(replying on wikiEN-l)
Matt M. wrote:
I partially
agree, and partially disagree. "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux"
is perfectly fine, as people who have been beatified are often referred
to as such, both by those who recognize the sainthood and those who do
not (there are plenty of atheists who debate the viewpoints of Saint
Peter, for example). I do think "Blessed ..." is inappropriate though,
and frankly a little ridiculous.
I don't see why. "Blessed" is analogous to "Saint."
"Saint" is the title of
a person who has been canonized; "Blessed" is the title of a person who has
been beatified.
In retrospect I agree partially, and would move towards using neither
Blessed or Saint. In fact, I would prefer not using titles at all. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant for an example of this in
practice (note that it does not start off "General Ulysses S. Grant..."
-- even though in this case "General Grant" was in fact a common way to
refer to him before, during, and after his Presidency.
There are a few exceptions, of course. "Saint Peter" should be referred
to as such, because that's the most common way to refer to him (though I
wouldn't object to "Peter the Apostle" either). Popes should probably
be referred to as "Pope John Paul II", because "John Paul II" is not
actually a personal name, but one adopted with the office. But I don't
think this should extend to all people who have titles.
So, basically, I'd propose we remove titles from both article names and
the beginning of the first sentence of the article, unless they are
absolutely integral. This includes both official titles (President,
Prime Minister, etc.) and honorific titles (Blessed, Sir, etc.). Then
if having the title is important, it can be mentioned later (perhaps
later in the first sentence). Thoughts?
-Mark