Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Two RFCs have been called regarding the behaviour of editors on this page: [1] and [2] . Feel free to comment if you wish. Please remove this notice after the RFC's are completed.

Survey Result[edit]

The Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles is concluded, and the results have been counted.

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address.

The prevailing alternative was prescriptive, and states:

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.

The question presented for ratification is only as to whether this convention has a consensus. If this ratification is unsuccessful, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) will not provide a guide as to whether, how and where formal styles of address should be provided in biographical entries, until and unless a subsequent consensus on some convention can be reached.

This ratification question shall be open for participation through May 28, 2005 (UTC). If the number of those who Accept the ratification shall exceed the number of those who Reject it by a ratio of 3:1, the ratification shall be considered to have passed consensus and shall be incorporated as part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

All responses must be signed by valid users (Please use: ~~~~) to be counted.

ACCEPT Ratification[edit]

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. — ACCEPTED by those voting under this heading:

I accept this as a compromise consensus, with the understanding that the Wikipedia is often inconsistent, and if all pages do not conform to this convention, it will not violate NPOV because the manner of address is to be described in a neutral way, without being employed directly or endorsed by the Wikipedia. Whig 03:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~I accept the compromise (although it isn't my preference). I think it is the best alternative likely to receive wide support~~ Trödel|talk 04:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (In light of the precedent this sets i.e. a 53% imputed "consensus" and failure to seek true compromise and consensus - I have changed my vote - see below.)[reply]
But the vote is on the proposal, not on the actions of certain editors. Does this mean that, if you vote against me on any issue, I just implement the proposal prematurely and get you to change your vote? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No but it does call into question the neutrality of the vote organizer and his methods. I need to re-evaluate why I am voting for it and if the compromise is really a compromise or a manipulation of the vote. Trödel|talk 12:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality^talk 04:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
RSpeer 05:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Jonathunder This seems like a reasonable compromise. 05:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
~~JRM · Talk~~ 07:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC). Consensus in the traditional Wikipedia sense is not possible between mutually exclusive options. We'll be arguing forever. Go with the option least objected to by all, for now. If some genius comes up with a new idea they think is much better, then let them hold another vote. Nothing's written in stone.

Struck out after James F. pointed out to me that this ratification is on whether the proposal has consensus, not whether it's a good compromise. That's trickier. I wholeheartedly approve of this as an interim compromise, but I don't believe we can call it consensus. I'm also afraid that would give people an excuse to beat others with the infamous "you are going against consensus" stick forevermore, and I wouldn't want that. Not saying yes or no until this clears up. JRM · Talk 11:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
I think that James F. is not really representing this properly. I think this is supposed to be basically "do you support this". The survey was designed to see what the least opposed option was; this is to actually designate policy. 53% preferred this option the most, but that does not mean 47% disapprove of this policy. Basically, if we can get a 3:1 vote on this, it would be obvious we have a consensus on it; we if cannot beat 3:1, then we don't have a consensus on this as being the official Wikipedia policy. I think a number of people are willfully misrepresenting this in order to prevent this policy change from becoming official. Titanium Dragon 22:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JoJan 07:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise, and the best that can be hoped for. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The original poll slipped my notice, but this is the option I would have voted as first choice anyhow. older≠wiser 13:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
violet/riga (t) 16:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Flyers13 16:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Titanium Dragon 22:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I accept this vote; and this is about whether or not this should be the policy. We're trying to see if this is truly the consensus option. I think that this is a good choice, and a neutral way of doing things. Though it was my second choice, I think this should be the way we do things, as it seems to have the most consensus; mentioning of the style, without excluding it.[reply]

REJECT Ratification[edit]

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. — REJECTED by those voting under this heading:

No consensus; keep status quo. — Dan | Talk 04:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What status quo? Edit wars? Titanium Dragon 22:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% is not consensus. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:56, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
No, which is why THIS exists; 53% of users preferred this the most, but that does not mean 47% of people disapprove of it as being the official Wikipedia policy. This was the least opposed option; maybe 75% of people DO think this would be an alright policy for Wikipedia. Just because you don't prefer this the most doesn't mean you disapprove of it. If 3 people support this as being a good consensus with only 1 opposing it, that'd be consensus. Maybe people who preferred option 1 on the survey over option 3 would consent to this, because they don't think it is bad. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Just because 53% preferred this over option 1 doesn't mean that 75% won't prefer this option to ambiguity. Titanium Dragon 22:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you insist on using a Concordet voting method, and a cyclical ambiguity results, there's no consensus. --Carnildo 05:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, especially considering that option 4 (not including the style in the introductary paragraph, or perhaps at all) and option 3 (including the style in the introductary paragraph) are much more similar than option 1 (including the style before the person's name). Additionally, cyclical ambiguity does not mean that 75% of people will not consent to this option. This is basically to see if 75% of users think that this is a good policy. This is an attempt to make a consensus. Titanium Dragon 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts by Lulu and by the supposedly neutral co-ordinator of this election, Whig, to force implementation of the scheme on pages before it is even ratified runs against every principle of decision-making on Wikipedia. This isn't a democratic decision. It is simply an attempt to force through what they have already shown tonight they are going to do anyway. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 07:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per EvilMonkey - plus I resent having to keep voting when it is crystal clear what WPians views are from the detailed comments on the original vote page, jguk 07:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so crystal clear that, in fact, alternative 3 clearly beat your alternative 1, by a fairly significant margin. Added to that, a number of people don't seem to really mind alternative 3, having put it as their second choice in some cases after alternative 1. Yet again, trying to prevent consensus. This exists to see whether or not there IS consensus, not whether or not 53% is consensus. Just because alternative 3 (what is being voted on) was not the most preferred option for everyone doesn't mean that it isn't an acceptable comprimise. My first choice was alternative 4, but I think this is a good consensus policy. Titanium Dragon 22:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for change (the status quo apparently being styles for everyone except Americans). (And Whig should be blocked for disruption for what he's doing supposedly on the basis of this survey.) Proteus (Talk) 10:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would simply mean that the style would not be the absolute law for the biography pages, as outlined above. The addition of styles to the biography page template was done unilaterally by jguk, and it would appear that has been more or less rejected, but if we fail to establish some sort of conensus here it will more or less be that every page will deal with it individually, probably causing cyclic edit wars. Titanium Dragon 22:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not even remotely consensus to change (note: the proposal is acceptable to me, but the method of attempting to resolve the conflict (ha!) is very much not). James F. (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... this exists to establish whether or not a 3:1 margin of users consider this policy to be the policy of Wikipedia. This is NOT to decide whether or not a 53% preference to alternative 1 consitutes a consensus. I think people misunderstand what is going on here.

What Whig did was create a survey to figure out which option was the least opposed. Then, figuring out which one is the least opposed, this was created in order to ratify whether or not this was in fact the consensus of Wikipedia. If the least opposed option cannot get a consensus, then NO option would be able to, in theory. This is to determine whether a 3:1 ratio of users believe this should be the policy of Wikipedia. I think people misunderstand what this is. Titanium Dragon 22:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% is by no stretch of the imagination "consensus". If there is no consensus, the decision cannot be ratified. -- Arwel 12:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% of people said that this was better than alternative 1; that does NOT mean that this cannot be the consensus. A consensus is a 3:1 margin of users who state that this is acceptable; this is clearly distinct from whether or not you prefer it to alternative 1. Is this an acceptable policy for Wikipedia, or is it not? That is what this is trying to determine. The 53% is irrelevant to whether you approve or disapprove of this as being Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 22:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
reject, especially on the grounds that we are seeking to be accurate, and accuracy requires (imho) the correct title and name conventions to be applied to every individual on the basis of what they are correctly termed. --Vamp:Willow 16:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Reject On the Wikipedia, 53% is not a consensus, and never will be. Can you imagine promoting a user to administrator on the basis of 53% approval? Bratsche^{talk random} 21:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
53% is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you believe this to be an acceptable policy for Wikipedia. Do you think that this is acceptable as the standard Wikipedia policy, or do you not? We are trying to find out if this, the least opposed option, can have a concensus behind it. Just because 47% of users preferred alternative 1 to this alternative does not mean all of them believe that this is not an acceptable Wikipedia policy. Titanium Dragon 22:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, no consensus, and the polling method may have been too convoluted in the first place. Also, this option was my last choice. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As strong a rejection as possible. This entire process has been a gigantic Clusterfuck. 53% is not consensus. We don't promote Administrators at 53%, we don't delete articles at 53%, and we certainly don't change policy at 53%. I'm disturbed anyone could consider "ratifying" this decision. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with 53%. What this has to do with, is determining whether or not this has consensus. A consensus requires a 3:1 margin. What that 53% thing was was preferring this option to another option; it was preferred to the status quo (anarchy) by a significantly larger margin. What we are trying to determine here is whether 3 out of 4 Wikipedia users think this should be Wikipedia policy. This has NOTHING to do with 53%; this has everything to do with 75%. Titanium Dragon 23:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. 53% is not consensus. Dbiv 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said many times before, 53% is not about consensus. The 53% is irrelevant. It is utterly irrelevant to this. What we are trying to determine is whether or not 75% of Wikipedia users find this policy to be acceptable Wikipedia policy. 53% is NOT concensus, but it has NOTHING to do with this. Do you think this is acceptable Wikipedia policy, yes or no? THAT is what is being voted on. Titanium Dragon 23:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. After reviewing the discussion and the way it is being interpretted - that a 53% vote is a repudiation of the existing policy and that it should be overturned. This is very troubling and seeks to divide us rather than to encourage us to work towards a compromise supported by a true consensus - Trödel|talk 01:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no existing consensus policy. The status quo is, in fact, edit wars, including on the biography template page. The point of this is to determine whether or not there is in fact a consensus; 53% has nothing to do with this. If you support this as Wikipedia policy, vote for this; if you do not, vote against it. If 3:1 people vote for this being official wikipedia policy, it will be official Wikipedia policy; if not, then we will have the "status quo", which is to say edit wars and further discussion (perhaps) of this subject. The 53% determined that this was the least opposed option; if this option cannot achieve consensus, NO option can. Vote for or against on the basis of whether this should be policy, and solely on that basis. Titanium Dragon 23:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I strongly oppose this. 53% is no consensus.Rangeley 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James F. changed[1] the wording of the headings above. You are not being asked whether a policy change has been accepted as consensus. No consensus was reached in the survey, and nobody has claimed otherwise. You are being asked only whether to accept or reject the prevailing convention, as stated above. A rejection of this convention will not "undo" the survey. The survey is closed. Whig 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Whig, that is exactly what this ratification is about (it is a ratification of whether your voting process ended up with a result that is suitable to base a policy decision one. The key criterion is, as ever on Wikipedia, consensus. I fear that you fail to understand this, however. James F. (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, James. This is not a referendum on the survey. That would be redundant and unhelpful, though you may wish it to be one, and many of those voting to reject the convention so far have tried to make it so. This vote is to ratify or reject the prevailing convention. If a consensus does not approve the convention, the convention will not be ratified. That is all. Whig 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whig, I dont approve of the convention stated above. Thats actually why I voted to reject it (and what I meant when I said I strongly oppose this). As a side note, 53% is no consensus. Rangeley 00:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The strong-arming and bad-mouthing on this issue is really starting to get to me.--MikeJ9919 14:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. 53% is not consensus. A different method of counting would bring a different result. (If I haven't miscounted, there were 28 first preferences for Alternative 1, and only 22 for Alternative 3.) Alternative 1 would very likely have had even more first preferences if the wording had been clearer. The comments made by voters indicated that some people with identical preferences voted differently. Ann Heneghan 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% is irrelevant. What the first thing was designed to determine was which alternative was the LEAST OPPOSED. This means, which alternative the most people would be likely to not vote against. The point of this second thing is to establish policy; the 53% result of the first survey is utterly irrelevant to this one. It has nothing to do with it. Do you, or do you not believe this should be the official Wikipedia policy? If you do, vote yes, if you think this should not be the official Wikipedia policy, vote no. The results of the survey have nothing to do with this, beyond determining which choice would be most likely to get a consensus. As this is the least opposed option, this means that if this cannot get consensus, none of the options could. Titanium Dragon 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I object to the entire premise of this page. john k 18:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Until now I thought complaints about the voting method to be over-suspicious. It turns out they were right. Hence I reject the alleged outcome. Str1977 22:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. This entire process has generated significantly more heat than light. Gentgeen 23:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I concur with many of the reasons given above by others. patsw 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - 53% isn't consensus, as others have said. Maybe another poll with just a yes/no option. I think the test-poll on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI is a step in the right direction. Fewer choices looks like a better bet for consensus - figure out whether to use the styles or not, then figure out the details about mentioning them and where after that's settled. As this poll was, people were split among five options, so it was harder to find a majority. Not that the effort isn't appreciated. :) --User:Jenmoa 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
53% has nothing to do with this vote for ratification. This vote is to determine whether or not this should be Wikipedia policy; it will only become Wikipedia policy if it has consensus, so if you think this is acceptable Wikipedia policy, you should vote for, if not, you should vote against. This is to achieve consensus, not to determine whether or not concensus has already been achieved. I think people misunderstand this, perhaps because it is confusing to them. The first thing was to determine which option would be most likely to get consensus; this is to find out if that option actually can achieve consensus. Titanium Dragon 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject - shouldn't we just use those titles that are used in international diplomacy? Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 17:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Even though the outcome was one of my prefered options, it's clear that there was no consensus. I think that this should serve as an indication that voting methods where there isn't a clear yay or nay on each option aren't likely to advance wikipedia policy. — Asbestos | Talk 19:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Asbestos, you are working against yourself here, and misunderstanding the point of this. The point of the survey was to determine what, if any, option was the least opposed option. Then, this was created in order to determine whether a 3:1 margin of users think this should be the official Wikipedia policy on biographies. We are trying to not determine whether or not this has a consensus by voting on whether or not it has a concensus, but trying to build a consensus! A consenus has been decided as being a 3:1 ratio of for to against. If you think this is a good Wikipedia policy, you should vote for this; if you think this is a bad Wikipedia policy, you should vote against it. But voting on whether or not it has a concensus is unreasonable, because we haven't ever had a vote on whether or not we have a concensus on it before this. This is an attempt to achieve consensus; do you think this should be Wikipedia policy, or not? Titanium Dragon 23:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This voting method is clearly the least well-suited voting method in existence for determining what the least opposed option was. It can tell you what the most supported option is, but the idea that this is the least opposed option when, well, half the people involved strongly opposed it, seems bizarre. john k 17:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. Half of the people did -not- strongly oppose it; a number of people who voted option 1 first voted option 3 (this option, the winning one) second. This would indicate that they do not strongly oppose it, yes? This is unrelated to the survey's numbers; this is totally independent. Titanium Dragon 03:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reject ratification, and strongly object to the interpretation of the original voting process. Gene Nygaard 11:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~# Reject On the basis that the wording of the proposal will not actually solve the problem. Hiding 09:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ Sorry, did it again. If this ratification vote is closed, could it be listed as such of RFC?

Abstain[edit]

Zocky 18:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC) I can't agree with any of the sides. It's simply too early for this vote. If people don't get time to reflect on the results and especially comments from the strawpoll, everybody's just going to vote along their primary preference anyway, so there's no chance of achieving consensus on the issue. Zocky 18:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 2005 May 15 (UTC). Unfortunately, I find Zocky's comment convincing. Looking at the reject votes, not a single one comments on the topic being voted on, but only on the prior survey results. And it will certainly be more than 25% of the confirmation votes that "reject" something not actually here at issue. I think we need to wait a while.
Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC). Same here. Plus, I want to give my test survey/poll at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI out.[reply]
I don't think this convention is likely to win consensus. I personally accept it as a compromise, because it will conform with NPOV and keep styles in prominent display, satisfying at least part of the concern that the styles-advocates have that styles might be otherwise omitted from biographical articles. Frankly, if it does not pass, I won't mind either, as there have been persuasive arguments against the guidance to put styles in the introductory paragraph of biographical entries, and someone else may come up with a better convention. I think that explicit abstentions serve no real purpose, however. They don't affect whether or not consensus is achieved and serve principally as comments which could as easily go under the discussion heading below. Whig 05:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobs 14:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC) newbie still learning issues involved & process but hoping to contribute. Nobs 14:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Discussion which is not intended to express a vote to ACCEPT or REJECT the ratification of this convention should go here.

In reply to Trodel, the convention is not presently enforced, however prefixed styles are not to be used, and if the convention is not approved then it does not mean that it is strictly improper for pages to refer to style in accordance with the convention, as the editors of any particular page think appropriate.

In other words, no convention means each page decides for itself how to refer to styles, so long as prefixed styles are not used. Whig 04:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo ante is overturned already. The convention being approved or rejected is as to how styles may be referred to, but prefixed styles should not be used. Whig 04:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The prior policy was clearly rejected, even though no specific alternative has been ratified by sufficient margin. Articles should refrain from using the clearly rejected prefixed style, which not only does not reflect consensus, but does not even reach simple majority opinion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

In reply to Carnildo, the method used was Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping and the cyclical ambiguity is therefore properly resolved and explained. The only option which might have been preferred to the convention put up for ratification here is still "No prefixed styles". Voting against this convention does not mean prefixed styles go back in. It means that some other convention or no convention should exist as to how styles ought to be mentioned in biographical pages.

In reply to Jtdirl, the convention which prevailed is non-binding at present, but it is a compromise which keeps the styles in prominent display. If this convention is rejected, styles may be given lower precedence, as there will be no guidance on keeping them in the introductory paragraph, or even in the biographical article itself. I do not think this is what Jtdirl wants, but a desire to obstruct consensus seems to be guiding a number of people, and I think it serves the community poorly if we cannot find a way to constructively work together. Whig 07:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the ratification vote appears to have been constructed as a choice between (1) heads I win and (2) tails you lose. However fine the original intentions, this whole process has become a bad joke and needs to be ignored in its present form and rethought from scratch when things have cooled down a bit. Vilcxjo 15:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the entire "survey" was invalid from the start. An essential part of a vote such as this in Wikipedia is deciding what the question is and what the options are, and in this case Whig just wrote both himself, which introduced an ridiculous inbuilt bias. For example, he (some might say deliberately) put people off the option he most disliked (the first) by putting "Dear Leader" in the blurb at the top, when anyone who knows anything about styles knows that "Dear Leader" isn't a style. Also, if a vote finishes without consensus, there is no consensus. You can't have a second vote to decide that there was in fact consensus. That's just absurd. Proteus (Talk) 10:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was properly proposed and discussed for a week in Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (biographies) after long-running attempts to resolve the differences of opinion by discussion had failed. This ratification vote is not to ask whether a consensus existed for Alternative 3. Clearly, while a majority favored this option, a 7% margin of victory over Alternative 1 did not constitute a consensus for the prescriptive language it would incorporate into the MoS (bio). Rather, the question here is whether, given the outcome of the survey, a consensus can be formed for this language.

If this ratification fails, there will be no guidance on whether, where and how styles may be referred to in biographical articles, a result functionally equivalent to Alternative 4 (which was, incidentally, cyclically preferred to Alternative 3, albeit by less than a majority of those participating in the survey). The prefixed use of styles is defeated in any case, because a majority clearly felt that they were not NPOV, and it does not require a consensus to overturn violations of NPOV. Whig 03:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a run-off or a new survey instead of a ratification. Take the top 2 options, and make a regular vote on them. This whole thing was difficult to understand. The options should have been more clear and concise (description and examples - perhaps the leaders of the G8 - for each, for instance), and it should have been a simpler voting system.

Just so people know the facts -

on category deletions as everywhere, a vote deemed to be 'no consensus' produces the automatic default 'no change'.

A vote of 55% in favour was ruled as being 'no consensus', leading to the default option. The same rule applies here. The default 'no change' option here means to keep using styles at the beginning of articles. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This whole ratify that which was not reached with consensus appears to be far more of a "if at first you don't succeed, ballot, ballot again". These appear to be attempts to win by attrition (and not for the first time - see LGBT sub-categories). There may be a case for formalising where requests for 'votes' that affect more than a single article or cluster of articles should be notified in order that a far larger number of editors are made aware of them before they close than would seem to be happening at the present time. --Vamp:Willow 09:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a compromise[edit]

I would like to point out that I agree that this seems like a compromise proposal - and I would support it as a compromise; however, note that you are voting to Ratify the survey result specifically (from above):

The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address. (emphasis in the original)

A majority vote does not defeat an existing wikipedia policy - that is why this should be voted down. After a sufficient cooling off period, a new policy change could be presented without the negative precedent that this one states. Trödel|talk 01:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A majority opposed the status quo ante as POV. A consensus is not necessary, nor is ratification necessary, to overturn violations of NPOV. You are not being asked to ratify the language above, you are being asked to accept or reject the prescriptive language of the prevailing Alternative 3. Whig 04:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: by your counting method, a slight majority preferred option 3 to option 1. That does not mean that "a majority opposed the status quo ante as POV." Most of the people who preferred option 3 did not say that they did so because they believed option 1 was POV, and there is no reason to assume that this is what was meant. And, again, of course a consensus is necessary to determine whether or not something is NPOV. It is not as though consensus is the means used in everything except determining if something is POV or not. john k 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John, there was no existing Wikipedia policy on styles. Sorry to break it to you, but the addition of styles to the biography format page was not done by a consensus; it was an alteration by a single user (jguk). Thus, it was never Wikipedia policy, unless you'd think that me changing the page unilaterally makes it Wikipedia policy. In which case, I'd be happy to do it. Titanium Dragon 18:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, my very, very, very thick friend. As has repeatedly been told to you, there was actually very considerable discussion of whether styles should be used, at various different pages, and there was a general consensus to use them. The discussion was generally only among those of us writing articles on British personages, but it was a discussion and perfectly appropriately arrived at consensus. Quit saying this when it has repeatedly been pointed out to you that it isn't true. john k 16:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Zocky 02:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal[edit]

The current vote is to determine whether the results of a previous vote will be "ratified" as policy. I've never heard of it being done in such a manner, and I know that many people were distinctly uncomfortable with the voting system used, a voting system foreign to almost all of us. The default on Wikipedia is that, absent consensus, and consensus is always defined as at least 70%, we revert to the status quo. The wording above, however, suggests that if this controversial proposal does not pass, if it is not ratified, then Wikipedia will have no policy on styles at all. This is not how the process works. Absence of consensus on changing policy does not equate to a vote of no confidence in the policy. Let us say a government wanted to change the speed limits on a highway, then set to 70 mph. Now, parliamentary consensus is 51% (obviously). Let us say 32% favored 75 mph, 28% favored 80 mph, 20% favored 65 mph, and a final 20% favored 55 mph. There is no consensus. Seeing that, would the government abolish speed limits? Of course it would not, that would be silly.

(as an aside, cf the balloting of the UK House of Commons on Lords reform with ballots for 20%, 40% etc elected -- Vamp:Willow 09:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The ratification process here is admittedly unusual, but it is generally agreed that no consensus emerged from the styles survey. The example of speed limits above is not on-point, because the NPOV rule is equivalent to a constitutional provision of the Wikipedia, and it is not required to have a consensus to enforce the constitution when it is violated. Since a majority determined that the status quo ante violated NPOV, it was found "unconstitutional" by this analogy. A vocal minority may wish to complain, and block consensus on a resolution that would pass constitutional muster, but that does not give them the right to claim that the unconstitutional provision should be retained. Whig 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is dishonest to go about the wikipedia claiming that a policy change has occurred. I would regard such an act as deliberate disruption bordering on vandalism. That said, it would be my hope that those who have made such a shambles of this process are prepared to act in good faith, and do things the wiki way: a publicly-announced vote, conducted either on the basis of straight-approval voting or first-past the post, with the policy proposals written in committee, and a 70-75% threshold set for consensus. The entire process up to this point has been educational, yes, but cannot possibly be regarded as the producer of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have honestly reported precisely what transpired, that a majority overturned the status quo ante. I have claimed no consensus. Please do not accuse me of dishonesty or vandalism. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Whig 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, son, I grow tired having policy quoted self-righteously in my face. I will refer to your vote over at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, in which you said "This issue has already been resolved in the Manual of Styles (biography) survey on prefixed styles." Now, what exactly did you mean by that? Also, this business about majorities is unimportant--Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It takes 70% at least to establish consensus. 53% cannot overturn everything. As you said above, "no consensus emerged." That means that the policy is left unchanged until a consensus for a different policy, not the absence thereof, emerges. Mackensen (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, after I made this point, Whig removed the word "consensus" from both the ACCEPT and REJECT headings (see [2]). It is incredibly bad form to change the wording after people have already voted. On the other hand, JamesF added that wording (see [3]), so removing it was probably a good call. However, if this vote isn't about consensus, then it's pointless. Mackensen (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing the wording of a vote in progress is incredibly bad form. I reverted to the original wording. Whig 06:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's good of you. Please address my other points. Mackensen (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already addressed the main part above (see under your first paragraph). With regard to the Talk:Pope Benedict XVI poll, the question being asked there is whether the prefixed style should be used. This issue is resolved by the survey, a majority having found the status quo ante to violate NPOV. Whig 06:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but wikipedia doesn't work that way. First of all, 53% doesn't decide much of anything around here, least of all a policy change. Even if it did, for the sake of the argument, the old policy wouldn't be abolished until a new one, decided by consensus, was raised up in its place. The result would not be to nullify policy and declare that no policy existed. Mackensen (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can go back and forth all day 'til the cows come home, I suppose. I'm not claiming a new policy. I'm saying the old style guide violated the absolute, unalterable policy of NPOV as determined by a majority of those participating. On another note, I can see you may have been confused by my vote comment in the B16 poll, because my vote was edited to appear as if I had left a separate comment, when it was a single statement, in which I clearly explained that the survey result was a majority and did not claim it as consensus. Whig 06:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the meaning of the vote, I massively clarified its wording so that people would be aware of its intent. Such a change was very much in keeping with both policy and accepted (nay, encouraged) behaviour, and I'm mildly annoyed that Mackensen would fall into the trap of latching on to it as 'bad form'. Whig, on the other hand, I'm not terribly surprised at, sadly.

James F. (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your "clarification" was purely inaccurate, and intended to convert the ratification of the convention into a referendum on the survey. This is not a referendum on the survey, that would be redundant and unhelpful, though a bloc of people who are voting against the convention may wish it to be. Whig 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that James -- when I first saw the change, I thought that Whig was sneaking consensus out of the wording in response to my comment. I agree absolutely with what you've said above, and please don't take the "bad form" remark too harshly. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone unilaterally changes the wording of a vote in progress in a manner which you agree with, that's ok? Whig 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my other comments above you wouldn't need to ask that question. James changed the wording to something which actually made sense. The proposal as currently worded, which is heading down to defeat anyway, is a dead letter. Even if it were "ratified" it would mean aboslutely nothing. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Note on Acting Before Ratification[edit]

I would strongly advise Whig and his fellow anti-titlers to restrain themselves from editing any articles until this vote is completed, in accordance with the pre-existing rules on consensus. It seems to me that Whig has inserted a meaning to the survey ex post facto. Never before the end of the survey was it ever billed as a matter of confidence or supply concerning the current policy. In the name of clarity and democracy, we should let this vote end the question once and for all, and then proceed to act. Cheers! -thesocialist

"NPOV trumps consensus"[edit]

Ah, this supposed principle is being trotted out in the most offensive manner possible, just as I envisioned when I objected to its inclusion in the first place. The vote we had was not about POV at all - it was about what the naming convention should be. Whig has no evidence whatsoever that a majority of people who do not think styles should be prefixing names at the beginning of articles feel this way because they think that styles are POV. He is making that up out of thin air. Only a few people (Whig himself, Lulu, Titanium Dragon, perhaps a couple of others) specifically mentioned POV as a reason why they opposed the use of styles. This is one of the most incredibly bogus arguments I have ever seen. Even if a majority had thought that styles were POV, that wouldn't allow a wholesale change of policy. The only way in which POV can trump consensus is if there is a consensus that something is POV. If the question in dispute is whether something is POV or not, we have moved to a system where a slight majority can do whatever it wants simply by agreeing that whatever they don't like is POV (or, in this case, somebody whose position was supported by a majority can do whatever he likes by pretending that a slight majority agrees that the opposing position is POV). This is incredibly poor behavior. john k 07:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into this discussion beyond pointing out that it wasn't just a few people who found it POV. Many of those who did tried using other arguments, like redundancy in hope of finding common ground for the removal of styles. But that said, I'm amazed by your remarkable statement that a consensus that something is POV is needed for it to be POV. Please consider what would that mean for articles in general. Surely you meant it the other way around - a consensus that something is NPOV for it to be NPOV. Zocky 19:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky, firstly, I know there were a fair number of people who thought styles were POV. There is no evidence that a majority felt this way, which claim is the basis for Whig's actions here. If even a small percentage of those who preferred not to use styles did so for reasons other than thinking prefixing styles are POV, then there fails to be a majority who believes that the current convention is POV As to my "remarkable statement," perhaps I should try to clarify. What Whig is claiming here is that because (supposedly) a majority of people voting thought that prefixing styles was POV, that means that the current convention is overturned, even in spite of a lack of consensus to overturn it, because "NPOV trumps consensus." But this is nonsense. In order to know if something is NPOV or not, there has to already be a consensus. Simply because there was a nearly evenly split vote about whether to prefix styles, Whig is claiming that the current convention was rejected as being POV, and thus, even in the absence of a consensus to change policy, everything needs to be changed. This is clearly nonsense, and self-serving nonsense at that. Obviously, in the context of a dispute over whether a particular article is POV, a lack of consensus means that the POV marker stays up. But that doesn't mean that any material which the group alleging POV finds objectionable can simply be removed in the absence of a consensus that it is POV. john k 20:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my main point - Whig is ~~full of shit~~ being deeply disingenuous when he says that the vote had anything to do with whether styles were POV. This may have been a reason that some people voted as they did, but there is no evidence that a majority thinks that styles are POV. There are plenty of other reasons one might not want styles in articles (awkwardness or redundancy, for instance). john k 07:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the introduction to the survey itself:

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

The majority found that the status quo ante did not represent a neutral point of view (NPOV), however no consensus was found that it should be changed to any particular convention.

I believe that I have represented the matter accurately. Please abstain from personal attacks. Whig 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Whatever the preamble said, the vote was for a series of preferences about what the convention for styles were. Voting for other preferences cannot be said to constitute a vote that the status quo was POV. For that to be determined, there would have had to be a vote on that specific question. What you are saying is that, no matter what they actually thought about whether styles are POV or not, the vote of anyone who preferred not using styles is to be taken to mean that they think that styles are POV. Can't you see that that's problematic? Especially since there were five different choices, and the status quo was not even a specifically available choice, I have no idea how you have determined that a majority thinks that using styles is POV. You have picked this claim virtually out of thin air. john k 23:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most important statement I think here is "The only way in which POV can trump consensus is if there is a consensus that something is POV." In which case it doesn't need to trump consensus, because consensus already agrees. I must admit, I'm quite baffled as the point that Whig is trying to make here. Does he imagine a consensus agreeing that something is POV and still insisting on putting it in articles? That's rather bizarre, to say the least. Proteus (Talk) 08:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find bizarre is that you attribute to Whig a bizarre statement made by john. Whig's position is clear -- factually incorrect, but clear. 68.6.40.203 07:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this 68.6.40.203 and why is he involved here? Whig 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strange interpretation of policy, that a consensus is necessary to establish a NPOV violation. Please read the actual article on NPOV. A majority is more than sufficient. Whig 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very surprising to find anything in that article that supports your position, and in fact there isn't. Specifically, it says nothing about how many votes are sufficient to establish a NPOV violation. Generally, it says nothing about such establishment or about such policy. Did you read it? If so, you might have done something intellectually respectable, like quote the specific wording that you believe supports your argument. Simply waving in the direction of an authority and claiming that it supports your position is a common strategy of the disreputable; you would do better not to adopt it. 68.6.40.203 07:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this 68.6.40.203 and why is he involved here? Whig 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kenney should read and absorb Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Better now? I don't see why I get chided for one rather mild curse word, and Whig doesn't get chided for developing an entirely insane interpretation of wikipedia policy and then trying to force it through with no discussion. 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, because he wasn't attacking anyone. But let's let that drop. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The use of titles is probably NPoV in the majority of cases; there are times, however, when it becomes the focus of edit wars, resentment, and worse. If Wikipedia policy is (along with most reference works) not to use titles but only to mention them in the text, then when there's no problem, the articles won't be harmed, and when there is a problem, editors will be able to defuse it by pointing to the MoS. It's possible that those editors who are so against this idea have had no experience of difficult cases and edit-warring (though their tone and style suggest otherwise), but those of us who have experienced conflict know that it can solve many problems to have a policy that settles the PoV question clearly and universally.
Perhaps true. Let me note, however, a couple of points. 1) Firstly, the question is not about "using" styles. None of us support saying "Her Majesty decided to do such and such" in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance. The question is whether styles should be prefixed to the name at the beginning of the article. 2) Personally, I'd prefer not to mention styles at all than to have to add awkward sentences in the first paragraph that describe the style. This is very much the worst of all worlds. 3) This is really rather beside the point. Right now, Whig is saying that an established consensus should be overturned because a slight majority preferred doing it another way (another way which a very large minority strongly opposed), and is resting this on the erroneous supposition that the slight majority have registered their belief that the current policy is POV. This is getting things wrong on two levels, and until this procedural issue is dealt with, I don't see what value can be had in going over the merits of what we should do about styles. Whig has to quit insisting that his view has already been ratified before any useful discussion can be had. john k 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the terms "use" and "mntion" is a slightly technical way, as they're commonly used in philosophy. If a title is prefixed to a name in an ordinary sentence, e.g., "Her Majesty Queen Jane XII of Milton Keynes is..." then that's using it; when the name is referred to, e.g., "Jane XII is styled 'Her Majesty Queen Jane XII of Milton Keynes'", then that's mentioning it (like saying that five is a number but "five" is a four-letter word). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The idea, incidentally, that we should go along with what newspapers say is bizarre and unworkable. Which newspapers? The ones in countries hostile to a person whose titles are at issue, or the ones in countries that aren't? Should we call someone "Dear Leader", or "The Divine and Gracious", or "The Living God" because newspapers in his country call him that, or refuse because U.S. or European newspapers don't? You can't evade responsibility for being NPoV by transferring it to journalists, because the choice of journalists will itself be PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this. john k 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is technically known as "Some Third Party's Point Of View", or STPPOV. Or, at least, it is by me and a few others. :-) James F. (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Whig and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters[edit]

FYI, please note that comments are now invited on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. In both instances, the request is to ask them to calm down, leave this issue alone for a while and contribute constuctively elsewhere on WP. Incidentally, I have offered to do the same if they both agree. Kind regards, jguk 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you, Mr. I-Change-Policy-Unilaterally, leave? Because it is obvious you do not like being called on being disruptive, changing the biography template page unilaterally, ect. you are accusing and griping at others who are actually doing the right thing. I think it is clear that it is you who is not contributing meaningfully and attempting to be disruptive. Titanium Dragon 22:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since s/he offered to, you're not coming across as a constructive influence yourself. 68.6.40.203 07:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this 68.6.40.203 and why is he involved here? Whig 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline[edit]

Please direct further comments on this suggestion here. Thank you.

This whole thing is becoming ridiculous and it's causing more bad blood by the hour. Proponents of styles have invested a lot of research and grunt work into collection and addition of factual data, so they're not going to give up just because other people say so. OTOH, opponents believe that use of styles is unencyclopedic and in many cases POV, and they feel they're entitled to demand corrections. They're not going to give up just because other people say so either.

This poll is dead as the dodo, which means that the whole two weeks of arguing were for nothing. We can't agree whether we should use styles. We can't even agree whether we need consensus to remove styles or to add them in the first place. We're descending into edit warring, calling RFCs and quoting people's arrival times. Disgraceful.

But it's not all that bad really. It's not like it has to be done by next friday. There's no deadline. So, this dead poll should be scrapped before it annoys more people. Then we should debate the underlying issues, making the effort to be polite. I propose the following guideline for the debate page (feel free to copy-edit):

This is a debate about a controversial issue. To avoid wikistress, a serious and non-involved tone is preferred. If in doubt, err on the side of pomposity. On this page, expressing unqualified opinions about whether wikipedia should use honorific styles in biographies is explicitly frowned upon. All personal attacks will be removed.

The hope is to set some rules for the ensuing debate, so that we don't descend into the shouting again, but rather work business-like to establish a clear set of principles upon which we can hope to produce a proposal which will be acceptable to everybody. In conducting that debate, we should think not only about our first choices, but also about what to do if there is no consensus for the option we prefer.

Then, we should establish the following temporary process (feel free to copy-edit):

There is an ongoing dispute about the use of honorific styles in biographies. Until the dispute is settled, styles should not be added to articles that don't already have them. They should also not be removed, unless in cases of severe NPOV issues (eg. a dispute over the applicability of the style to the person). The latter should be discussed on the appropriate article talk page before any removal. Further discussion of this policy on article talk pages is discouraged. All such discussion should be directed to Wikipedia:Wherever we want it.

Unless consensus can be reached through debate, a new poll shall be called not before 5 June 2005 and not after 10 June 2005. If not otherwise agreed, the poll shall be conducted with simple support/oppose votes, requiring 75% of all non-abstaining votes needed to pass as consensus, and lasting 14 days.

If there is still no consensus, a second poll shall be held not after 25 June 2005 to establish whether the guideline to use styles is acceptable as policy. If it receives more than 75% of the votes, it shall pass as policy. If it receives less then 50% support, it shall be overturned and the convention on styles reverted to "no policy", i.e. "discuss and decide for individual biographies". Otherwise, the debate and polls will be archived and pronounced moot.

If there's support for this idea, I'll scrap the poll and set up a page for the new debate. Ideas on starting points for the debate would be useful. Zocky 01:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to thank Zocky for his thoughtful proposal, and I am very inclined to accede to his suggestions. My only additional thought is that if a new poll is conducted it should be by approval voting, and we should encourage diverse options. No getting locked into a specific wording and such. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but since voting method seemed to be controversial in this one, I think we should default to the default, and decide on a different voting method only if we have a good reason. Zocky 01:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting has been fairly common on policy debates. I can't remember where the page is, but that's how the Danzig/Gdansk business was finally settled. And it would still require 75%, people could simply vote for more than one option. None of this condorcet business, which I still fail to grasp. That being said, this is an issue for later, and I accept the main of your proposal wholeheartedly. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting is acceptable to me. Let's see what other people say. The only disadvantage I can see is that it could split the debate into several camps each one making their own proposal, if it's mandated in advance. Zocky 01:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote, and approval voting, seems good to me. In particular, I think approval voting is the best course for a situation like this, where there's an indefinite number of potential ways to deal with things. Also - what about new articles on people with styles? And I think it should be made clear that the honorifics "sir" for knights and baronets and "Lord Firstname" for younger sons of dukes and marquesses (and "Lady Firstname" for daughters of dukes, marquesses, and earls) ought to be added in regardless, since these issues were not within the purview of the dispute. john k 02:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever writes the article gets to decide, for the time being. Seems fair to me. About "sir" and "lord"... Plenty of people objected to that, whether because they can't tell the difference or because they genuinely dissagree with it, is irrelevant at this time. To prevent the honorifics issue becoming a proxy war over this, i'd at least discourage adding them en masse until this is settled.Zocky 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, including these honorifics has been standard wikipedia practice for years now. john k 18:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"expressing unqualified opinions about whether wikipedia should use honorific styles in biographies is explicitly frowned upon" [unsigned comment by 68.6.40.203]

Who is this 68.6.40.203 and why is he involved here? Whig 15:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About approval voting: I'm worried that if we mandate it, the whole debate will be centred about producing several wordings to put up on vote. We already tried that. Assuming that everybody understood Whig's poll, we can count all votes rated above option #5 ("throw out the vote") as aproval votes. That would bring #1 and #3 to a tie at 50.6%. I don't think we should try it again. Zocky 02:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concern below, approval voting seems to be generally accepted by most of the people here, and if all options put up for approval are required to have a second to go forward, there should be some care taken to ensure that wordings don't proliferate. Whig 05:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo the Thanks to Zocky for putting together this reconcilliation proposal. Additionally, from the comments above I agree that we should:

Limit it to an up or down vote
Try to build concensus for the different choices befor submitting to a vote - don't get too excited about time limits (but 2 weeks should be enough) - the best that can be said of the voting system used previously is that it narrowed the choices.
Take care in deciding on the wording and show concern for the differing views.

BTW, I wholeheartedly support this proposal. Trödel|talk 04:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time is a bit on the short side, but I think that it'll be about right. If we aim for the 5th, that's 19 days away. If we make it by the 10th, that's 24. I think that it's fairly important to finish this before the northern summer, when many of the editors will be on holidays, doing things in their lives off Wikipedia. I know I will. Zocky 04:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Zocky's efforts to seek a reconciliation between the respective positions in this long-running dispute. I don't know that a consensus can be reached between two mutually opposed positions, i.e., that styles should be used in all cases or that styles ought to be provided but never used. The lack of consensus should not mean that styles are used on a per-article basis, as this solution does not answer the NPOV objection and the selective use of styles was defeated in the recent survey by all other options except to throw out the survey. The NPOV question is one that does not require a consensus to be resolved.

Why do you keep making that inflammatory claim? There's no support for that claim -- it's hardly even coherent. NPOV is policy, but there's no policy as to whether something is NPOV, and where there's a dispute, consensus is required to establish policy. 68.6.40.203 07:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this 68.6.40.203 and why is he involved here? Whig 15:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems with the proposal as it currently is framed, but there are some constructive suggestions which I think give us a way forward. First of all, I can agree to an armistice on editing the use of styles for the time being, as a continual "revert war" is not helpful and distracting to all parties concerned, so long as we can reach agreement on a frame for final resolution of the issue. Even though I think consensus is unlikely to be obtainable, that does not mean it should not continue to be sought. The current style guide should reflect a lack of consensus and a NPOV dispute in the interim, as both are clearly the case at present.

In regards to the first poll, several style guides could be advanced for approval voting, and interested parties should be encouraged to submit proposed wordings for inclusion. If one of these obtains consensus by your formula, then the style guide should be updated to reflect the new consensus. We have several weeks to refine the various options, and then only those wordings which have at least a second supporter should go forward to the actual poll. If the first poll fails to obtain consensus for any of the proposed wordings, then the style guide should continue to reflect the lack of consensus and NPOV dispute unless it has been otherwise resolved by that time.

My main difficulty is with the second poll, under your proposal it is unclear what happens if an option obtains more than 50% but less than 75% support, and the reversion to "no policy" is undesirable. I would be satisfied to see the NPOV dispute position reflected as one of the options in this poll, and if no option gains consensus in this second poll but the NPOV dispute position obtains a majority support of those participating, the NPOV dispute position prevails and we do not revert to "no policy" in this case. Note that there could be multiple NPOV dispute positions, as the advocates of style might contend that the non-use of style violates NPOV. In this way, there is no favoritism being shown to either side of the debate. Simply put, however, NPOV must not be required to show consensus to prevail.

I hope my criticisms are taken in the constructive spirit intended and that we can agree to disagree on the final resolution as we work together in seeking it. Whig 05:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll try to give concise answers to your concerns and suggestions:

If this idea is to be tried, the proposed interim policy would replace the current text in the style guide until the dispute is settled.

The proposed interim policy being, leave styles as-they-are for now? Whig 08:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. In other words: "Take no action for now" Zocky 08:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails and the current wording gets between 50% and 75% support, we return to where we are now. We can then do whatever seems the most desirable way forward at the time - new debate, new poll, more edit wars, extend duration of the interim policy, go do something else and hope that somebody else gets it right next time, etc.

So you are proposing that those of us who object on NPOV grounds ought to accept this interim "leave styles as-they-are" forever, if no consensus is reached? Ixnay. Whig 08:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If more than 50% of people think that it's OK and NPOV the way it is now, any mass removal will be met with more hostility and very unlikely to achieve what you want. If that happens, I shall look forward to any extension of the interim agreement as an acceptable compromise for my side of the debate. But let's just wait and see what happens.
  - Please read the truce I offered above more carefully. If there is no consensus and more than 50% of the people think it is NOT OK and NOT NPOV, I'm saying, that's sufficient to prevail, but your current proposal suggests that even in this case, we somehow fall back to "let every page do whatever it wants" — and I won't sign on to that because it may amount to a permanent suspension of the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy. Whig 08:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I would ask you to stop using words like "truce". I didn't realise hostilities were declared.
    - I think you misunderstand what "no policy" means. It means that honorifics can be added and removed as editors see fit, like any other piece of information in articles (other policy applies, of course, as well as manners). From the anti-honorifics POV, that's surely better than "always use honorifics". Zocky 08:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the methods of voting, see my comments above. In short: we should try for a common proposal first, and if that fails we can still write several. Zocky 05:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very open for trying for a common proposal, and working together constructively if others will do the same and respect that a genuine NPOV dispute exists. Whig 08:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes and its talk for the current state of the proposal. Zocky 08:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Consensus again[edit]

Whig says (again): "The NPOV question is one that does not require a consensus to be resolved."

No, no, no, no, no. POV, like everything else, can only be determined by consensus. There is no policy which states that POV is determined by majority vote. john k 16:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here's the discussion of NPOV in Wikipedia:Consensus:

Consensus should not trump NPOV. A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

This does not mean what Whig says it means. It means that if there is something which people generally think is POV, it should not be in the article even if people agree it should be through consensus. It provides no guidelines for how to determine whether something is POV or not, and certainly doesn't suggest a majority vote. john k 17:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, notice that Whig has been saying "NPOV trumps consensus." But this is not what the guideline says. The guideline says that consensus should not trump NPOV. john k 17:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that for any future vote we specifically ask the questions, "Is it POV to use prefixed styles under any circumstances?" and "Is it POV to exercise judgment about which prefixed styles ought to be used, and which ought not?" john k 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's see. According to policy, "Consensus should not trump NPOV." What this policy means is that even if there were a consensus for a non-NPOV style guide, the NPOV prevails. Here, however, we're not even talking about there being a consensus for prefixed styles, there isn't one, there isn't a majority for the old style guide, there isn't even a plurality. The fact is, a majority opposed it. Those who've lost on that point don't seem to be accepting the fact that they're trying to require a consensus to enforce the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy. I quote in relevant part:

Whig, again: How is NPOV to be determined? There is no consensus on whether or not styles are POV. The only time your supposed policy would come into effect would be if everybody agreed that styles are POV, but a lot of people thought they should be included anyway. This is patently not the case. There is no consensus that styles would not be NPOV, and as such, you can't invoke this policy to force their removal. john k 23:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American focus[edit]

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

So this ratification vote may not succeed, and I don't expect it will, but it is not a referendum on the already concluded survey, it does not overturn the result, and if we can't get a consensus and we have to ask for an RfA on the matter after the current vote concludes, then we'll do that. Whining here and making/supporting partisan RfC's against me does not help anyone. Whig 20:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that there is no essential Anglo-American bias to prefixing styles. It would be an English bias to give "HM" to Elizabeth II but not to Juan Carlos or Bhumibol Adulyadej. But nobody is arguing for that. john k 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding what this is[edit]

This is a up or down vote in order to achieve consensus. If you believe the proposed solution is acceptable Wikipedia policy, vote for it. If you believe the proposed solution is not acceptable Wikipedia policy, vote against it. Titanium Dragon 23:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they're voting for without you "clarifying" the situation. Proteus (Talk) 07:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people stated they were voting no because "53% is not a consensus", which obviously indicates that they do not understand what they are voting on. Titanium Dragon 03:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)Ň[reply]

On the contrary, it shows they know exactly what they're voting for, rather than what Whig is telling them they're voting for. Proteus (Talk) 07:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Titanium Dragon, please don't suggest that this vote is something other than what it is.

James F. (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am "suggesting" it is exactly and precisely what it is - that it is, in fact, an up or down vote in order to achieve consensus. If you do not understand this, and think it is something different, then you are the one in error. This is an attempt to change wikipedia policy. You are under the impression that this has anything to do with the numbers in the survey; the only bearing that survey had on this referendum is to determine what option would be most likely to achieve consensus. Unfortunately, you seem to be ignoring and/or misrepresenting this. 53% has nothing to do with this survey; if you think it does, then you are the one in error. Many people do not understand what is going on because you and others (such as jguk) keep obfusicating the issue. This is NOT about the first survey; the first survey was NOT a means of setting policy, simply a way for Whig to determine which option was the most supported for the referendum, so we could achieve concensus. This is a very simple vote, an attempt to change Wikipedia policy. If you do not know what a simple vote is, I shall explain it to you:

You vote yes if you support the new policy.
You vote no if you oppose the new policy.

This has nothing, zero, nada to do with the survey, beyond choosing which option would be put in the referendum. Sorry, James, Proteus, but you are the ones in error, as Whig and others have tried to explain on numerous occasions. Please don't suggest this vote is something about 53% being a concensus, because it isn't about that at all. Maybe you simply don't understand the survey, maybe you don't understand this referendum; I don't know. Maybe it would be simpler for you guys to understand what this is if you simply ignored the existance of the survey; the survey's results should not change your vote on this policy, because this is about what should be Wikipedia policy. If this referendum is not passed, then we will most likely have constant edit wars and infighting over the NPOVness of his holiness on the Pope, her majesty on the Queen, his excellency on the President, The honorable on judges, ect. Titanium Dragon 18:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is also telling that the both of you voted for alternative 1 on the survey, and are now misrepresenting this referendum in order to block consensus. I understand you dislike this option, but you should be content to vote no and explain why it is a bad policy for Wikipedia, rather than claiming this is about a narrow majority trying to lord it over you. Whig is, with this referendum, trying to determine if three out of four Wikipedians support this policy, which would mean that this would be the policy on biographies for Wikipedia. That is precisely what this is about; no more, no less. Titanium Dragon 18:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll tell you what I understand this "ratification" is all about – from the introduction of this page: The prevailing alternative was prescriptive, and states:

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.

The question presented for ratification is only as to whether this convention has a consensus. So it is quite clear that we are supposed to be "ratifying" (a process I have not previously encountered in over 2 years on Wikipedia) a policy which was favoured by only 53% of those voting on the original choice of policies. The proponents of this entire misbegotten waste of time appear to have managed to introduce a completely non-standard voting system into Wikipedia's decision making, followed by a non-standard ratification system, introducing needless complexity and confusion. In response, we the voting electorate are quite clearly refusing to endorse this abomination of a policy. Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that we don't know what we're doing when we say that '53% is not a consensus'. It is quite clear that the proposal has been lost, so please don't waste any more of our time with it, Dragon. -- Arwel 21:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If you looked at the method used, that 53% was simply "favored over one other alternative". If you compared it to, say, alternative 2 (to only use styles in certain, noncontroversial cases) or 5 (which is to say, the status quo, edit wars) it was favored over them by a considerably larger margin. Saying it was favored by "only 53%" is misleading. As for "ratifying" - the idea behind this is that the people complained on the last survey about it being too confusing, thus a straight up or down vote on the option which was least opposed (and yes, this is the least opposed option, believe it or not) to see whether or not there was consensus in accepting it as official Wikipedia policy. If 75% of people say "okay, this is acceptable Wikipedia policy", then it is so. If you are protesting this because you don't like the survey, that seems kind of silly to me, as this referendum is not using a nonstandard voting system but a normal up-or-down voting method I have seen a number of times in Wikipedia. I might also add that it is telling that most of the people who object so strongly to this survey are those fighting to add his holiness prefacing Pope Benedict XVI's name and who supported alternative 1 on the survey. If this just came out of nowhere, would it change your vote? Titanium Dragon 21:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Ratification early[edit]

Why current wording is problematic for some[edit]

The orginal question was (see here):

This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance [...]

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

Options

The following is a summary of the alternative options. For more details and discussions see the sections below.

Yes. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, in all cases where a formal style is known it must be used to begin the biographical article.
Yes, with exceptions. In certain cases of controversy, the formal style may be provided in the body of the article after the name is provided.
No. The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.
No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3.
None of the above.

Of those voting

53% choose No as first choice — that the status quo does not represent an NPOV
44% choose Yes as first choice;
12% of those voting voted Y/N/Y or N/Y/N
16% of those made only a first choice

The last two items (1) make it more difficult to interpret the vote and (2) cast doubt on the method, since in preference voting, the 16% could have influenced the results. Fortunately those choosing only one option were fairly evenly divided between those who voted yes and those who voted no; thus, as User:Whig and others have maintained, the results are valid for determining the option with the "best support". However, it has been claimed that few participants really understand the voting method, and that has caused contention.

Then the result was put for ratification with this explanation (see above):

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address.

The prevailing alternative was prescriptive, and states:

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.

The question presented for ratification is only as to whether this convention has a consensus. If this ratification is unsuccessful, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) will not provide a guide as to whether, how, and where formal styles of address should be provided in biographical entries, until and unless a subsequent consensus on some convention can be reached.

Issues we should avoid going forward[edit]

The are several issues with this Survey and Ratification:

There was no policy prior to the Survey, as this is a style guide and not official Wikipedia Policy. (I know that the style guide is used to revert as if it were policy, but there is a difference)
A Survey was taken m:Don't vote on everything
The Survey question, "..whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV)..." which had a Yes/No first preference of 44/53 was ignored in the ratification and instead it was stated that NPOV trumps consensus
The instructions contradicted:
1. "NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address." But also
2. "If this ratification is unsuccessful, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) will not provide a guide as to whether, how and where formal styles of address should be provided."
The new claim that "...there is no existing consensus policy."
The practical existing situation is that "The status quo is, in fact, edit wars..." on a more than a few pages.
There is too much of personal attacks and not enough discussion of the arguments.

Resolution[edit]

I propose we close this as a failed ratification. Mark this page for archive and work on the Zocky's proposal.

I also propose that all Requests for Comment, related to the honorific issue, be closed, archived and ignored

I enumerate the issues above - not for debate or for rebuttal. However, as we go to work on a compromise we should try not to repeat these mistakes, "Forgive and forget," and work towards a solution. I also suggest that each side should try "writing for the enemy" and try to propose the other sides viewpoint to see if a solution can be reached.

For most of the time from the introduction of the article until Feb 2005 the style guide allowed each article's editors to work towards an appropriate use of the Honorific.

Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. [4]

This however has resulted in edit wars on individual pages; thus, the attempt to reach some kind of style guide here.

Support[edit]

I think that the results of this have been tainted to some degree, and have to agree with this. I think we should hold some sort of ratification thing in a month or so, after the furor has died off a bit to see if we are capable of self regulation or if it is leading to edit wars. (I've the feeling it will be the latter). I think that we will, eventually, end up either adopting no styles being applied, or adopt no policy at all, but I think we need a policy, because this will (and is, and has) resulting in a number of edit wars, which will never be resolved. There are too many people who feel that using styles is not NPOV (I'm estimating at least a third of Wikipedians from the results I've seen) for them ever to be applied non-controversially, and I feel that the fact that people's support of putting styles before the Pope's name but fighting against giving President Bush and Senator Hiliary Clinton their proper prefaced styles indicates that there is a strong PoV associated with the appending of styles. I also think that the controversy starting at the Pope's page is causing the users participating to be not representitive of Wikipedia as a whole; we need to draw in more Wikipedians, particularly ones who work on secular figures such as President Bush, Senator Clinton, the Queen, Tony Blair, ect. to get a more representative sample. It is probably notable that the list of people who oppose this ratification is almost identical to the list of people supporting appending his holiness to the Pope's name on his page. Titanium Dragon 00:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's dead, so there's no point in waiting further. Zocky 11:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but I don't want to prematurely RfAr, and there isn't any present alternative which resolves the issue. Whig 12:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase and ask as a question. Do you support waiting to RfAr? Whig 12:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you have a problem with the behaviour of a specific user and you reckon it's worth your time, go for arbitration. As for the use of styles, I don't see how it could be decided by the Arbitration Committee and frankly, I don't expect the arbitrators to accept such a case. Zocky 14:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

I really hate to oppose this, because I think, like Zocky's proposal, it is being made in good faith to seek a reconciliation between the respective positions. I have some issues with Zocky's proposal, however, and have elucidated them here, the interim policy talk page, and in my personal Talk page with Zocky. I think this ratification vote should be allowed to simply expire, and in the meantime, efforts by you and by Zocky should move forward towards a proposal that I can support. What I cannot agree to is a proposal that leaves the default as endless edit wars and no final resolution of the issue until some unlikely consensus emerges either for or against the prefixed use of styles. Moreover, Zocky's proposal seeks to expand the question to one which includes all honorific prefixes, like Queen or Pope, and not just styles like "Her Majesty" and "His Holiness." I support the use of neutral titles, I oppose the prefixing of styles, and this is unconsidered by Zocky's proposal, which you advocate we work on. My effort to refine the wording of his proposal was reverted, and I therefore feel we are stuck with the completed survey and the likely-to-be-unratified convention. I think the only way to move beyond endless surveys and edit-wars will be to ask for an RfA if no consensus approach is found by the close of this ratification vote. Whig 07:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

In response to Whig's concerns: It looks like we still have a misunderstanding here. First of all, I don't see "Pope" and "Queen" as real honorific prefixes. They are clearly also neutral labels of somebody's office that both help identify a person and provide additional information. They're not much different from "Secretary of State Rice" or "Head Janitor Doe". OTOH, I'm not sure that their use should be mandated, as the current wording implies.
"Sir" and especially "Lord" are a different matter. I'm not sure that calling somebody "Lord" is much different from calling them "His Lordship". I may be wrong, but I believe that it's at least a reasonable question which should be addressed in the style manual.
But look also at the big picture. We can have plenty of fun with WikiMania05: The Showdown of Style Warriors, vote on whether using individual kinds of styles is NPOV, and proceed to impose the result on the defeated faction. Or, we could try to produce a well written and well reasoned convention to replace the whole current section of the style manual — which is now rather uhelpful — so that we don't have to do it again next year.
What I would suggest is that we move titles like "Bishop", "President" and "Corporal", which nobody finds controversial, out of the Honorifics section and be done with them. Zocky 12:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: You probably mean RFAR ie. arbitration, not RFA ie. adminship. (Why do we have all these abbreviations anyway? Saving bandwidth? Shibboleth?) If that's so, you seem to be under the impression that the Arbitration Committe can legislate changes to the style manual. What next? Change the calendar? Zocky 12:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed mean request for arbitration. It isn't a first choice, it is only to be resorted to when a controversy is both substantial and impervious to alternate dispute resolution. Unfortunately, in the immediate case, I don't see any reasonable hope of either obtaining a consensus or persuading those who lost the recent survey to accept that a substantial NPOV dispute exists and that they cannot insist upon a style guide which ignores the cardinal rule of the Wikipedia.

At the same time, I am more than willing to let people try to find an approach to consensus and assist in those efforts if I can. I appreciate your concerns about the use of honorifics that are not strictly styles, but I think it opens a larger can of worms, and requires a careful redefinition of what is an "honorific." I certainly don't think that janitors and others who have ordinary occupations ought to have their biographical entries prefixed, "Janitor So-and-So." I think a reasonable argument can be made that we ought not to even use "Queen So-and-So" or "Pope So-and-So" and looking through the older biographical entries on popes, the title was not even prefixed. This may be preferable in a purist sort of way, but I really don't have an objection to recognizing the office of important political/religious/tribal leaders with their neutral titles, whereas I would have an objection to doing so for ordinary occupations. So it's a very difficult question you pose, and I think the simpler question is the one that is most amenable to a clear-cut rule: "No prefixed styles." They are unnecessary, they give no information important enough to lead off a biographical entry, and they express a POV (intended or not) that the styled person "is" what he or she is styled. The implication that Pope Benedict XVI is holy, the implication that Queen Elizabeth II is majestic, etc. It may not seem this way to British and Commonwealth subjects, but it is patently offensive and POV to those who do not use or regularly see these terms used. Whig 13:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of it is as daunting as it sounds. What I propose is that we more or less have a colloaboration of the week on honorifics — find and reference relevant information, and turn it into prose. That's supposed to be what we're good at. When we have done that, we'll have the tools we need to pose clear questions that might resolve the issue. It would be nice if we can have a rest from the edit war in the meantime. I can live with freezing just the adding and removal of styles while we do it. If anybody is childish enough to start a proxy war over popes and sirs, we can deal with it when it happens. Zocky 15:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're having any proxy wars at the moment, anyhow. Ironic that the honorific article was recently put up for VfD, but anyhow... I still think it's a separate issue, and we could spend the next umpteen months trying to list all the honorifics that are and are not styles, and it would be as if we didn't really understand what we already mean by Style (manner of address). And it is precisely those, and only those, which the foregone survey was about, and what the whole NPOV dispute remains about. Whig 07:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing Wikipedia conventions isn't about settling disputes. It's about making a better encyclopedia. This is not about whether styles are NPOV or whether your poll showed anything, or whether people should be RfC'd, RfAr'd, blocked, banned or anything. It's about whether wikipedia's style guide should treat all or any honorifics the way it does now, i.e. mandate their use at the start of biography articles ("Queen Elizabeth II is..." vs. "Elizabeth II is...") and in other articles when a person is first mentioned ("Stalin met Winston Churchil..." vs "Stalin met Sir Winston Churchil..."). What we need to do is write a good guideline, not just settle the immediate dispute. Zocky 07:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your comment, and my suggestion to RfAr is not meant to block, ban or otherwise discipline anyone, but to establish a firm determination of the Wikipedia policy pertaining to prefixed styles. Yes, cases and controversies involve individual editors, but also underlying principles, which must either be upheld or nullified on the ground. If a RfAr is accepted, a decision can then be made which does not impair anyone's ability to edit constructively, regardless of how strongly we may have felt and may feel about this or any other issue, pursuant to acceptance of whatever determination the arbitrators may make. Whig 08:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Before I vote, I want to get clarification. Would a yes vote result in Elizabeth II, Queen of..., or Queen Elizabeth II, Her Majesty? Hiding 09:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ Sorry, came here from RFC and thought this was still live. Hiding 09:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History[edit]

Please correct any mistakes

original entry on 23 Feb 2003 by User:Mkweise
took out examples on 1 Mar 2004 by User:Jiang
add nobility in subsequent uses section on 18 Oct 2004 by User:Gdr
exceptions to using honorific in title of article pointed to names and conventions on 19 Jan 2005 by User:Joestynes immediately reverted
removed and refenced article naming on 5 Feb 2005 by User:John Kenney ("Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate."
edit restoring most (adding John Paul II) on 5 Feb 2005 by User:Jguk
removing reference to article naming on 5 Feb 2005 by User:John Kenney
first introduction to requiring use in initial reference on 9 Feb 2005 by User:Joestynes
modified to allow use elsewhere as appropriate 9 Feb 2005 by User:Jguk
intro paragraph changed back to how it was prior to 5 Feb on 13 Feb 2005 by User:129.59.26.23 (bad faith claimed)
compromise proposed on 13 Feb 2005 by User:Jdforrester
removal of Tony Blair and religious leaders on 22 Apr 2005 by User:Titanium Dragon
restored on 22 Apr 2005 by User:Jonathunder
then a bunch of changes and the survey
proposed interim policy on 17 May 2005 by User:Zocky