Comparison with other publications

This page is devoted to analysis of how styles are used, or not used, by other publications in some way comparable to Wikipedia. The publications of main interest are reference and journalistic sources. It is helpful to look at both styles and other honorifics to give some context of usage. As a rule there seems to be a continuum among publications between using no honorifics at all, using some honorifics but not styles, and using all honorifics including styles. But in certain cases honorifics and styles may be used according to some other pattern, or selectively only for certain persons.

Press releases, web sites, and in-house publications by parties interested in a figure who might be addressed with a style are outside the scope of this investigation. As a rule, followers and subordinates of a styled individual indeed use their style; but those sources are, by definition, not Neutral Point of View. Also, journalistic or academic sources may directly quote individuals who use styles, but those direct quotes are not particularly reflective of editorial policy at the quoting publication. In corner cases, the willingness or unwillingness of a publication to include styles within direct quotes might be illustrative, however.

Please identify the actual uses, preferably with URL links where applicable, in the sections labelled "Styles Used", "Styles Used Sometimes", and "Styles Not Used." Comments on the merit, meaning, or background of the usage patterns should be placed only in the discussion section. Within the identification of uses, please provide neutral and minimal description of the pattern you can detect. Short examples quoted from outside sources are helpful if they illustrate a pattern, but reserve commentary to the bottom section.

Styles Used

Middle East North Africa Financial Network [1]

Gorkhapatra [2], Nepali news source; styles used for Nepali royalty, sometimes for other royalty as well.

Bangkok Post [3] (link rot seems to have set in on URL)

Incorrectly purported uses (including direct quotes not reflecting editorial policy)

Chicago Sun-Times. [4] Found mid-article. No style used in article, the abstract noun "holiness" is used twice, both times in a direct quote (there's a missing closing quote in second case).

Court Circular [5] (reproduced by Times of London). A directly quoted press releases from House of Windsor, not newspaper editorial policy.

The Cunard Line. [6]. Major shipping concern that runs the Queen Mary ship (press release posted on Yahoo). This is not an editorial usage by Yahoo.

Styles Used Sometimes

The Nobel Prize Nobelprize.org. Style/honorific used in the biography of the Nobel Laureate the Dalai Lama. But no honorific used of (The Honorable) Jimmy Carter, (The Rev. Dr.) Martin Luther King, Jr., (The Rev. Archbishop) Desmond Mpilo Tutu [7].

The Scotsman. One of the most, if not the most important newspapers in Scotland. E.g. Prince Charles styled in [8], but not in [9] or [10]. Styles in small minority of articles where potentially applicable. cf [11] and [12]. Notice that in both searches roughly half of the hits on first two pages are not applicable to this discussion.

Pravda. Style used for Pope Benedict XVI in opinion column, e.g. [13], but not in news articles, e.g. [14]

The Nation, Thailand. Style used only for King of Thailand (per Thai law), e.g. [15]; not for Popes [16] or foreign royalty [17]

Times of Oman. Style used only of Sultan Qaboos bin Said (and other Omani royalty), but not of Saudi royalty in same article, e.g. [18]; nor of Catholic popes, e.g. [19]

CNN. Styles generally not used, but sometimes in "human interest" section, e.g. His Holiness, referring to the Dalai Lama. Also here (but this looks like implicit quotation)

That most British of all institutions, the BBC: Styles usually not used. E.g. somewhat encyclopedic bios of Queen Elizabeth II, Pope Benedict XVI, John F. Kennedy. Some "human interest" stories use styles for British royals, e.g. [20], [21].

Two newspapers based in Brunei. See [22] and [23].
Brudirect.com more commonly omits styles for foreign monarchs than includes them [24].

Gulf Daily News Styles used of Bahraini royalty, e.g. His Majesty King Hamad, but not of foreign religious figures (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI) or royalty (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II or Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah).

Styles Not Used

Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd edition: Not used for Queen Elizabeth (I or II), John F. Kennedy, Pope Benedict (XIV or XV); looked no further.

Websters New World Encyclopedia, First Prentice Hall Edition (based on 9th edition of Hutchkinson' Encyclopedia): Styles not used, not even mentioned in article body for QE1&II, JFK, JPII. Other honorifics used sparingly. Oddly, George Gordon Byron is described as "6th Baron Byron" (right after the name), but the phrase "Lord Byron" does not occur in article; however, Augusta Ada Byron is described as "daughter of Lord Byron" (as well as her math achievements, of course).

Bartletts's Familiar Quotations, 16th edition (not an encyclopedia, but well known): Inconsistent usage. "George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron"; "Sir Thomas More", "Elizabeth I", "Francis Bacon" (not "Sir"). Most honorifics not used, and styles never.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1972 edition: Styles never used, honorifics sparingly. Not used for Francis Bacon (mentioned six paragraphs into body). Likewise for various other "sirs". No honorific used for Thomas Jefferson, but described as "third president ..." in first sentence. Can't think of a Pope or Queen who makes it in the book off the top of my head. Interesting example: Duc Francois De La Rochefoucauld, "...was known as the prince de Marcililac until..." (first sentence, but after semicolon).

New York Times. Styles not used.

That most Murdoch of British publications, The Times of London. Styles not used.

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Styles not used, other honorifics are. Does not use "Right Honourable" for Privy Councillors or "Royal Highness" for Princes, but does use "Sir" and "Lord Firstname," and peerage titles.

Encyclopedia Britannica 2004, The Complete Home Library CD: Styles not used. JP2, QE2, Byron.

Wikipedias in most languages other than English. Check entries on John Paul II and Juan Carlos I (Queen Elizabeth II in other Wikipedias has been largely translated from English and some, but not all, version retain "Her Majesty").

Microsoft Encarta. Styles are not used. [25], [26], [27].

Comments on Cited Usage

It should be noted that many of these things are not styles, but titles. I would also suggest that I don't think this vote is meant to discuss use of "Sir" for knights and baronets, or "Lord Firstname" for younger sons of dukes and marquesses - at least, I hope this is not intended. I'll add that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does not use "right honourable" for privy councillors or "royal highness" for princes, but does use "Sir" and "Lord Firstname," and peerage titles. I think that, no matter what the outcome of this vote, the latter ought to be protected. john k 14:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I read the Times, there were quite some Hons, RtHons, Revs and RtRevs in there. And don't forget Lord Soandso, the famous historian I had never heard of - until I found out he was Hugh Trevor-Roper in his "previous life". Str1977 17:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I call shennanigans here: I looked at quite a few articles from the London Times before adding the bullet. Styles were never used, though other honorifics were. If Str1977 maintains the London Times uses styles, I would ask for a specific citation to include in the bullet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:05, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Titles like "6th baron of", etc. (though slightly off-topic) help identify a person and describe who they were - they are their position or office, one might even argue that they're their profession. So I believe they should be retained where appropriate. For instance, Byron. There are other cases, especially in UK, where well known people, even celebrities have been recently created peers, but things for which they are notable were done under their common name. Their full peerage titles at the start of the article are actually detrimental to the flow of the prose and would be better presented at the end of the first paragraph.

Yet another thing are honorifics, things like Sir, Mr., Miss, Reverend, Dr., Prof., Comrade, etc. These are also slightly off-topic, but they are not especially controversial. Consistent use of those sounds very unnatural so it's generally not done, but some people are actually most well known with their honorific, so it's sometimes advantageous to use them. Common sense recommended.

And as for styles, none of the above publications use them. No respectable encyclopaedia that I know of refers to popes as "His Holiness" in neutral prose. It's just not done, for reasons of neutrality and equal treatment which have roots in the age of enlightenment, just like the concept of encyclopedia itself. I urge careful study of both topics. Zocky 17:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you say that the reason for not using "His Holiness" is "for reasons of neutrality and equal treatment which have roots in the age of enlightenment?" That's absurd on its face. The reason they don't use it, I would guess, is because it's somewhat awkward and provides no additional information that is specific to the individual - all popes are styled "His Holiness," so it's a waste of space to refer to each one by the style. (but remember, wikipedia is not paper). As to full titles, it is our rule to always use the full name - there has always been consistent support for using the full and proper name first in any article on a peer. Christopher Guest is rarely called "Lord Haden-Guest," sure, but Tony Blair is rarely called "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair". I don't see how the cases are notably different from each other. john k 17:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the print encyclopaedias have the facility for clickable links? Wikipedia does. Do any of the internet sites referenced use the linking facility that is available to them to provide background that might be useful? Wikipedia does. If the style, title and/or honorific applicable to an individual was linked to the description of the meaning of 'style', 'title' and 'honorific' (the concepts themselves, not the individual instances) then we would be providing something that print encylopaedias just cannot do (so no wonder they don't). As for the non-encyclopaedic resources—why should we expect them to provide the comprehensive coverage that Wikipedia aspires to? Noisy | Talk 18:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Noisy. john k 18:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the cited sources, including both Web and local e-text (i.e. EB) have clickable links and unlimited space; but all omit styles. Print sources often use typographic means to indicate implied links (space is not unlimited in print, but my 4 thick volumes of the Encylopedia of Philosophy don't seem focused on conciseness either). Clickable links have generally not been allowed in WP initial styles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:57, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Britannica has very few clickable links. Certainly it is not designed around that principle like wikipedia is. john k 23:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that the electronic (CD) version of EB2004 has "relatively many" clickable links. Perhaps John Kenney evaluates "few" and "many" differently for this context than I do; but use of clickable links in the EB2004 hypertext is certainly something they take significant advantage of. It is indeed fewer links per word of EB content than in WB content. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

It would be interesting if someone found an encyclopedia that uses styles. And I mean a real encyclopaedia not just a book that calls itself one (i.e. Encyclopaedia of Royal Scandals and Other Tabloid Junk need not apply). Zocky 02:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference works? Zocky 03:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Burke's and Debrett's count? john k 04:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason "Sir Francis Bacon" is not given first (in EB2004) is that the "Sir" became obsolete once he was made Viscount Saint Alban. Churchill's article is, in fact, located at "Sir Winston Churchill." john k 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the Cunard Line, who was listed as the source by whoever put this on. john k 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Re. Times running the Court Circular] It is used in the court circular, which is printed in the times. The Court Circular is a publication which, yes, comes from the court, but which uses the styles. I noted specifically that it came from the court circular, so I was not trying to deceive. john k 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC) (No suggestion of deception by John Kenney was intended nor implied: it is merely incorrect to understand that usage as following from Times editorial guidelines Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)[reply]

I did not mean to suggest that the usage was following from Times editorial guidelines, which is why I said it was from the Court Circular. john k 21:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you two are having a bit of a communication noise. Lulu's point is that if this is a review of other comparable sources, Court Circular doesn't apply. However, I think we should keep it as an example. Zocky 21:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I would like to call the examples that I have currently described as "Incorrectly purported" something more affirmative, and put them under an actual heading. I'm not sure what best to call those. Maybe "Quoted uses and Press Releases?" And should those be a subheading under "Styles Used" or a whole different section? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what we want the scope of the "external usage" to be. If we include only reference works, then these should go, together with other media outlets. If we include reference works and respectable press, then at least Cunard would need to go.

But, the problem is that all media sometimes use styles in quotes and opinion pieces. These should simply not count. Maybe you need to divide the list into two lists, reference works and media, and then divide the media according to whether they use it in in-house news stories, editorials and similar prose. It should probably include news agencies as well. Zocky 14:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intention of Creating Wikipedia Article

Regardless of how WP MoS policy may evolve, whether via the current vote/poll or later by other mechanisms, I believe the subtopic being developed on this page is notable and encyclopedic. I have tried to remove named comments and provide neutral tone in the non-comment sections of this page in anticipation of copying the content of this page to a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure the best name to use, maybe "Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics". But I'm open to better titles before I actually create it.

In general, I think this future article would include the top sections of this page in its body. It might make sense to copy the comments to the discussion on that article (or maybe not). I think that some of the comments, suitably edited, would be worth adapting as general descriptive content of the future article. And obvious some other steps are needed to turn this into a good WP article--tone, intro, etc. But I think it has the makings. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is an encyclopedic topic, Lulu. john k 18:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're welcome to {{VfD}} it after I create it. Then it will have an annoying box at the top for a week, until the vote is tallied as 30 keep, 1 delete (my guess, I'm not psychic). In any case, it seems awfully clear to me that the topic is noteworthy and encyclopedic. Not singularly crucial, but certainly in, say, the 60th percentile of topics viz noteworthiness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

What is encyclopedic about it? We don't have other articles on the way the media and other encyclopedias refer to things. john k 21:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome ideas from anyone who might want to improve such an article (including its initial title), rather than simply snipe about it. I think it should probably live in Category:Media or Category:Journalism (specifically Category:Journalism_standards, I think), but I am not sure more specifically where to place it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:27, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Maybe the info could go in the current article on styles of address. Maurreen 03:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the one within the WP Manual of Style? I am thinking this is an actual content article (in the making), rather than an internal policy article. I guess what that means is its name wouldn't start with "Wikipedia:"--of course, some MoS page might refer to such an article. Quite apart from what WP does, I can imagine readers being interested in how styles are used in the world at large. I'd want to change the intro a bit from the current "we're collecting data" to something more like "Journalistic and academic publishers use stylistic guidelines..." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:30, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Oh, follow-up to myself. I think Maurreen means Style (manner of address) as her mentioned article. That is a good one. The above external editorial policy inventory could be a section of that page; but probably a sub-page would be more appropriate. Thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Whether you want to make it a section or page is up to you. But Wikipedia discourages subpages in article space. Maurreen 16:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know (about discouraged subpages). I haven't done a lot of page creation, and am only loosely familiar with some of the naming and organizational conventions. Let's say I created a new page called Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics. It seems related to Style (manner of address), and also to Honorific (which is currently a stub, but not bad). And it seems to relate to the categories I list above (maybe to others too). Should I just have my page in the "See Also" sections of those pages? Or is there some more logical way to indicate the connections? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

My preference would be to separate the styles, honorifics and any titles. I think people may be interpreting these differently, for example with the poll.

And then, if I were doing this (which I'm not) I would just add the info the current articles on Honorific and Style (manner of address) (and "Title" if appropriate).

You might want to see Serial comma for an example.

As far as the connection, I'm think the "See also" as you suggested, is probably the best option. Maurreen 02:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you do decide to make a separate article, instead of integrating with the current ones, you could maybe categorize it under "English language." Maurreen 02:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created Wikipedia Article

OK, I did create the article Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics as suggested. I tried to take out all the wording that was specific to this survey, but welcome help in completing that cleanup.

Unfortunately, as predicted, User:Jtdirl placed a malicious VfD on the page within minutes of its creation. Then following the "gaming" of Wikipedia content, he placed also placed a gratuitous VfD on the old, existing page Honorifics. Oh, and vandalized Style (manner of address) while he was at it. Probably other things I missed.

If editors want to go improve the affected pages, and vote in the stupid VfDs, that would be great. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:50, 2005 May 15 (UTC)