meaning then it did not come across. If so, we should replace the disputed passage with something that conveys that intent more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like DE's new version. I was ok with the status quo ante. I see this section used very frequently to deal with garden-variety transphobia, and I've never encountered a dispute over good-faith use of "waitress" vs. "server", or an analogue. I'm sure it happens occasionally. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I put the previous wording in while partly rewriting the section after the neopronouns RfC, to emphasize the scope of "gendered terms". I think this change still accomplishes that, so no objection here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'd like to say that no malice was intended with my edit. David Eppstein expressed my concerns with the previous wording much better than I could myself, and I much prefer the current version. Thank you everyone for keeping it civil, as I know this is a very contentious topic area. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Titles and posts (i.e.jobs)
[edit]Where a post has more than one word we continually see very odd looking capitalisation (note my spelling. Please do not alter it. British spelling and conventions are important in this discussion) I have never seen such posts as Governor general or Lord lieutenant written in that way anywhere outside Wikipedia. They are always written "Governor General" or "Lord Lieutenant." Very occasionally you might see "governor general" or "lord lieutenant" To my mind using only one capital is incorrect anywhere. Does it happen differently in US? Is the "Vice President " written "vice President" or "Vice president ?" If so the rules should be different with articles about British subjects to articles about USA or other countries that do not follow British conventions. For the moment if I see somebody described as "Governor general of Canada," . "Lord lieutenant of Leicestershire " or "high Sheriff of Nottingham" I shall change them. Spinney Hill (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. The second word should not be lowercased if the first word is capitalised in any variety of English unless it's the first word of a sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Capitalization of "president"
[edit]"The incident has been regarded as the most significant security failure by the Secret Service since the attempted assassination of president Ronald Reagan in 1981."
In this sentence, should "president" be capitalized? So far, a very brief discussion has been unable to provide an answer to this question, so I am raising this issue at this page. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should be capitalized. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:JOBTITLES:
—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII.
- Looking at that thread, for an added twist, it would be "US president Ronald Reagan", as "US president" is a modified title. —Bagumba (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with everything so far In "President Ronald Reagan " it is part of his name. In "US president Ronald Reagan" it is not. But if it were written "President of the USA Ronald Reagan" that would be correct. It would not be part of Reagan's name but it is a specific office which is a name itself. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- President, like other titles, should only be capitalized immediately before someone's name. In all other instances, it should be lowercase (recognizing there could be limited exceptions). --Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think MoS is as simple as Chris the speller puts it . It says :
- Capitals should be used "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:"
- I don't think it matters whether this is in the body of the article or in the info box. Consider the following ststements:
- Alfred was not a king of England.
- Alfred was King of Wessex.
- Athelstan was an English king and later became King of the English.
- Joe Biden is President of the United States
- Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States
- All these appear to me to be correct. Spinney Hill (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles
[edit]What about cases where a person holding one of the above titles is mentionedn in an article, but is not the subject of the article themselves??
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC))
- MOS:SIR may have the information you're looking for. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Capitalization in infoboxes
[edit]A footnote throughout the MOS states "Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things. Any instructions in MoS about the start of a sentence apply to items using sentence case.". This footnote is mentioned once in the relevant guideline here, MOS:JOBTITLES. However, as we see in most if not all infoboxes for politicians, sentence case is not applied to the offices they've held (the two articles primarily in question being Steve Beshear and Janet Mills, though other examples of this include Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Kathy Hochul, Glenn Youngkin, etc, etc, etc).
So the question to which I seek the comments of other editors would be whether or not these titles should be capitalized (eg. "75th Governor of Maine", "45th President of the United States", etc.)? Or whether they fall under the "descriptions" side of JOBTITLES or the "titles" side of JOBTITLES? estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: @Chris the speller estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Quick correction to my opening statement: the aforementioned footnote is not once mentioned in JOBTITLES, but rather in MOS:PEOPLETITLES as a note on hyphenated/unhyphenated titles. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- These look like proper names to me. Thus President of the United States, King of the Belgians, Sultan of Turkey, Lord Mayor of Sheffield, Chief of the Imperial General Staff etc, Spinney Hill (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- The MoS says to use lower case for "37th president of the United States", and this is from long-standing consensus. This discussion, started by Estar8806, is not to ask if that looks right to all editors, but to determine whether this style also applies to templates such as infobox officeholder. The footnote in the MoS says it does, and nowhere in the MoS is there an exception for infoboxes. I see a lot of overcapitalization in infoboxes (e.g. "Actor, Singer, Playwright, Comedian") that in the body of articles is rare and quickly fixed, but that doesn't mean we should condone or encourage it in infoboxes. Does maintaining two standards, one for running text and one for items in infoboxes, help any readers, or make work easier for editors, or make WP look more professional? I don't see how. Chris the speller yack 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not every office is commonly numbered. French presidents and UK prime ministers are examples of this. Does maintaining a separate standard for them versus those which are commonly numbered (like U.S. presidents or state governors) make Wikipedia look more professional? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- The MoS says to use lower case for "37th president of the United States", and this is from long-standing consensus. This discussion, started by Estar8806, is not to ask if that looks right to all editors, but to determine whether this style also applies to templates such as infobox officeholder. The footnote in the MoS says it does, and nowhere in the MoS is there an exception for infoboxes. I see a lot of overcapitalization in infoboxes (e.g. "Actor, Singer, Playwright, Comedian") that in the body of articles is rare and quickly fixed, but that doesn't mean we should condone or encourage it in infoboxes. Does maintaining two standards, one for running text and one for items in infoboxes, help any readers, or make work easier for editors, or make WP look more professional? I don't see how. Chris the speller yack 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- We capitalize in these instances (i.e infoboxes) regardless of a numbering or not. Please let's not change this, thus cause more inconsistencies & possible edit wars. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- If what you do is common practice, shouldn't it be specified somewhere in the MoS? Chris the speller yack 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- By all means, write it in. Just pointing out, if you started downsizing at bios of (for example) Australian & New Zealand governors-general, prime ministers, etc. You'd likely get reverted by editors who frequent those pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- If what you do is common practice, shouldn't it be specified somewhere in the MoS? Chris the speller yack 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I should say what I mean. What I should have said is that if a group of people are propagating a style, shouldn't they be doing it for a good reason instead of for no reason, and isn't the best reason that it is what editors have specified in the MoS after reaching a consensus? Won't people be tempted to use upper case for modified job titles in the body of an article if we have trained them to do so in infoboxes? Wikipedia does not capitalize common nouns in articles, titles, section headings or table headings (except the first word of a sentence), so what's the need for it in infoboxes? I'm not saying we need to change any case of French presidents or "Prime Minister of Australia" unless it is preceded by a modifier, as in "Quentin Elmhurst was a very unpopular prime minister of Australia" or "James Scullin (1930) became the first prime minister of Australia to exercise complete discretion ..." Chris the speller yack 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- We capitalize in the infoboxes of office holders. Best to leave it that way, rather than stir up a mess. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please see my edit at "Capitalization of presidents" Spinney Hill (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I should say what I mean. What I should have said is that if a group of people are propagating a style, shouldn't they be doing it for a good reason instead of for no reason, and isn't the best reason that it is what editors have specified in the MoS after reaching a consensus? Won't people be tempted to use upper case for modified job titles in the body of an article if we have trained them to do so in infoboxes? Wikipedia does not capitalize common nouns in articles, titles, section headings or table headings (except the first word of a sentence), so what's the need for it in infoboxes? I'm not saying we need to change any case of French presidents or "Prime Minister of Australia" unless it is preceded by a modifier, as in "Quentin Elmhurst was a very unpopular prime minister of Australia" or "James Scullin (1930) became the first prime minister of Australia to exercise complete discretion ..." Chris the speller yack 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have just edited Steve Beshear to use the infobox officeholder template as it was designed, and as editors were instructed. When this is done, "61st" and "Governor of Kentucky" are in two different parameters, and the tools I use to correct capitalization in running text don't see them. This discussion would have been precluded. Chris the speller yack 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
can popularity eclipse any other information from lead?
[edit]Following a discussion with @Haukurth I would like this guideline to be more clear regarding a specific case that I've noticed to be prominent in leads of popular biographies.
Should a vast amound of prizes on body be able to eclipse any other relevant piece of information on lead?
According to MOS:LEAD the space for "prominent controversies" is guaranteed, and the lead should "cultivates interest in reading on". Looking at the leads from Spielberg, Swift or Blackpink this is far from true. The lead is basically a collection of releases and prizes, accomplishing the role of excluding any potential controversial information from a first read regarding the subject. I would have expected a similar approach regarding politician pages, but the issue is extremelly prominent in the entertainment ones as well. This is in stark contrast to a multi faced developed lead as in the Stanley Kubrick page.
My question is, how can this be by design in an encyclopedia? And if it isn't, shouldn't the Manual of Style appropriatelly put a limit to the amount of lead paragraphs exclusivelly reserved to records and awards? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Perhaps it's hard to write and maintain a rounded summary when the subject persists in living and creating - you happen to have contrasted three articles about living, active artists/creators with one dead one. Casting around, I notice the engaging lead of Mick Jagger would serve as an obituary with a few tweaks of tense, but that would be a grim guideline to include in WP:BLP. NebY (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- you surelly have a point about living persons being more difficult to summarize, define and such. But isn't that the whole point of wikipedia, to try to look for consensus for edits? Conceding flat out doesn't seem appropriate to me. Jagger page is also a better exemple as you note. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)