Talk:Mr.

article on the topic
Would this article be useful as an external link?

http://english.mingpao.com/cfm/database3.cfm?File=20130508/livenlearn/c65.txt

do not have strong feelings
I actually do not have strong feelings about this one way or t'other, but we must be consistent. If this is (or was) to be a Brit-Eng article using 'spelt' e.g., why is it at 'Mr.' and why does the opening line state 'Mr.' (or Mr) and then go on to say that a full stop is not usually used in Brit-Eng? Quill 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK - good point. Let's start splitting a few hairs...(!) The "preferred usage" argument does indeed propel us towards making it "Mr" rather than "Mr." (and note that it is spelt with no full stop in the disambig page at MR!) - but I don't feel strongly enough about that to go through the rigmarole of proposing a change of title for the article. I would say that any of the four combinations (Mr/spelt, Mr./spelt, Mr/spelled, Mr./spelled) is perfectly acceptable in British English, although only the last reflects American usage. I'd have no problem, in fact, with any of them. But what I do object to is American-English speakers "correcting" things needlessly just because they think it's wrong, when it isn't. Hugh2414 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you're preaching to the converted; I'm forever asking people not to do that--'correct things needlessly', I mean. I humbly point out that there are British English speakers (and we really do have to have a better way of saying that someday) here who do that too.  In my experience, I must hasten to say, it is usually almost always out of ignorance rather than malice. Psst--you could always just "move" the article and duck when the fireworks start;) hee hee hee.... Quill 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that there's not likely any malice here; to an American English speaker, "spelt" looks like a failed attempt to write out the word "spelled" from a regional pronunciation (some American accents do use a T sound at the end of the word, though it's still spelled with a D). I've seen a well-educated person make that particular mistake.  Such a "correction" needn't be pro-American orthographic jingoism, just a less-than-full literacy in (what's to us) a non-native English dialect.  216.52.69.217 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is acceptable in any polite society to use an honorific "Mr" when referring to onself - some people do so, of course, but generally they are not quite - well, perhaps we should not judge, but they do mark themselves out, and not in a good way.
 * You're right, it isn't, people do, and it's classless. This is mentioned in the article. Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article DID mention this, as I know because I added it. Unfortunately, someone else has since decided (quite some while ago now, admittedly) that it was 'POV'.  Well, though anyone who's ever worked in an environment where etiquette and protocol are still of importance (a rapidly-disappearing area) could verify it, I don't have a reference for the rule written in a book.  So it can't go back in the article.  Still, if it can at least be mentioned here on the discussion page, that's better than nothing. - Adaru 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quite interesting fact: On the list of members of the House of Commons some wish to appear with Mr and some without. Should the probability of choosing to be address with Mr. or without be mentioned? --KapitanSpaltnagel 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this should be mentioned. I don't know enough to add it in, so if you do, BE BOLD; probably in the Professional titles section? Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mister and Master
The last section, about Mister not having a non-married equivalent is problematic, as the title 'Master' does exist. While it is somewhat out of date, or at least not often used, I do not consider myself 'Mister' until married. Thus, as an alternative to the issue of feminism and 'Mrs/Ms/Miss' men are broken down into 'Mister/Master'. Any ideas how this can be resolved? Nick Kerr 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is not problematic at all. Post-renaissance, the title "Master" became the title for youngsters.  This has nothing to do with its being out of date.  The use of Mister/Master has only been a function of age and expertise, as opposed to Mistress/Mrs/Miss, where Mrs and Miss have been since their inceptions functions of marital status (with a couple of exceptions).  The section is therefore correct as written and does not require resolution.
 * If you are male and over the age of majority in your society, you are correctly titled Mr or Mr., regardless of whether or not you are married.
 * Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This last statement is a bit misleading as it excludes the possibility of someone having a higher rank incompatible with the title and ignores the recent tendency to end one's "Masterhood" at a vague, but usually earlier, age -- generally high-school students are addressed as "Mr." (though whether this is correct could be questioned) though elementary school students would almost certainly not be. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a child I was taught that the four personal titles were gender and marital status based.
 * Married Male is Mister (MR), Married Female is Mistress (MRS), Never Married Male is Master (MSR), and Never Married Female is Miss (MISS). {I failed when I tried to format the data in a table.}
 * The personal title of Miz (MS or MZ) came during the Woman's Liberation Movement and I always considered it to be a speciality title for people that are members of that organisation and not to be used elsewhere.
 * People in the religious orders that were not allowed marriage were considered married to their faith and were allowed the married form of title if a speciality title was not known.
 * Note that a person once married retains the married title through divorce, separation, or death of spouse. The only exception of which I am aware is annulment which legally negates the marriage as if it never occurred.
 * James thirteen (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved reference
In what context is D Sutherland's quote used? Sounds like he was being satirical--misplaced here; in any case it does not belong in an introduction. Quill 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Douglas Sutherland, in The English Gentleman, holds that the prefix Mister is only used with those that a gentleman wishes to keep at arm's length, like Government officials.

Better pronunciation guide
I'd like some more phonetic guides to "Messrs". The entry states its pronounced "messers", which isn't all that clear. --Navstar 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese: Sang
I'm not sure how that got in there, but there isn't any Japanese word "sang." It's impossible to pronounce an -ng sound in Japanese. Likely, this was a reference to "san" which is a respectful title added to last names (e.g. Nakamura-san, Koizumi-san), but this has no gender reference, and can be used with both male and female names.


 * can't speak for whoever put that in there, but probably this is due to the fact that the syllabic n in the honorific "san" sounds very similar to "ng" to many english speakers. English actually contains this phoneme as well, but only before a g sound, making it difficult to hear the difference.

Court of England and Wales
If the judge is entitled to be called "Sir So-and-So" but not "Lord," how is he called? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All High Court judges are knighted or created dames on appointment, but in court they are called Mr Justice or Mrs Justice. In personal correspondance they are entitled to be called Sir Joe Bloggs or Dame Jane Bloggs. Appeal court judges are called Lord Justice or Lady Justice, even though most of them are not made Lords. Both High Court and Appeal Court judges are addressed directly in court as My Lord or My Lady, irrespective of whether they are a Lord (or Lady) or not. JonoP 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a vague awareness of this custom, thus my confusion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging Messrs.
I propose that Messrs. should be merged into this article, Mr.. This is because Messrs. is far too short for any reasonable article, the information contained could be easily incorporated into the Mr. article, either by including it in the text or adding another heading, e.g. "Pluralisation". Furthermore, there is little potential for expansion for the existing Messrs. article - if anything its use is dwindling. --Christopher 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Agree 100%. Merge away. Snalwibma 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. There's nothing wothwhile in the other article worth keeping in a seperate article. Tim (Xevious) 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleages, Messrs. Snalwibma and Xevious. Merge the other article into this one. Jacob1207 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

copyvio?
It does not look like this is a copyvio against http://www.mmui.org/about06.html as suggested in the speedy deletion tag. Will enquire of the primary author(s). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a simple case of carelessly marking the wrong article, so I removed the tag. DGG (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Word origins
Does anyone know the word origins (what other words it was taken from) and such?

Sports coaches
moved from a talk page to this more appropriate location

You removed the entry on a relatively recent use of the term "Mr." (always verbally "Mister" and never in writing) which, interestingly enough, brings the term back to its original meaning! (I.e. that of "Master" rather than an address between 'equals'.) I don't understand why you wrote that the addition is "unsupported speculation and over-detailed analysis of usage in one specific field". I provided one evidence/source extant among many (this is actually common knowledge in the countries mentioned) and the five-line description of the context seems necessary to describe the new meaning of the term's use. And one can see that the rest of the entry already provides (quite justifiably) extensive descriptions about the term's use in other disciplines. Would you now say that this is an article about "Mr." and not about Judges?... The Gnome 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "Mr" is a formal title for judges, surgeons etc, so it is entirely appropriate to discuss its use as such on this page. But "mister" used to address a sports coach is no different from all sorts of other uses of the word, in different walks of life. Maybe my suggestion that your addition was unsupported is wide of the mark (sorry, I have not looked at the source you quoted), but I am surely right that it is too detailed in its coverage of one specific field. Why single this usage of "Mr" out? In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean. Do players call the coach "Mr Mourinho" (e.g.) or just "Mister"? I guess you mean the latter, and, if so, maybe a comment to the effect could be added at the point in the article where it says The title "mister" is sometimes used informally by itself in direct address ("Are you all right, mister?"). Snalwibma 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, players will call their head coach only "Mister" and will often refer to him as such, e.g. "You better sort this out with the Mister". I find this relevant, and also intriguing, in that the term somewhat reverts to its original meaning! While it is now generally used as an address between equals, the term is used, in that context, when addressing a Master, i.e. the coach. The Gnome 18:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Master?
The second paragraph, (and a few other sentences), look like they were written in the 19th century. I am not a hundred percent sure about Britain, but I can assure you that no man or boy in modern America is called "master" under any circumstances, except perhaps as an intentional anachronism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.216.186 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can assure all you want, but your assurance is inaccurate nonetheless. While orally "Master" as a term of address in the U.S. would be restricted to use by very stuffy and elderly grandparents or great-grandparents, or servants, its use on addresses on envelopes, while not done in the majority of cases, is far from being unheard-of -- older (and very commonly elderly) relatives, perhaps of a rather conservative set, sometimes use it when writing very young grandsons or nephews, or, more rarely, sons, and it would consistently occur on wedding invitations, and only in a minority of these cases is it an intentional anarchronism.  No man is called "Master" in this sense, by the way, unless he is being deliberately insulted, but this is an exceedingly rare insult.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that much of the introduction was written as if it were the 19th century. I think the rewrite clarifies the point without suggesting it a commonly used title. --Njsustain (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Master is very commonly used, but not amongst common peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.146.251 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Source, Mrs. Beamish? The aforementioned personal insult to all people not living or working at upper, upper crust snooty private schools should be deleted, but I will leave it as it is comical. The translation into "commoner" English would be: "Master is very commonly used among[st] a very small group of nasty, arrogant, snotty people, but virtually no one in the rest of the English speaking world (what many of us like to call "reality") has used this archaic term in generations." Njsustain (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the faintest idea where you're coming up with this nonsense (and what is the irrelevant rubbish about schools?) but I expect it is in the reaches of far fantasy. Although it would rarely indeed be used in spoken English it is commonly found on envelopes particularly in formal circumstances; it would be found on any wedding invitation. You have some sort of personal issue and this is very POV. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. vs Mr
Shouldn't this page be called Mr (without the full stop)? After all the title is an English title and the Manual of style applies! --Camaeron (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC) PS: Most English-Speaking countries use this form! --Camaeron (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure the non-dotted use is universal in the UK. A sample parliamentary debate, for example shows titles being used with full stops. Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. But in common usage there is no period. It's only in the supercilious stations we have it used. It's relatively rare and is often used for artistic purposes. So now, the full stop should not be in the title. Then again, and this is no joke, Wikipedia is very much the history of the world according to the US. And we all know that.

The title originated in England, but "English" Wikipedia refers to the language, not the region of the UK. England's usage of English is not the "gold standard." Most of the English speaking world does not use the "Mr" form, and the history of the development of abbreviations is certainly not exlusive to the UK. Nothing wrong with showing both usages, and it is a minor point (literally) about which no one needs to take offense.--Njsustain (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The form 'Mr.' is specifically in the form of an abbreviation. Some consider the use of the period archaic and prefer the use of the form 'Mr' without the period. I am finding less usage of the period in formal written correspondence. I am also finding less usage of the title itself. Most of my current correspondence does not use the title at all and when the title is used, there is no period. The only time I use a title is when I am corresponding with someone that prefers the use of titles or when I am filling out a webpage form that compels the usage, usually with insufficient options to properly use a title.
 * James thirteen (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The rule is that if an abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full form, the fullstop is not used. This practice is normal in most English-speaking areas - if Americans use a fullstop I don't know why that is - perhaps just ignorance?88.167.23.116 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They like obscene quantities of punctuation over there. They think it lends an air of distinction. It's rather transparent of course.


 * Strictly speaking, “Mr” is a contraction - letters removed from the body of the word - rather than an abbreviation, where a word is truncated to make it shorter; the full stop, which with a true abbreviation is to indicate that the word has been terminated, is thus seen as unnecessary by some. Contractions are often, but not always marked by an apostrophe (which is why you can see “cont’d” used for “continued”, as well as “cont.”), and had this been adopted for “mister” - “M’r” (as is seen when people contract “monsieur” as “m’sieur” to indicate a character is speaking with a French accent) - we probably wouldn’t be discussing this now. Unfortunately English is inconsistent about this sort of thing, but that’s what keeps lexicographers and grammarians in work…! Jock123 (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary, it should be Mr. (US & UK) or Mr (UK) not the other way around as currently. See: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/mr --ALE! (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Military use
Isn't a naval ensign (rank) properly addressed as "Mister --" ? Even, oddly enough, female ensigns? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall reading that in the US military, those of a junior rank could be addressed as "Mister" or "Miss", though I've never seen it used in practice outside of navy-themed war movies with junior officers.--Raguleader (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the British Army, All subaltern officers (Lieutenant and Second Lieutenant) are referred to as ‘Mister’. That is, in speech one should say "Mr Jones sent me" Not "Lt Jones". The same applies to Warrant Officers - although this depends on regimental tradition, for example in the Royal Engineers, WO2s not holding a Sergeant Major appointment(eg RQMS,QMSI and Clerks of Works) are generally referred to as Q - (Pronounced Que) as in "Q Jones" (Personal experience 1972 to 1999)Nick from London (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. In the foot guards all warrant officers I think would be entitled to Mr Smith whereas in the Light Infantry I recall being picked up for addressing the CSM as Mr Smith, rather than Sgt-Major Smith ("I'm not a Mister").

Unrelated comment: why in every film about the army (including films that are in all other respects obsessively accurate) do officers refer to NCOs as "Corporal" or "Sergeant" when in real life it would be "Corporal Smith" or "Sergeant Smith"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.131.40 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In the United States Navy, all officers except Ship's Captain or officers of flag rank are addressed as "Mr." in direct conversation. To LtJG Jones, "Mr. Jones, CIC reports Skunk Alpha has changed course." An exception, if Mr. Jones is Officer of the Deck, then, "Officer of the Deck, CIC reports Skunk Alpha has changed course." You wouldn't address the Captain as "Mr." You wouldn't even use the Captain's last name. If Lt. Commander Haley is the Executive Officer, then to the Captain, you would say, "Captain, Mr. Haley said the dramamine isn't working and he wonders if you have any other ideas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddbutler (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Full name
It's usual in Wikipedia to have articles under their full name, not their abbreviation, which in this case should be Mister. I'll move it there if there are no objections. The small amount of disambiguation can be done at the top of the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on. What, then, do you propose for Mrs. and Ms.? Let's air this a bit here before acting in haste... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with "Mr." as the title, as there is no universally accepted long form for Mrs., and none for Ms., but whatever.--Njsustain (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

M/S
Well what about when addressing companies? So M/s ABC Ltd. would be read as Messrs ABC Limited? I think search for M/S should get here. Elncid (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

vs esq in the uk
I have removed the following pending discussion:

In Great Britain, however, it is considered incorrect to use "Mr" followed by both first and last name, particularly in written form. John Smith would be referred to initially as "John Smith, Esq." and thereafter as "Mr. Smith". The term "Esquire" is equivalent to "Mr", in Britain, unlike in the United States, where it has become almost exclusively associated with the legal profession.

"Mr [first name] [last name]" is not "incorrect" to my knowledge in Great Britain. It is the default usage on envelopes, for one thing, and was used in newspapers until quite recently, being changed since it is somewhat ponderous rather than incorrect. The page Esquire gives a clear background to the difference being status-based. Billwilson5060 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

clarification of "religious"
The entire section on the use of Mr with regard to Roman Catholic clergy is confusing. For example:""Mr" is the correct title and form of address for seminarians and other students for the priesthood and was once the proper title for all secular and parish priests, the use of the title "Father" being reserved to religious clergy only." Someone needs to clarify how parish priests differ from "religious clergy" (indeed, "religious clergy" is redundant to begin with; all clergy are religious&mdash;it's what separates them from the laity). The second half of the penultimate paragraph and the entire final paragraph read like some sort of commentary that has no place in this article. Who cares if permanent deacons are different from other deacons? This article only focuses on the form of address "Mr". Admittedly, I'm no expert on Roman Catholic clergy, but I do think the section is unclear as written. Esrever (klaT) 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The adjective "religious" in this context refers to a religious order (Franciscans, Jesuits, etc.). So, it does make perfect sense if you understand that this is an entirely different sense of the word "religious". I'll try to clarify. ... And time allowing, slim down as well, as per below comment by Njsustain. Kace7 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article on Roman Catholic clergy and that whole section should be deleted. A mention of it within the article may be appropriate, but delving into this minutiae is totally unnecessary.--Njsustain (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also on article Eunuch
The claim that there are Eunuchs who use Eu. as a prefix analogous to Mr., Ms., Fr., etc. sounds interesting, but doesn't seem relevant to an article on Mr. This change has also been made to the Eunuch page, where at least it is relevant to the discussion. However, I can't find any sources for this in a Google search, aside from a conversation on some BBS, other pages copied from Wikipedia, and a page on [http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Eu. a site] dedicated to bodily modification. I'd appreciate follow-ups be posted on the Eunuch talk page. Thanks! Forgot to sign, sorry. :(  FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ&lrm;  03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish. Removed from both articles. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory information
Someone has added the corret but unsourced assertion that "Honorifics are properly used only to refer to others, not oneself", which now contradicts the also unsourced suggestion that "This is Mr James Ericson" is an ordinary usage. There is also the fact that school teachers usually will say "I'm Mr Smith" not "My name is Smith". Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "This is Mr. James Ericson," if said by Mr. Ericson to refer to himself, is incorrect etiquette. But, "This is Mr. James Ericson," when said by another person, introducing Mr. Ericson to a third person, is entirely correct. It is therefore not contradictory. The etiquette in a school is different as not only is one speaking to subordinates, but it is also considered inappropriate by many to use your given name, even when introducing yourself. I am a schoolteacher, and I do feel uncomfortable referring to myself with a title, but it is not only the standard, but is preferrable to the alternative. Virtually none of the students understand the standards anyway, and the fact that I have a doctorate makes it even more irregular NOT to refer to myself with a title. Anyway... Njsustain (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, I’m not quite sure why I inferred “this is Mr. James Ericson speaking” from that – it could be clearer but I don’t think it really needs to be. On schools and self-styling, some sourced information on the practices would be welcome, but the current norms tend to be understood tacitly in a way that makes the information harder to find; the same applies to the drop-off in title use in other situations such as business.Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite for usage
The intro was a bizarre combination of development, different usages, and archaic or irrelevent information. I was conservative during this rewrite but made it more in line with the form of the articles of other titles, i.e. what is it and how is it used. If one wants to restore any deleted material, please put it in an appropriate section, and how about some more sources?

The material on the feminists wishing to create a marital-specific title for men would be appropriate for the "Ms." article, as the point they were trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with "Ms." They did not actually have an interest in creating "Mush" and so that really does not belong in this article.--Njsustain (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Satire
Why not rename and rewrite this section. Satire is an misnomer, if the term Mister is being used as an epithet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.148.164 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mister is of German origin
Mister is of German origin and should have reference to Meister in which it came from. (English Equivelant) 70.181.249.210 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most English words are of Germanic origin.75.111.61.201 (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But "meister" comes from the Latin word "magister" (probably via Italian "maestro") 24.211.199.233 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to American Judges as "Dr."
The prior version read "In non-legal settings, the term Dr is also appropriate, except for the rare exceptions that do not have a J.D., S.J.D., or other doctoral degree." I suspect the writer was not from the United States; I have never heard a judge, or any other lawyer referred to as "doctor." In fact, attorney ethical bodies are divided on whether doing so would even be permissible. See, e.g., http://www.abanet.org/media/youraba/200709/ethics.html. Moreover, the "J.D." is not really a doctoral degree (as the S.J.D. is), but is more akin to a master's degree. However, I'm aware that in certain Latin American countries, "Dr." is typically used to refer to lawyers.


 * The whole section on Judges delves into minutia inappropriate for this article and will need to be severely pared down or eliminated completely.Njsustain (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vernacular address
Perhaps add a section on casual forms of address, like "sport" or "auntie" in Australia, or "buddy" in USA. 61.9.205.52 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Canberra
 * I don't think so. This article is about the title "Mr." not on vernacular forms of address. Those terms are not relevant to this article.Njsustain (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert notice: Edits by 91.104.77.192
The recent edits have been done in a non-encylopedic manner, from a myopic point of view. The expansion of the section on roman catholic clerics is totally inappropriate for this article. It could be an article on its own but won't be retained here. Njsustain (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Mr. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister (Mr.) → Mister (title) — The disambiguating word in parentheses should be a generic class as per WP:NCDAB. "Mr." is just an abbreviation of the title and this is not the common practice to disambiguate. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let it stay. "Mr." is not "just" an abbreviation. It is by FAR the most common way the title is written. It is rare to see "Mister" written out. What about "Mrs." and "Ms."? Those aren't "just" abbreviations... they are the only form of the title. If you are interested in consistency, then leave this as it is more consistent with the other titles commonly used in English. This move would serve no purpose. Njsustain (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The titles of Ms., Mrs. and Miss don't have parenthesis and disambiguating word. This page was moved from Mr. to the current title in August 2008 (see [ logs of "Mr."]). "Mr." is an abbreviation as well as a common name, but either the combinations "Full (Abbr)" or "Full (Common)" as article title is uncommon in Wikipedia and violate the guideline. Whether "Mr." is an abbreviation or common name is not related to the issue. --Quest for Truth (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Mr. - WP:COMMONNAME. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer Rename to "Mr." than to "mister (title)", but still think "Mister (Mr.)" is best.Njsustain (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename as Mr. for consistency with similar articles Ms., Mrs. and Miss. Mister Mister is a band.  Writing out "Mister" as a title has become rare.  Rejectwater (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The band is called "Mr. Mister". I highly doubt there is any confusion between it and the current article title.Njsustain (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Mr. The current title should not be used. This should be consistent with the other similar articles.   GB fan  talk 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object to rename to Mr. I just don't know why it was moved from Mr. to current title in 2008. --Quest for Truth (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we will ever know why it was moved in 2008. There does not appear to be any discussion about the move and the editor who moved it has not edited since Sept 2009 and they do not have emailed enabled.   GB fan  talk 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename to Mr. - current title is quite awkward. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

anglocentric much?

 * "Mister is a commonly- used English honorific for men under the rank of knighthood"

D'you know, in at least one country of the Anglosphere, they don't have the "rank of knighthood"; in fact, they prohibit the state from granting titles of nobility. There, "Mister" is simply a formal/polite form of address. Since that country is one of the larger Anglophonists, perhaps the lead sentence ought to make some mention of this. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or not. On second consideration, I simply deleted that part of the sentence. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point of that reference is because that is the context the title comes from. HansNZL (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do whatsoever with Anglocentrism. If a higher rank is not obtainable from the U.S. itself (and this is really a misinterpretation as in most cases knighthood isn't nobility) a U.S. citizen might have received a foreign honour, or a foreigner with a higher rank might be present in the U.S. You do realise the U.S. isn't the only country in the world, don't you? The statement is true as it stands and is undisputed and if you've some ideological axe to grind it should be discussed as a controversy in the article; as it stands the opening is POV. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * &yet &yet, the largest English-speaking country in the world doesn't have (official or formal) social ranks. In that country the polite form of address for the native who's never even been beyond the borders is "Mr. FamilyName", while the chinless twerp who considers Merovech an upjumped oaf is equally "Mr. FamilyName", and the head of state/government is "Mr. Office" while he's in it, then "Mr. FamilyName" after he steps down. It is not acceptable for the introductory sentence to ignore this perspective.


 * My ideological axe is, like that of most of my fellow countrymen, lowercase-r republican and -d democratic. I won't speculate about yours, nor return your (erroneous) presumption of my ignorance. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have conflated so many things it's difficult to know where to begin. However, your beginning merely reiterates much of my point.  There is no difference between "the largest English-speaking country in the world doesn't have... social ranks" and the subset of that, that knighthood isn't obtainable from the U.S. or any state thereof.  If a native hasn't been beyond the borders, what is your point about this?  There are still circumstances in which he might have received a knighthood, for example a papal knighthood, without having been beyond the borders, but if your assumption is that he hasn't received a knighthood as he hasn't been beyond the borders, then he isn't a knight, and all of this is an irrelevant red herring.  If he isn't a knight he isn't of the rank of knighthood, and what is the possible relevance of why he isn't a knight?  If you wanted to mention that knighthood isn't given by the U.S. or any state government, that should certainly be included, but the notion that Mr. doesn't have to do with being below the rank of knighthood is ridiculous.  I don't really understand your point about the chinless twerp.  "Mr. President" is an idiomatic form of address that is not meant to imply that the holder is of the rank of "Mr." -- Eisenhower, a member of a number of elite orders of knighthood, was so addressed.


 * An ideological axe is not appropriate to grind in Wikipedia, period. One's belief that people should not be knighted has no place for expression in this article.  The article should reflect on the facts only, merely referring to people's beliefs about them, not being rewritten from the perspective of these beliefs, thereby becoming a form of invisible advocacy. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The assumption that one could be knighted, i.e. is a subject of the crown, is why that line should not be in the intro. If one wants that included, it should be clear for whom it applies. There are a thousand reasons why one would not be referred to as "Mr." but no reason that the possibility of knighthood nor any of the other possibilities needs to be clarified in the intro. The fact that removal was called "vandalism" in a comment shows how far off base an/some editors are on this--someone who has a different point of view than you is not a vandal. And someone for whom knighthood is of no possible concern whatsoever should not be subject to that caveat when reading the intro. Further, I don't see where anyone claimed that whether there "ought" to be such a thing as a knighthood had to do with the inclusion in the intro. It's simply not applicable in most cases... the intro was written as if it were. One might as well add on, "and for those who have failed to defend a doctoral dissertation." I'm not sure what a knight with a doctorate would be called, but I really don't care... this article is not about knights nor those with doctorates. This is simply a case of non-NPOV and that's why I removed that text. Njsustain (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir John Doe PhD, in a place where the knighthood is recognised, or Dr John Doe [insert appropriate postnominals for order of chivalry here]in those places where it is not. Just in case anyone was wondering. P M C  23:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A knight with a doctorate is called "Sir," not "Dr.," generally speaking (the style of the knighthood might be different than "Sir," but in general. Whether or not you care about the subjects of articles doesn't enter into Wikipedia.  I don't care about a lot of the subjects of articles, but that doesn't mean they should be written incorrectly.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Usage entitlement
The article could be improved by expanding on who was (traditionally) entitled to use this honorific. I believe men with a Bachelor's degree could use Mister. I recognise nowadays that everyone uses it as a courtesy style, but the article could elaborate on who historically was a substantive holder of this honorific, other than landed gentry with an independent income. HansNZL (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That is historical and traditional only in England, so I don't think its exclusion takes away from the article. Extensive etymology is not necessary for the article to be a good one or complete... and it does mention it. Njsustain (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The mysterious 'Mister' Amy
Removed the following as mysterious and irrelevant:


 * There is one publicly known account of the name being used as a nickname. While records are still quite unclear, it is believed that the name belonged to a person named Amy.  We believe this person lived somewhere in the Delaware region from the period of 1990-PRESENT.  Although we have no confirmation of the fact it is highly believed among many people, especially those local to the area she was said to have inhabited, these people will not hesitate to explain their experiences with Amy if asked.

Co149 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternate usage
Missing in this article is the usage of Mister as a speciality title. I do not have a list, which could never be complete in any case, but there are times when a trait or occupation is specifically attached to an individual by the use of the title Mister and the trait or occupation. For example; Mister Fix-it for someone that has a reputation for being able to fix things. This usage seems to be independent of marital status as Master Fix-it has a completely different connotation and, as far as I know, is never used.

I will leave it to another to either ignore my suggestion or implement it as an addition to the "Usage" section. If it is considered appropriate, something like this may be appended to the Miss and Mistress articles.

72.24.175.43 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

abbreviation msrs
plural can be msrs ?! this is used in a simpsons episode! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.134.235 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Showbiz
"Mr" or "Miss" are also used when introducing artists or performers e.g. "Please welcome to the stage, Mr Tom Jones" Johnalexwood (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Move to Mr or Mister
The page most commonly uses the UK Spelling Mr and not the US spelling of Mr..Eshaan011 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically you are right - the page has long been written in and tagged as British English, and logically this should apply to the title also. However there is some merit - even though it’s not a WP guideline anywhere - in having a title in the same format as those of related pages.  A random IP poster now and again tries to change the whole page into American English - which is obviously contrary to the MoS - but removing the punctuation from the title might also be seen as unhelpful? MapReader (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)