[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Saints

Thu Oct 23 13:19:05 UTC 2003

In message <5.2.0.9.1.20031023082716.0305c970 at smtp.panix.com>, Vicki 
Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org> writes
>At 01:08 PM 10/22/03 -0700, Delirium wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>This is basically the--sensible, I think--approach recommended by 
>Fowler, decades
>ago: start by calling people by the name they're best known by, and 
>optionally add
>others. So Mother Theresa gets listed as that ("Saint Theresa" needs to 
>be a disambiguation
>anyway), and the article should note her birth name as well as the fact 
>that she was
>canonized by the Roman Catholic church in 2003

Just nitpicking to be pedantic, but she hasn't been canonized, only 
beatified so far... (I nearly said "beautified", but that would be more 
difficult! :) )

-- 
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/