Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Styles Vote

Since those opposed to the prefixed style seem intent on enforcing a shaky concensus before it is ratified I suggest you voice your opinions here pro or con Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification Trödel| talk 04:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the survey is over, so there are some people going around and fixing some of the pages. Personally, I still think each page should decide, or, in our case, put the styles that are used for the pope at the Pope article. We are still introducing the styles as a fact/perk with the office, but we still do not have them in front of the Pope's name. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no current consensus on a new convention, which is the purpose of the ratification vote. The prior policy of prefixing style is overturned, and it is presently up to the editors of each page how style should be addressed. Whig 05:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a unique theory. You vote to decide whether to create a new convention to replace the old one. People disagree on what to do, and so you declare that the old convention is overturned! Surely logic says that if there is no agreement on what to do, one leaves the current convention in situ and try to find a consensus over whether to replace it and if so with what. But if no-one can decide, and one declares the old convention dead, what was the point in having the vote in the first place? All one has to do is call a vote and bingo, the old rules are out. Votes on wikipedia do not operate on a 'lets throw out the rules and start again' basis. They operate on the basis of 'lets see if we can agree an alternative'. I think Whig as in so many things lately is as confused as he has gotten everyone else at this stage. In any case there might have been a consensus if there had been a logical vote using a voting method that people could make head or tail of. About the only consensus reached was to never ever use that damn voting method again. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It certainly is an outrageous position Jtdirl advances! A minority position was once written into the MoS w/o any prior consensus (prefixed styles; but in practice only for European Christians). A vote was conducted that showed this position to be opposed by most Wikipedians (well, those that voted).   Therefore we ought to keep the old minority position (because no other positive MoS guideline has yet established 75% support).  Somehow the deduction doesn't work in my mind Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)


 * Firstly it is not an outrageous position. One doesn't propose a law and say that if fails the all the law is abolished. One proposes a change to replace the old rule. If one fails, then the old one exists until one can pass a replacement. Secondly the idea that it was being pushed for European Christians is ignorant, illinformed and ridiculous. Thirdly it was no more a minority position than the one now. In fact then those people participating did find a consensus (which I opposed, BTW. I was not happy at the time using styles). Fourthly I am not saying keep the minority position. I am saying keeping trying for a consensus. But a free-for-all, any free-for-all, will simply lead to edit wars all over wikipedia. I am saying 'keep working for a consensus. When we have it (and with a less ridiculous voting system, and a clearly thought through approach, rather than the hamfisted one we got) then enforce it. But right now there is no consensus for anything, which means there is no consensus either for removing styles, using styles or deleting styles. So to do anything in the circumstances would be a recipe for chaos. (And BTW I would be saying the same thing if the vote had been on another issue also.) With time a longterm consensus may arrive if we work on it. But a free-for-all will kill the issue stone dead and leave pages all over the place an incoherent mess. What we need is a proper vote, using a proper voting method, asking the proper questions -


 * Styles - yes or no?
 * If yes - use or explain?
 * If explain - what form?
 * If use, how?
 * If styles are used: What categories should they be used for, in what context, for what office-holders?
 * None of those questions were adequately explored in a coherent voting methodology. Instead we got poorly worded alternatives that did not the clarify the key questions when, who and in what context. And we got a so-called voting system that could not have been worse; one that few people understood and which was relying on one person to issue pronouncements as to what the result was. That isn't democratic and that is not how you take reach a consensus. That is simply how you produce a meaningless mess. About the only thing we have learnt is that that voting system should be binned and never ever used on wikipedia anywhere again.


 * Lulu, we can keep working for a consensus, and maybe find it. But a free-for-all will set the task of finding a consensus back months or longer. And that is in none of our interests. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The old convention has no consensus, no majority, not even a plurality. Suggesting that prefixed styles ought to be retained when they have been clearly rejected by a majority as POV, because a new convention is not yet established is rather strange. Your personal opposition to the voting method used is not a consensus, either. It worked well enough to prevent tactical deception from succeeding. Whig 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no tactical deception, only self deception on your part, and an inability to recognise that tactical voting is a standard part of any election. In that case, we'll simply call a new vote, and by doing that that will have the effect of overturning your 'non-consensus' decision by the sheer fact that a vote is taking place, whatever the outcome. There was no consensus on changing the system, which is what we were voting on. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I will not continue this discussion here, but those who are interested in seeing what Jtdirl is talking about may wish to view the archived discussion. Whig 06:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Since whig (yet again) brought up this lie, let me be quite clear. Whig used a voting system that registered the support being attached to different options. Not understanding it a lot of people voted along First Past the Post linesfor one option and stopped. I pointed out openly on their talk pages that it was useful in helping reach aa consensus decision that they recorded all their votes in order of preference. As the users in question seemed more au fait with FPtP than proportional systems, I pointed out that in proportional systems one can also vote tactically. I also pointed out that tactical voting was a double-edged sword that can backfire. I never suggested to anyone how anyone should vote, never told them they must cast a full vote, never said they must vote tactically. Whig interpreted this as an attempt to corrupt his beloved voting system (the fact that so many people needed to be told that they should vote for every option and not just one shows much confusion his system caused) and has repeatedly accused me of trying to deceive and corrupt his vote. I did no such thing, as people on all sides of the discussion about styles on the page have made clear. But Whig keeps putting about the lie that I did all over the place, as here above where he wrote about tactical deception. It is a complete lie and I am fed up having to deal with his lies. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (Note: This paragraph was deleted twice by Whig and restored by Mackensen and then Proteus.)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Whig 19:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You have accused me of lying, deception, trying to rig your vote on a whole range of pages. It got so bad even your supporters had to tell you to stop it. Jguk has been accused of vandalism. Yet when anyone ever stands up to your and Lulu's abuse, you suddenly proclaim no personal attacks. Any chance that you might begin to practice what you regularly preach? Or does that rule mean 'no attacks on Whig while Whig can abuse and defame anyone he wants'? Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not accuse you of lying or deception. What I did say can be read in the archived discussion referenced above. Whig 05:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

From the


 * Since this is going nowhere, I am going to try my method out:

Vote or Die! (Now Closed)
Should the style "His Holiness" be used in front of Pope Benedict XVI's name (as in His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)?

Place a vote in a section of your choice, and if you want to state why, keep it brief. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (The vote closes in two weeks and one day (May 30th). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC).) The votes is finished. I will publish the results in a few minutes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ann Heneghan 23:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Under wikipedia's normal rules, a consensus is only changed when there is a consensus for change. Under the deletion of categories, for example, a lack of consensus to change means the default 'no change' and 55% there has been ruled as not being a consensus. The vote on the issue on wikipedia only had 53% support for a change in policy. That therefore is not a consensus, which means that default rule applies, which is to stick by the previously agreed policy of using styles on all relevant articles. Articles on popes here have styles. It is the agreed overall policy. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Basileus (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Coemgenus 02:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Rangeley 03:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * //83 04:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)  (Anonymous votes don't count - even when the voter votes the same way as I do!  This attempted vote came from IP 83.109.130.50, and even a bit of the address is missing in the vote.  I got it from the diff .  The user was not logged in.  I'm reformatting, so that the vote number is removed.  That should make the valid votes easier to count. Maybe user 83.109.130.50 might log in and revote, or validate this one?  Ann Heneghan 23:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC) )
 * 1) **If the vote came from an Annon, then make it invlaid. The VFD process also works like that. I will go through every vote to make sure they were made in accordance to Wikilaw and then I will certify the results here and at the MoS page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Gentgeen 05:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC). However, it should not be bold, and should link to the His Holiness article.
 * 3) Per Jtdirl. Whig's duplicity in this matter astounds me. Mackensen (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC) (Note: The comment in this vote was deleted by Whig and Samboy and restored by Proteus twice)
 * Yes, since it is his official title. Samboy 06:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. I'm also utterly appalled that Whig has been deleting people's comments on this talk page. Proteus (Talk) 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *The reason Whig has been deleting people's comments is because people have been directing personal attacks against him. See No personal attacks and Remove personal attacks Samboy 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Actually the comment that Whig deleted (that was being referenced above) was the 1st and 2nd reversions - those reversions elicited the duplicitous comment - although borderline the original paragraph contained alot of detail and the personal attack could have been deleted without deleting the entire paragraph. Trödel| talk 02:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sigh. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, hasn't this already been discussed several times before? This is really getting ridiculous. 青い(Aoi) 08:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is his title. This is a no-brainer vote. Bratsche talk  random 12:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, jguk 12:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. --MikeJ9919 14:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Vilcxjo 14:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, since it is still the current wiki policy and the opposition is POV by constantly using the false argument that including the style is POV. Str1977 20:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. It's his title, and it's not POV to say that. For the record I am an atheist. Dbiv 09:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) VViki 11:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Just seems respectful to use the proper style Abeo was User Jesus is the Christ 21:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. Aloysius Patacsil 21:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Just realized I hadn't voted yet. We obviously shouldn't use titles in the article name but I see no problem using it in the first reference. Trödel| talk  18:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) It's the official title. --Vengeful Cynic 18:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes.  It's an official title and is used in all other media, not only as a style but a form of address.  We're not inventing it for this page. patsw 02:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * 2) Gugganij 23:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Fawcett5 23:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC) In general, if we add this style here, it should be in fairness applied everywhere, which would be horribly distracting. Besides, it is a style, NOT part of the name (as with "Sir"), and should be explained elsewhere in the text. Putting it first makes it appear part of the name, and interpreted as such, it looks unacceptably POV. It is NOT the normal encyclopedic norm to preface names with a style - Britannica for instance, does not, and nor should we. The same applies for the Queen, Prime ministers, members of parliament, congress critters, military officers, etc. etc. Fawcett5 23:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Flyers13 03:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Whig 01:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC) This issue has already been resolved in the Manual of Styles (biography) survey on prefixed styles. This ("Vote or Die!") survey is unadvertised and limited in participation to the limited number of people who might be reading this specific talk page. In the past survey, a majority opposed the prefixed use of style in all cases, and NPOV trumps consensus &mdash; no consensus is necessary where a significant NPOV dispute exists. The style should not prefix the name, here, or elsewhere in the Wikipedia.
 * Whig, it is a test survey, which has also been mentioned at the MoS Accept/Reject page (see my comment at Abstaining section). It is running for two weeks. Since there is a disagreement at that page, I figured I would settled things here. I encourage you to do the same thing at other articles, gather the results and see what we come up with. We will have a better sense of what people feel, since we will be at the pages people will focus on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * One more thing, if this survey is easy to understand by many folks, then we can focus other Wiki-surveys and MoS style debates using this method. And since you claim it is not mentioned, go ahead and make it mentioned. I will mention it again at the MoS style just incase a few miss it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Kbdank71 19:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ausir 02:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Jeltz talk  18:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Keep prefixing at a minimum. I don't think that encyclopdias generally preface names. Jeltz  talk  18:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --FvdP : would not be neutral. --FvdP 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Titanium Dragon 03:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC) Tired of the people trying to push their POV into this article. It shouldn't be prefaced, more than half of users would prefer not to preface names with styles, it isn't NPOV, there is currently a referendum on the issue, ect.
 * I know there is the MoS vote, but I think that will be doomed. The reason why this vote is even taking place is that if the new suggestions are not accepted, pretty much we will be in the tubes once again. Also, I stated below that it is hard to have a blanket policy on this, since the styles change, people can easily create styles, so on. I believe every page has a chance to decide on their own. Plus, I think this vote is easy to do, since it is up or down vote, not by the method used at MoS. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because it is easy to understand does not make it appropriate. The people voting here are those who are involved specifically in editing the Pope Benedict XVI article, and it may be reasonably expected that a large proportion of those involved have particular biases, which is why I preferred a survey undertaken as to the general style guideline rather than having unadvertised "votes" on every single gosh-darn page where styles are presently, or might be, used. What chaos and confusion, what a mess. As I've said on the MoS (bio) survey ratification page, and elsewhere, I'm inclined to let the ratification vote run out and see if some approach towards consensus seems to be forming, which is not yet the case, and if not, then I think a RfAr on the matter is the best (perhaps only) way forward. Whig 03:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Now I have to agree with you on that: we need some outside assistance. However, where can we look for this outside assistance? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Zocky 15:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutralitytalk 03:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Tarleton 13:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC). Of course styles like "his holiness", "her majesty" and so on should not be used to refer to a person in wikipedia. No serious encyclopedia does so. It is a violation of the NPOV rule. Some user above said that it is respectful to use the style. He is right of course and that is the reason why "his holiness" should not be used. It is not wikipedia's purpose to be respectful towards popes but to report about popes. Furthermore, in contrast to what some users claim there has never been a consensus about the use of styles. It was simply entered in the manual of style and nobody took notice. If those who try to enforce the use of styles as they are used in this article would really be interested in a consensus they would agree with the form "Pope Benedict ... is formally styled as "his holiness"", which is admittedly a little bit clumsy but contains the same information in a NPOV way. By the way: this embarrassing discussion and the lack of understanding (or good will?) of those who favour the present use "His Holiness" gives excellent arguments for those who believe that wikipedia will never become a serious encyclopedia.
 * I presume you mean formally. Benedict could only described as formerly styled as His Holiness if he resigns. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I meant formally. I corrected this in my posting above. Tarleton 07:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Do what other encyclopedias do: report the style, not use the style. CDThieme
 * 2) Quasipalm 15:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Johntex 16:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Styles are too arbitrary and are a form of self promotion by the person or organization involved. Wikipedia should not buy into them in our titles, but should report on them in our articles.
 * Actually they are covered by standard diplomatic rules, are available in diplomatic guidebooks, and are not arbitary at all. We are not "buying" into anything, just using a style in context. It would be wrong to use a style in an article, but is perfectly NPOV to contextualise once in the opening sentence. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The style should be reported, certainly, but I know of no other encyclopedia which uses the address this way to introduce the article. Jonathunder 19:18, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
 * 2) ghost 21:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Unfortunately, Tarleton is correct. There is a prejudice that being respectful is POV.  It's sad, and I've worked in the past to change things to a more formal style, and thus be more respectful without bias.  Until that change can be affected on a more general level, we should at least keep the articles consistant.
 * 3) No Account 01:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Now, I hope we can settle the issue here with this vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My objections stand as stated above. This poll is redundant as it has already been decided by a majority that prefixed styles violate NPOV. Leaving it up to individual page editors to conduct and enforce private polls to allow an overturned non-NPOV style guide to remain in effect would violate NPOV. A more constructive question could be asked, because the prescriptive language of the prevailing survey alternative did not carry a consensus, whether the style ought to be provided in the introductory paragraph or elsewhere in the article, however, this particular question is already being addressed in a general ratification vote. Whig 04:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What?? A very slight majority preferred not to use styles.  I see no evidence that a majority views styles as POV. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason why I am conducting this is that if the new idea is rejected, then pretty much we will be back to square one. And, based on that square one, titles are used. If the whole community cannot think up of something for all, then we should deal with the question on individual pages. As mentioned before, it is kind of hard to use a blanket policy on people and their titles. Some people have titles that we use everyday (Sir, Dame), while others were created by a cult (Dear Leader). Each page has the capibility to decide on their own about the prefixed styles and that is what I am doing with this poll. Oh yeah, one more thing, I will not vote in this poll unless there is a tie. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, square one is styles are not used; that was the way Wikipedia was originally before all the edit wars over this issue. And it is quite obvious that nothing approaching a concensus will exist on this page, especially given the number of Christians who are likely to be editors of this page and who are strong supporters of the pope. And arguably, Christianity is a cult, as are all religions. Titanium Dragon 03:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, I would like to say that not everyone voting in favor of the proposed idea has a religion at all, and there are some who have a faith in a religion and still voted against the idea. So I would not try to lump everyone in the same group. As for the cult opinion, that is not something I am really going to discuss here, since I do not have the answer to that question. Plus, as mentioned before, no matter what I do, what Whig does, or anyone for that matter, there is still going to be a problem with this issue. There will be some who will enforce what we have right now, some who will change it to the Britanica version, or come up with their own version all together. Plus, will we reach the 80 percent consensus: no. Last check its pretty much 2:1 (22 (or 21)- to 11), and I know that still might not be consensus to meet some people's standard. I have no clue when we will ever reach consensus on this issue, but we got more folks involved, so once this is done, we can try to bring everyone involved here into the general MoS issue, which (after permission from Whig) get some type of mediation on this matter. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice something here. While we have a good portion of people who wish to keep it the way it is, there are people on the other side that HH should be used in another way. I wish to those who do not wish for HH to be prefixed, in what way should HH even be used in the article, if at all. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)