Tomasz Wegrzanowski &lt;taw(a)users.sf.net&gt; writes: It isn't absurd, it's just following the tradition of enlightment; lookup Meyers Konv.-Lex. and you will see how the article on Bernhard von Clairvaux starts: [http://susi.e-technik.uni-ulm.de:8080/meyers/servlet/showSeite?SeiteNr=0778… Bernhard von Clairvaux], in: ''Meyers Konversationslexikon'', 4.Aufl. 1888, Bd.2, S.778. Yes, you are right. First just the name, then the dates, and then the occupation/job/title(s) Yes. Arabs and Jews wil not rate Bernhard of Clairvaux as a "saint". -- | ,__o | _-\_<, http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:59:20PM +0200, Karl Eichwalder wrote: Why? I would accept Saint Ibrahim (change christian religious nonsense to whatever religious nonsense arabs have) as they reference him as that. If a group defines its member as Foo then he's a Foo, allright, no matter whether I believe in Fooness or not. I expect Foo Ibrahim to redirect to Al-ahmed El Bizmar Ibn-abhur Ibrahim or what. Doesn't hurt me. Apart from that it's logical to reference people with their names, and list their titles later. But many should have their own pretty redirects simply because LOTS of people look up their given names or titles, for example St. Stephen (who happened to be Istvan, who happened to be Vajk originally, and noone looks up him this way). Dunno about Mother Theresa's original name, I'd look her up as Mother Theresa (which should be redirect to her original name, which is The Article). Not St Theresa, right now, but who knows how the generally accepted reference changes in 5 years? I expect a redirect, then, probably. grin (btw if someone is saint for christians and Foo for Xyzzyans then article should mention both. If they contradict, list them in separate sections referencing the source.)