James Duffy wrote:
:-) Actually Ec, the naming conventions deal with
whole issue of
naming; article titles and textual entries. Whether one likes titles
or loathe titles, they do (unfortunately) exist. Using factually
existing titles is simply a recognition of reality. ''Choosing'' to
ignore them is by definition POV and you are choosing because of a
point of view to ignore them. So Delirium's stance, apart from doing a
Bobby Ewing and trying to imagine that the last year and the work of
many people, not to mention debates, discussions, proposals put to the
Wiki-L, etc didn't exist, is POV in that it is taking a policy stance
based on personal opinion to ignore something that exists. So on three
fronts, ignorance of what titles are, ignoring the work of everyone
over the last year who following an agreed naming convention, and
seeking to opt for POV reasons to ignore the reality and push a POV
agenda on titles, Delirium is wrong.
I still disagree, and do not appreciate your condescending "this matter
has been decided by the High Council of Wikipedians With PhDs in the
Field" tone. I do agree that where titles are an integral part of the
name, they should be used. Pope John Paul II should clearly be referred
to as such. However, "Mother Theresa" is the standard form of that name
(at least in English), and "Blessed Mother Theresa" is used by very few
non-Catholics. This is true of people who have been beatified a long
time ago as well: the "Blessed" title is rarely used by non-Catholics.
"Saint" is a more tricky issue, as it also involves factual
correctness. As with an example someone else brought up (Bernard of
somewhere-or-other), some people are considered Saints by some Churches
and not Saints by other Churches. Calling them Saint is taking a POV
stance on the issue, since some Churches disagree that they are
deserving of Sainthood. [[List of saints]] has a handy table
summarizing the various stances on this issue. Saying "so-and-so was
canonized in 1856 by the Patriarch of Constantinople and is considered a
Saint by Orthodox Christians" is factually correct. Calling him a Saint
with no qualifications is factually incorrect, because the Roman
Catholic Church may not agree (one can easily find examples of the
reverse situation as well).
Note also that this is not me versus a unanimous consensus. The Saint
Bernard issue was brought up by someone else who opined that the term
Saint should not be applied to him in an unqualified fashion (I've since
deleted the email, so can't recall who), and the "Blessed" was removed
from the front of the Mother Theresa article by someone else (I didn't
remove it; I only supported its removal on the talk page).
In short, I think we should not use titles unless they are the common
English way of referring to a person. This viewpoint had significant
support the last time it was discussed on the naming conventions talk
page before I left that debate, thinking it was resolved. Under this
viewpoint, we have:
*Pope John Paul II
*Cardinal Richelieu
*Mother Theresa
*Saint Peter
*Charles, Prince of Wales
*etc.
But not:
*President John F. Kennedy
*The Honorable Representative Tom DeLay
*His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholemew
*Blessed Mother Theresa
*Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
*etc.
As for your distinction between honorifics and actual titles, this isn't
even consistent on Wikipedia. You cite "Her Majesty" as a title we
*don't* use, but [[Charles, Prince of Wales]] begins "His Royal Highness
The Prince of Wales, Charles Philip Arthur George
Mountbatten-Windsor...". So apparently we *do* use "His Royal
Highness", an honoriffic form of address, but for some reason do not use
"The Honorable" or "His Excellency" or "His All-Holiness",
which seem
very similar in spirit. Is there a reason for this? I'd argue
"Blessed" is very close to this as well, as outside of the Catholic
community is is rarely used.
-Mark