Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles

''Two RFCs have been called regarding the behaviour of editors on this page: [1] and [2]. Feel free to comment if you wish. Please remove this notice after the RFC's are completed.''

What This Is
This survey is intended to establish a policy on naming conventions for biographical entries in the Wikipedia. Presently, the policy is to begin articles on political and religious figures with their style of address, for instance:


 * Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
 * His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
 * Dear Leader Kim Jong-il

The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.

How You Participate
Due to size constraints, please go to the Project page to participate in the survey. Discussion will remain here on the Talk page.
 * As one active discussants, I cut some of my comments to try to improve flow, where I had written substantially the same thing several times. Others might, perhaps, consider similar abridgement for new readers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:46, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Discussion
Any discussion relating to the survey itself and not intended to indicate a preference for a particular alternative should go here.

Votes should begin with a * and not a # because of the nature of the way we are tabulating these. Also, it is very important that when responding under multiple alternatives, you clearly indicate your first, second, third, preference as such. Where commentary appears without a designation of a preference order, we will have to count that as a no-preference (equivalent to no response under that heading). Whig 08:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What's all this - first choice, second choice, etc.. This seems like an attempt to corral the vote so that whatever comments people make, Whig will count up the votes using whatever way gives him a "majority" for the decision he wants. WP usually operates through consensus - I am concerned that the way this "vote" is being conducted is attempt to impose the political beliefs of some on the community, and is not a bona fide attempt to gauge consensus (which is easy to gauge by seeing what WP practice actually is), jguk 09:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fan-fucking-tastic. We have a vote using a method we don't understand and get told what is consensus by the vote organisers! Of course, I could guess from Whig's name that he is just politicking! jguk 09:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that this survey has been in discussion for a week on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and that while many different opinions with respect to the framework and wording having been expressed and taken into consideration over that time, jguk has been the lone voice of objection against this survey taking place at all. Whig 10:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My opposition is to the lack of attempt at consensus. Indeed, the voting rules established above are against WP policy. Policy is made by consensus, which first is attempted without a vote, and if one is needed, is supported by 75-80% of those voting. The so-called "rules" to this page could see you try to claim something as "policy" despite only 25% of those voting supporting it. This is not the way we do things, jguk 10:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I object to the format of this survey. The Survey guidelines are designed so that surveys reflect consensus.  This survey seems designed to find whichever alternative is "hated the least", and make it into written policy.  My understanding of Wikipedia's policy has always been that policy is only made when there is clear concsensus.  If none of the alternatives acheive consensus, there is not a project-wide policy.  -- Creidieki 11:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Though I think that the format of this poll is quite odd from various ones that I have seen, unless something is suggested then this is what we got. Though, I personally think Whig is trying to make every vote clear, not trying to corral votes into one column. Zscout370 (talk) 15:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the results from this survey according to Wikipedia policy will be illegitimate. This of course is not a smack against Whig or the Condorcet method.  The Wikipedia already has an established process for determining consensus--if this is to be altered, we need a new consenus on how to govern votes between multiple choices.  I am unaware if this consensus has yet to emerge. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 19:15, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The voting system followed in this poll is similar that of Instant-runoff voting which is used by the U.S. Green Party and the New Mexico Republican Party for their primaries, as well as some parlimentary elections in Australia and Ireland. It has been suggested for use in the U.S. Presidential elections. Following these guidelines, there will not be policy set by a 25% vote. The vote can be retallied repeatedly until the % needed is reached. If you don't like it, Whig worked hard putting it together, so help him improve it. Ignorance is no excuse.--ghost 22:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This survey is using a Condorcet method which avoids many of the serious flaws of IRV. Please read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Whig 22:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is this: Under each Alternative, there will be two columns: Support and Oppose. Users who like the idea sign underneath the support, and those who hate the idea can go to oppose and sign. Thanks for the little lesson on this voting system, but I got lost while reading how it works. I would also like to direct Wikipedians to the Template_standardisation contest to see the suggestion I gave in action. Zscout370 (talk) 23:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Zscout, the survey is underway already, so changes are not desirable to the frame at this time. Preferential voting is not a big deal, IMHO, and this method is more likely to produce a consensus where we might have two or more polarized positions with simultaneously strong support and opposition. Whig 23:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If voters wish to vote for use of style only where the style is used "widely", "diplomatically", "inoffensively, or according to some other limiting criteria, they really should be voting for Alternative 2 instead! Alternative 1 is for the formal style to be used in all cases where it is know--i.e. Kim Jong-Il, Anti-Popes, Discordian Popes, etc. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:13, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


 * Those people don't have "formal styles", because they are never styled as such in formal situations (in diplomatic correspondence, for instance). You can't just give yourself a formal style - it has to be used by governments and official organisations. If I got a bunch of my friends to address me as "Your All-Powerfulness", I wouldn't acquire that style, because no one in any position of authority would use it. All these people have is largers numbers of people using their invented styles; they aren't recognised by the international community - no foreign government is going to address missives to Kim Jong-Il as "Dear Leader". Proteus (Talk) 22:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to note that Lulu had no business removing your comment above. I see that you have restored it, and as I discuss below, tampering with this vote and the discussion is improper by anyone excepting personal attacks, inappropriate language and other such policy violations.


 * Clarification below. It appears that the deletion may have been inadvertent. Whig 08:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Second, and also as addressed below, I disagree with Lulu's extreme stance that styles must be given under Alternative 1 in non-serious cases, like Sollog. Like it or not, however, Kim Jong-il is formally addressed by the North Korean people as "Dear Leader" and I think it is strictly POV to deny it in this case under Alternative 1. For that matter, it is not that unlikely that the Chinese government might address their correspondence to him in his preferred style. Just because the American and Commonwealth governments would be disinclined to do so does not mean it is universally rejected. For that matter, there are a billion Chinese who address their leaders by formal style as well, and again, under Alternative 1, this would have to be included. I'm very interested in how someone might carve out an appropriate NPOV way of making exceptions as provided by Alternative 2. Whig 02:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to note, as Lulu used my comments as his example, I agree with Whig's disagreement of Lulu's extreme stance. My views are described below in "Definition of Formal Style". Also, to clarify, in Lulu's comments to me he seems to be under the misaprehension that I'd object to using the style "Dear Leader" when first mentioning Kim Jong-il. Actually, I think it rather POV to refer to the Queen as "Her Majesty" and not do the same for Kim Jong-il, and hence my vote for #1. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 09:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank Whig for putting the survey together. Maurreen 05:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Although the survey rules state that, "Alternatives which you do not rank will automatically be given a lower ranking than those you ranked explicitly,"   where a voter has ranked his/her First choice, Second choice, and then skipped Third choice before ranking Fourth choice and Fifth choice I will consider the unranked option Third choice unless there is substantial objection. This is what Neutralitytalk has done at the moment. I think the voter's intention is unambiguous. If someone had given just First choice and Fifth choice then the unranked alternatives should be considered as ranked below first and above fifth, but without any preference between the unranked alternatives. Please comment here if you wish. Whig 11:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's wholly unacceptable that we have a vote and then one user decides, based on his own favoured formula, what the result is. We can all read and we can all see whether there is any particular consensus for any decision being made. There's no need to override normal WP policy on this, jguk 11:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Jguk, please stop trying to be disruptive. You have the same right to express your preference as everyone else, and where a voter's preference can be clearly inferred we should try to represent his ballot accordingly. In the instant case, Neutralitytalk could not have intended Alternative 5 to be his Sixth choice, and he previously had made it clear that he considered Alternative 1 to be his least preferred option. Whig 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Question about the proposals: Under option one, would we include the preferred style of, say, Sollog? If not, what criteria would we use to draw the line? If so, wouldn't that be a magnet for disruptive people like the aforementioned Sollog? Meelar (talk) 21:09, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a good question in theory, and part of the reason I personally preferred Alternative 2 to Alternative 1, hoping that if this option wins it will be possible for exceptions to be carved out in a NPOV way. In this case, I doubt anyone but Sollog and his sockpuppets refer to him by any formal style. Whig 22:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Why Alternative 1 is by far the worst alternative provided (but the other element, of course, is that it is strictly POV to address popes, kings, etc. by those styles; even if such POV is more widely held).Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Lulu is necessarily correct in regards to Sollog, as I said above. If nobody but he himself and his sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia refer to him by a style, it might be ignored even under Alternative 1. On the other hand, I think that Kim Jong-il, however unpopular his regime, has at least the actual use of his style by millions of North Koreans, and would be entitled to it if Alternative 1 passes. Whig 01:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that whatever the style, the text of the entry should include discussion of what the person is generally called by significant numbers of people. Nroose 03:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * None of the alternatives preclude the inclusion of style, the question presented is only as to whether the prefixed-style should be used at the beginning of biographical entries. Whig 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to the framing of this poll, and therefore will not participate. I come very close to Alternative 1, but Whig's remark in the discussion about Sollog above illustrates that what appears to be a hard-and-fast rule can't be one: we still have to decide whose titles are legitimate enough to use. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * What is your specific objection to the framing of this poll? Whig 05:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In specific response to your point about Sollog, and based on the comments so far, I don't think the proponents of Alternative 1 believe that formal style should be prefixed to Sollog, therefore it would be wrong for me to say that they are compelled to give it to him in the event this alternative wins. That would be to misrepresent the intention of the voters, where a style is simply not recognized by anyone but the person claiming it. On the other hand, as I've pointed out in several replies here, I think it is absolutely required under Alternative 1 that anyone having a style which is recognized by a substantial number of people must have it prefixed. I don't think that the results of this survey should be taken to extreme prescriptive lengths, but accorded a reasonable reading with as much flexibility as the consensus opinion holds. Whig 06:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I can't tell you just how much I loathe the idea of putting honorifics at the beginning of a biography. Not just the idea of having to go back and change the thousands of articles, though that's bad enough. How do I vote "Let's not use Alternative 1 under any circumstances?" Do we draw a line anywhere? Should every person who has ever been an Ambassador have "Mister Ambassador John H. Smith" at the beginning? How about US Presidents? "His Excellency John F. Kennedy ..."? US Judges would have to be "His Honor Bob Jones", and British Judges, "M'lord Susan Brown"? Does this mean that in order to create a biography everybody will have to be versed in the appropriate honorifics and then will have to judge which honorific should be applied, considering somebody might have had many different careers and have used many different honorifics during their lifetime? I'm not going to vote right now, I'll wait till I get home and can use my logged-in account, but this whole idea is ridiculous. And the idea of weighted voting is absurd, as well. RickK 66.60.159.190 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Rick, There is some dispute over whether His Excellency is properly prefixed to US Presidents, but it is absolutely the case that US Judges are formally styled The Honorable and likewise for many other American office-holders. Alternative 1 does require that these styles be prefixed to the respective biographical entries, IMHO. Also, this is not a weighted vote, but a preferential ranking survey. Whig 17:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, see, like I said, you have to have knowledge on how to use honorifics to be able to even begin doing this. You planning on writing an exhaustive manual of honorifics styles to cover all contingencies?  Or will you be following around behind all new articles to make sure they have the right ones?  This is utterly ridiculous.  RickK  66.60.159.190 19:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if you check my own votes, you'll see that I do not personally favor Alternative 1. Whig 20:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I voted, but only under protest. In the history of Wikipedia, everything has been done by consensus, not by preferential ranking. Whatever the outcome, nothing should be done unless at least one of the proposals gets over 50% of the first choice votes, but even that is not in the nature of consensus, and I'm sure many people will feel that this vote is fatally flawed and will refuse to abide by it. RickK 22:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I do want to say that really, current Wikipedia policy is more nebulous than anything else. If anyone looked back on the actual page we are voting about, jguk was the one who added styles to the list in the first place; originally we only had honorifics in the list, and there was no reference to style. Jguk did this because he wanted to append "His Holiness" to Pope John Paul II's article. It was quite underhanded, but no one really paid attention to the addition. Honorifics were not a matter of controversy, but styles weren't even mentioned. I think personally this is all the result of jguk's edit, and now we're having a controversy over it. Quite silly if you ask me, but I'm glad it is finally being dealt with. The problem I see with this method is it really is coming down to a simple vote. There are, in reality, two options here; option one and option 3. If option 3 gets 3 more votes, option 3 and option one tie. None of the other options are really being viewed as much more than filler; 2 is a minor variation of 1 (and is arguably the same thing), and 4 is a minor variation of 3. 5 is the "filler" position; it has a lot of third choices because of the dichotomy between choices 1/2 and 3/4. A simple 1/3 vote would have given us the same results as we are getting now. I'm worried that about 50% of the people participating in this are going to feel left out by the decision, because we are at about 50-50. I don't really know what to do about it, though, as it has to be the one or the other. I personally obviously support not doing option 1, and think it is simply a few people who want to put His Holiness before the Pope's name without regard to neutral point of view who instigated this whole problem. It isn't disrespectful to be neutral. I also think this survey is going to be a bit slanted; it started out on the current Pope's page, and as such has drawn in a lot of people from there. If this had happened, say, on Kim Jong-il's page, we might have very different results as a different group of people come in. I don't think there's really any way to fix this either. I hope it all turns out for the best. Titanium Dragon 11:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Inadvertent vandalism
This discussion is already too long. Brief summary: Jguk and I each once accidentally deleted comments during the course of edits. We are both sorry for the mistakes which were not examples of bad faith, just error. The lengthy digression on this matter moved to Digression on Sloppy Editing

Changing the survey wording
Do not do it. This is a survey in progress, and changes to the frame without a strong consensus that a rewording is absolutely necessary are disfavored. In the instant case, Neutrality unilaterally changed the wording of Alternative 3, and I had to revert. Whig 05:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, I don't believe the change was substantive, because he only edited the examples given, which are not strictly prescriptive. Nonetheless, this should not be done. Whig 06:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Bios w/o Styles
The current Wikipedia usage is heavily slanted towards "styles for European Christian figures", but not for other people. I think that POV is essentially what motivates most of the "yes on Alternative 1" voters. E.g.: None of those are "fringe" figures (in the sense of fewer than thousands of followers). But, of course, most European monarchs and royalty have the styles. The case of the Dalai Lama is particularly notable. The only time his style ever appeared was when a couple of the pro-Pope advocates went over there to add it; but all the people who actually know about the Dalai Lama, and contribute meaningfully to the page, took the style back out.Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * 1) (His Imperial Majesty, Emperor) Haile Selassie
 * 2) (Dear Leader) Kim Jong-Il
 * 3) (His Holiness) Dalai Lama
 * 4) (King) Sunny Ade
 * 5) (Messiah) Sun Myung Moon


 * His Magesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, His Imperial Magesty the Emperor Akihito, His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein, His Majesty Samdech Preah Bâromneath Norodom Sihamoni, Sayyed Qaboos ibn Sa&#8217;id Al &#8216;Bu Sa&#8217;id, and so on. Gentgeen 09:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I think you've demonstrated that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters overstates the "pro-European" bias in the present use of titles, none of the examples you post are particularly controversial figures to American and Commonwealth Wikipedians. I think there are nonetheless a great many tribal, religious and political figures who, particularly when they may be perceived to be adverse to the dominant political or religious organizations in our countries, are denied style. This, IMHO, is improper POV if Alternative 1 wins. I kind of liked his Messiah Sun Myung Moon example, if that's actually how he's formally addressed by a substantial number of people. But I could probably think of a lot more controversial edits. How is Osama Bin Laden styled by Al Qaeda, for instance? And presumably, by some substantial number of people in the Arabic world. Whig 06:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what you are voting on?
Malay titles, Monarch, Style (manner of address), Chinese style name, Title

Haile Selassie of Ethiopia "He took the full title His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie I, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Elect of God."

4.250.198.247 10:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The style and nothing else. So in that case the article would start ''His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. . .'' Fear ÉIREANN  (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of "Formal Style"
The vote above is concerned with whether people who have a formal style ought to be named with that formal style in their own articles. Nowhere, however, do I see a definition for "formal style", and I think this is going to make the survey impossible to read. Much is the discussion centers around topics along the lines of "Well, if you're suggesting that the Queen gets to have her formal style used, then you're suggesting that Sollog ought to have his formal style used," and "Well, if Pope Benedict XVI gets his formal style, shouldn't anti-pope Pius XIII?" This is a corollary of the "slippery slope argument," and it only has weight because nowhere on this page do we define "formal style" in any terms, even ambiguous ones. According to Style (manner of address), "A Style is a form of address which by tradition or law precedes a reference to a person who holds a title or post, or to the office itself." When I voted for option one alone above, I did so with this definition in mind. Sollog has no tradition, law or large body of support behind his "style", and so, were option one to "win" under this definition, he would not be covered under it. Clearly we need some definition of style, and a good candidate is the one I mentioned. Of course, everyone is free jump in and start making Sorites-like arguments that don't get us anywhere, asking "well, what defines 'popular'? 1,000 people? 10,000 people?" The point, however, remains that we need some rough definition of "formal style" and, unless we're arguing just for the sake of being argumentative, that definition is probably not going to be one that requires us to call random people like myself by some random style that gets made up on the spot. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 09:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to carve out a NPOV rule for exceptions under Alternative 2. Sollog aside, and others who self-proclaim themselves to have a style which nobody else respects, there are many people who do claim and are afforded a style by substantial numbers of people who do not currently have their style prefixed in their biographical entries. If Alternative 1 prevails, I don't think these can be excepted unless you can clearly demonstrate that in each such case the style is objectively unreasonable. (Note, I'm agreeing with you that Sollog's style is objectively unreasonable, but recognized political, tribal and religious leaders of numerous and sundry kinds have styles that cannot be so easily discarded.) Whig 10:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need a formal definition here - all we need to do is apply our (unwritten) policy that disputed (or indeed unusual) information is supported by reputable sources, jguk 11:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the absence of a carefully carved out rule of exception provided under Alternative 2, it seems to me that the only support required for use of the prefixed style in the first alternative is that it can be documented that it is seriously used by anyone other than the person him or herself. No exclusion for Kim Jong-il, certainly, in this case, and probably not even for Lucian Pulvermacher. If you do want to exclude these cases, make the rule explicit. Whig 16:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any evidence that Kim Jong-il has a style in the same way as the Queen does, or the Pope. Until and unless such evidence is supplied, I don't need to consider it. I've never heard of Lucian Pulvermacher, but if you have a reputable source to show that he is often officially given some style, I'm happy to read it, jguk 16:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In the case of Kim Jong-il, please see this biography. Whig 17:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not a style. (This discussion on styles has made one thing absolutely clear: most people haven't the faintest idea what one is.) Proteus (Talk) 17:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether it is or is not a style, I think you make the point very well that we are correct to refer to formal style of address rather than using a technical term you claim people haven't the faintest idea what is meant by. Whig 17:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Question, will this apply to titles based on awards (for example: William Gates III, OBE)? Zscout370 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If an award carries with it a prefixed formal style of address which is seriously used, then I think it applies. Whig 16:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If the person is alive, we put in post-nominals and other such things (The Right Honourable Sir John Major, KG, CH, for example). If they're deceased, we generally don't (although a few military leaders have articles with their post-nominals - Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener of Khartoum). ugen 64 21:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for that practice being started was that people were being given post-nominals when they lived in a time when such things weren't generally used, which is probably inappropriate (Knights of the Garter weren't generally referred to as "Sir John Smith, KG" in the fifteenth century, for instance). But post-nominals were used in, for example, the nineteenth century, since Lord Nelson was certainly called "The Right Honourable The Lord Viscount Nelson, KB" in his lifetime, so it's not really inappropriate to use them for people who've lived in the last couple of centuries. Proteus (Talk) 11:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's what I'd originally thought. But I deferred to Emsworth, whose opinion I outlined above. So, say, 19th century or later is a good rough benchmark for post-nominals? ugen 64 00:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

For most British styles, I'd think the 18th century is probably a good benchmark. john k 19:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

First and only choices
To those who are voting this way, I feel it is important to clarify how Condorcet preferential voting works. If you say Alternative X is your first and only choice, you are explicitly stating no preference between the other alternatives. This could fail to accurately represent your viewpoint. While many voting systems are subject to tactical voting, Condorcet methods may backfire when this is tried, and generally will tend toward the least opposed rather than the most preferred alternative. Whig 18:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For Whig, let me clarify that Wikipedia works by consensus, not concordat voting. Whilst votes are used, they are only generally accepted to indicate consensus where at least 75% and preferably 80% of votes are in support. This is a deliberately high threshold - we should not go round imposing rules on those who will not accept those rules.


 * As an aside, I note that concordat voting presupposes that each option is acceptable, but some are preferred). This is clearly not the case here (see above), which is another reason why it is wholly acceptable. Indeed, as noted above, anything other than genuine consensus is against the Wikipedia way of doing things, jguk 21:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk, you seem to wish to invalidate the survey by any means you can think of. I will try to answer the objections to Condorcet methods (not concordat, whatever that is) below, but I think it may be helpful to make it a separate subheading and move all the objections there to be dealt with in one place. One immediate point, however, is that Condorcet methods are provably (and have been mathematically proven) to yield consensus outcomes where other methods like plurality, approval and IRV simply fail to do so. The definition of consensus is at issue, and your repeated contention that it is necessarily equivalent to a supermajority is both false and in this case completely impractical, where there exist clearly polarized positions which cannot be reconciled to one another unless by finding the least opposed choice. Whig 23:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whig, I know what you want to do is mainly solve this issue with a huge consensus. I know people have said many thanks for you doing this, and I wish to add my voice to those people. However, I do think that many people who have voted in this poll/survey do not either understand what the Condorcet method or just voting the way they have done before. I do not know exactly what method is used the most, or if polls really affect anything. I am on a page right now that had to start a poll/survey after vandalism, and now the survey is kicking my ass and a few others at the same time. I sometimes think that this poll almost started due to the problems at the Benedict XVI article. I also do think that if the poll will be going on for a while, a setup could be explained (along with the Condorcet method) on the main project page, while this page can be used for voting, comments, etc. I do not know what else to suggest now, since I think some votes either will not be calculated due to this method or people voting out of spite. Zscout370 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I also wish to record my opposition to the use of condorcet voting on Wikipedia - it is fundamentally contrary to the normal Wikipedia methods of decision making by consensus. I used to regularly participate in votes for creation on the uk Netnews hierarchy: 7 or 8 years ago they switched to using Condorcet voting, and I quickly stopped participating. Condorcet is an abomination when it comes to trying to easily figure out what people want. -- Arwel 01:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read the new section which I've added above the discussion to forestall further objections to the way this survey is being conducted. I am trying to be completely fair and while I have my own POV, I have tried to let everyone's voice be heard equally, if we can find a common ground then we should seek it. Whig 05:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whig, thanks a lot for sacrificing the time and energy to conduct this survey. The math is pretty straightforward, really, for those who bother to read how it works.
 * Another thing, some people use the "it's the way it is now" argument for defending the use of styles. While I absolutely agree with ifitaintbrokedontfixit philosophy, i'd have to point out 2 things:
 * Many people think that it is broke.
 * There was a time when articles didn't include styles. IMHO, they weren't broke then and there was no reason to fix them. The only reason that it is the way it is now is that a group of editors added styles to great many articles and screamed and shouted at anybody who tried to remove them. Zocky 12:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
It appears from the votes cast so far, there is a deadlock between Alternatives 1 and 3, and no consensus is likely to be formed in behalf of either of these options. The least preferred option is currently Alternative 2; however, I think this may be the very solution to our impasse if a NPOV rule were proposed to carve out when the prefixed use of style should and should not be used. Therefore, I make this proposal, for straight up or down approval.


 * For all royalty and nobles, styles SHOULD be used to prefix the biographical entry. For all political, religious, tribal and other office holders, styles SHOULD NOT be used to prefix the biographical entry.

Please signify SUPPORT or OPPOSE if you wish to indicate your acceptance of this compromise. Whig 03:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. At least this gives us lee-way on certain articles and names. Zscout370 (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should let the above survey run its course before any potential new polls. Maurreen 04:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, voting is to run until the 14th. It strikes me as extremely premature to suggest new proposals at this point. You've called this poll now let it be. Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no intention to cancel the current voting, but if no consensus is likely to emerge between deadlocked and opposing positions, a compromise will ultimately be needed if we're going to get to any consensus, and the purpose of surveying opinion is to arrive at such a consensus. With that said, if people choose not to signify their support or opposition for this proposed compromise until after the 14th, it's at least worth discussing in the meantime. Whig 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I would find this system roughly tolerable, I agree with Maurreen that it is premature to work on formulating a new consensus. It is religious and political figures for whom styles are most strongly POV (and generally offensive if used rather than mentioned); but not all royalty is exactly "undisputed." either, so there's still something POV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:01, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * The "compromise" isn't really appropriate. King Norodom Sihanouk was most certainly a politician as well as a king - so would we use a style for him or not? The same is true of many Arab royals. How would we style Privy Councillors - does it depend on what their profession is? Is the king of a tribe treated as royalty or is it a tribal epithet? All members of the House of Lords are both nobles and politicians - where do they fit?


 * Far more interesting is a comparison of who are voting each way. It is probably not a coincidence that those supporting Option 3 are (where nationality can be determined) American. Whereas those supporting Option 1 are of many nationalities (including some Americans).


 * I'm not sure exactly where this gets us, but the geographic split is quite informative, jguk 12:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do agree that there is a geographical split. In a majority of the news that I watch and the articles that I read (not on here) combine the Position/Title with the person's name. I rarely see people call the Queen Her Royal Highness, the Pope His Holiness (or Holy Father for that manner). Even if we do "adopt" things here, I know there will be people wanting to change the rules, break the rules and just be completely hostile with anything that comes from this. I believe this decision should be left to individual pages, and if there is an article on the job itself (like Pope), we can add the references there and the different styles, symbols, etc can be placed there. I do not know what else I can suggest, since I know people will not call Kim "Dear Leader" or a religious figure they oppose as the Holy Father. Zscout370 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But isn't this exactly the problem with this "compromise" - it discriminates between "objective" royalty (e.g. kings etc) and "(supposedly) subjective" religious leaders. This born out of a certain POV. Though I could live with the style just being mentioned, I'd advocate drawing the line at the level of "diplomatic usage", which leaves out the "Dear Leader" (if you want to compare this with the Pope, then the parallel would be "Holy Father", which is not put up front but mentioned further down).
 * Str1977 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There might be a geographic split; but I think it is really "Europe" vs. "Non-Europe." It reflect the bias of the "Alternative 1" voters towards applying styles to Christian Europeans, but not much caring how/if they are used for other folks.  This doesn't mean Europeans shouldn't vote just as much as anyone else, but I think there is a tendency for Europeans to be insufficiently self-conscious of the POV embedded in use of styles.
 * Perhaps Zscout370 would like to change his vote now? All I have argued for, for example, is that styles be indicated in a NPOV way--that is, mentioned in the article (even in the first sentence), but not used in a way the endorses their use as Wikipedia policy. In other words, not the first two or three words of an article; and phrased in terms of "is addressed as" or "is styled as".
 * Moreover, for me personally, I view addressing a pope "His Holiness" no differently from addressing Chairman Kim as "Dear Leader" or Sun Myung moon as "Messiah." They all insult my personal belief in the same way, and to the same degree.  I am equally insulted by all, not because I follow some other religion or value system, but because I am neutral between them, and will not endorse any one of them. This is exactly what NPOV means! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:58, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
 * No. What you are describing (as usual) is LPOV (Lulu's point of view) which you seem constantly to believe is NPOV. Choosing not to use a style to suit your opinions is by definition POV. Choosing to apply the official style because it is the official style, irrespective of the views of individual people's personal views, is NPOV. Fear ÉIREANN [[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]]\ (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * More neutral would be mentioning them as "formally styled X by virtue of Y" or something similar. Who refers to people by their styles? The North Korean media refers to Kim Jong-il as "Dear leader", but the American media (and the British media) do not. The Americian media does not refer to the Pope as "His holiness". There is a reason for this; it seems to be an endorsement of their position. I've noted most neutral sources refer to people by their name/position, sometimes with honorifics; sources run by the people with the style (the Vatican, the North Korean media, the Soviet media during the Cold War) refers to their leaders using style. The US doesn't even refer to the president as "Mr. President" unless they are directly addressing him, and sometimes doesn't even do that. Titanium Dragon 03:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not more neutral. especially when you take the "allmighty media" as your reference point. This brings in controversy where there isn't one. Styles like "Majesty", "Holiness", "Excellency" etc. are certainly not as confined to one group as "Dear Leader" is (North Korean published opinion). And to say only Catholics refer to the Pope as "His Holiness" is simply untrue.
 * Str1977 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * LPOV, that's kind of amusing. I think Jtdirl has a point in there about choosing not to use a style can be a POV. Refusing to call George W. Bush "President Bush" is a sort of POV, for instance. But on the other hand, while President is a neutral style, expressing nothing except the generally accepted fact that he is serving in the capacity of that office, the same cannot be said for His Holiness. I don't think Lulu or anyone else has advocated against using "Pope Benedict XVI". It's neutral, because we aren't saying anything except that he's generally accepted to be the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. Using His Holiness in this case may or may not be neutral, depending upon how one interprets it. No encyclopedic value is lost by saying, "Pope Benedict XVI is formally styled His Holiness". Anyhow, I really wish we could address the arguments and drop the personal insults. Whig 06:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I find LPOV an amusing term too, FWIW. But it does miss the point.  Choosing either to use, or not to use, styles (or only a particular style), is always POV.  It's neutral, however, to indicate that some people do so (and perhaps describe which set of people do so).  In contrast, using a job title is just that, a job title.  I call a pope: "Pope So-and-So" and a president "President Such-and-Such" quite neutrally--those are their jobs. But going on to describe the first as holy or the second as honorable, is where we get into POV. The POV isn't only about specific individuals: it's not a matter of whether B16 or Bush are or are not as described, the POV is also in describing the office holder automatically as holy/honorable. If you try to argue that I need to squint just right to convince myself that the word "holy" doesn't mean holy, and the word "honorable" doesn't mean honorable... well, I can't do that, words mean what they mean. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:05, 2005 May 6 (UTC)


 * Dear Lulu,
 * I must agree with Eireann. What you're proposing is LPOV. If you say you're neutral you're either fooling us or (more probably) yourself). Nobody is neutral. I have my POV, you have your POV, Eireann has his POV and so has everyone else. Wiki does not and should not have a POV and that's debate how to best include information. You might be insulted by addressing the Pope (or Kim) that way, but that's not the question here. If you don't want to address them that way and then don't do it. And why are you offended if not because you disagree with the appropriateness of the respective styles. And that is a different value system.
 * Str1977 08:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This proposal would create serious problems. A couple of points. The pope is a monarch, and thus, his honorific style of "His Holiness" could be seen to fall under the category of "royal styles." Secondly, an earl has the style of "the right honourable," and so does a UK privy councillor. By this proposed standard, the one would receive his style, but the other would not. Since it is the same style, this seems hard to justify. I think better compromises are available. For instance, UK honorifics and styles are clear and, with a few exceptions, uncontroversial, and it would be easy to start off and say that we should use these. Lulu, btw, does Doctor mean "learned"? Is it POV to call someone a doctor, since people might not believe that he is, in fact, learned? "Mister" derives from the french for "My Lord." But presumably we do not believe that everyone we call "Mister" is our lord? The meaning of these terms has changed to simply be a signifier that one has a certain kind of decree, or that one is a male that one is speaking to in a formal capacity. This is clearly recognized in dictionaries. The OED, of instance, has as definition 2b of "Honourable" - "Applied as an official or courtesy title of honour or distinction." For majesty, definition 2 is "2. Preceded by a possessive (your, his, her, the king's, the queen's); sometimes with a modifying adjective, as (most) sacred, gracious, {dag}royal, etc.: an honorific title given to a king, queen, emperor, or empress." Definition 3b of "highness" is "With possessive (e.g. the King's Highness; His, Her, Your Highness), as a title of dignity or honour given to princes." Definition 2 of holiness is "With possessive, as a title of the Pope, and formerly of other high ecclesiastical dignitaries." Definition 5a of eminence is " As a title of honour, now borne only by Cardinals." Definition 3b of excellency is "As a title of honour. Cf. EMINENCE 5, EXCELLENCE 3b. The quots. show that it was formerly applied to royal personages, to ladies, and others, though in England now limited to ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, governors (extended also to their wives) and certain other high officers." Definition 4 of "serene" is "An honorific epithet given to a reigning prince (esp. of Germany), formerly also to a member of a royal house, etc.; sometimes jocularly applied to anything appertaining to a person so designated." You'll note that these are all full definitions, and none of them mention anything to do with the standard meanings of these terms. The pope is called "his holiness" because at some point, Catholics decided that someone as holy as he ought to be so referred. But the meaning is now independent of any question of how holy he is. john k 18:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is one minor issue though. How do you get the honorific "doctor" (yes, it is an honorific, not a style) added to your name? You get a PhD. You get "Sir" by getting knighted by the Queen of England. You get President by being elected president. "Her majesty" is a style, not an honorific, as is "his holiness". "Queen" and "Pope" would be the related honorifics.
 * Styles use "common" words because they are meant to convey their meaning. Calling someone "the honorable" really does imply they are honorable. Note that even the dfinition you yourself gave is that honorable is applied as a mark of honor and distinction. They are common words because they are meant to show that the person is what their title suggests - the Pope is supposed to be holy, the Queen majestic, a judge honorable, ect.
 * Mister is an honorific, not a style (manner of address). It seems to me many people have not read those two articles. Mister may be derived from "my lord", but it no longer means that in the common vernacular. Doctor DOES mean learned, but if you don't have a PhD you don't have the honorific, and if you went through an accreddited university it is pretty hard to contradict that they are learned - it takes a lot of work to get a PhD. There is a world of difference between styles and honorifics, and it is quite clear. I think the easiest thing would be to eliminate styles entirely, and stick with honorifics. Honorifics are not exactly controversial, except in rare cases (degree mills and antipopes). It is hard to fake being knighted by the Queen of England, and its not hard to check if someone earned a PhD from a given college or university. Titanium Dragon 00:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Honorifics are not especially controversial, but I'd say they are entirely redundant. 00:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? You get to be "His or Her Majesty" by being a king or queen.  You get to be "His Holiness" by being the pope.  At any rate, yes, the origins of the style is that the person is supposed to exemplify the characteristic, just as a doctor is supposed to be learned.  But the use of the term "his holiness" as a style is sufficiently separate to be an entirely separate dictionary definition of "holiness" from the definition "the state of being holy."  At any rate, the title (and style, and honorific) of "Pope" is no more controversial than that of "His Holiness" - the two are attached to gether.  By virtue of being a pope, one has the style of "His Holiness."  By virtue of being a king, one has the style of "His Majesty."  By virtue of being an sovereign prince, one has the style of "His Serene Highness."  By virtue of being a privy councillor, one has the style of "The Right Honourable."  I am at a loss to see how any of this is any more controversial than a Doctor being someone with a PhD.  Just as one may have earned a PhD without being especially learned, one can be a King without being particularly majestic, a Pope without being especially holy, a sovereign prince without being especially serenly high, and a privy councillor without being right honourable.  If it is hard to fake being knighted by Elizabeth II, it is surely just as hard (if not, well, actually much harder) to be (or have been) an actual queen.  I completely fail to see the point you are trying to make here.  john k 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You even agreed with me, and yet still missed the point. The reason for styles is to indicate that those who hold them have those qualities, and that is what using them implies. When writing articles, the press does not in general use styles for exactly this reason - it supports their claim of being holy/majestic/savior of humanity/whatever. Would you refer to Lucian Pulvermacher (an antipope) as His holiness? Why not? Would you call the leader of North Korea Dear leader? Think about it!
 * Do you really want to have to edit every single judge to be honorable? Because guess what, your argument is that we should list every single one of them as such, which would not only be a massive pain in the neck but silly to boot. If it is as you say, then isn't it extranenous anyway?
 * No encyclopedia I have read prefaces people's names with their styles. None. Zero. This should probably tell you something. It isn't neutral to call people by their styles; that is formal. In fact, people talk about what are and are not formal styles. If you're standing around in a neutral state, you generally don't call people by their formal style if you aren't talking to them, and sometimes not even then. The press does not call the Pope "his holiness" in articles, and when I'm talking to someone about the pope they don't call them "his holiness", they call him the Pope. When I'm talking to someone about the Queen, they are "the Queen" or "Queen Elizabeth", not "Her majesty". Its incredibly awkward to use them, you are saying it is redundant, and a lot of people don't think it is neutral to refer to them by styles, and the press and other encyclopedias agree with them. Titanium Dragon 05:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the reason for styles has nothing to do with the qualities at all. It is simply an honorific, a style that goes along with a particular title.  I would guess that nobody in the world, including HM herself, believes that Elizabeth II is terribly "majestic."  As long as you keep on insisting that the literal meanings of these words has anything to do with the style, I don't see why I should take anything you say seriously. john k 06:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

References to Other Pages
Moved to B16 talk page per Whig request Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Chicago Manual of Style
This discussion is already too long. I moved the digression on Harvard/Oxford commas to an archive:

Archive of Chicago MoS

I see a lot of problems here
This whole vote is deeply confused. The voting method is one that will lead to ridiculous confusion, and the choices as offered are, with the exception of option 1 and option 3, too vague to be clear what they would actually mean in practice. Option 2, for instance, isn't nearly as carefully laid-out as it should be. What does it mean for a style to be controversial? Titanium Dragon would presumably argue that every style is controversial. Options 4 and 5 provide no guidance at all. And it seems to me that the Condorcet method in this case will provide what is at best a false sense of consensus when there is none. I think this whole thing ought to be seriously reworked and started over. john k 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with John. Frankly, I'm seriously opposed to every alternative other than #1. What's wrong with the usual manner of voting, in which we indicate our preference? Or, for that matter, in which we simply vote for all the options that we'd be satisfied with? Mackensen (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the two reasonable guys above. – ugen64 02:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just me, but this seems like one of the nuttiest wikipedia pages I've ever come across. A very minor issue has ballooned into a bizarre, baroque, and bureaucratized dispute.  I wonder whether the number of people playing this game doesn't have something to do with Whig's disruptions of wikipedia--I came by out of curiosity after he added the absurd preface "Friend of Mankind" to the L Ron Hubbard article, clearly as an attempt to pull people into his (or her) pet project (it worked!).  For what it's worth, I don't think forms of address should, in general, preceed the biographic entries, because such entries are not formally addressing or introducing the subjects. (What do print encylopedias do?)  Such titles are unneeded, and in most cases are irrelevant to the article (what value is it to read that Earl Warren, for example, was called "the honorable"?).  But the idea that there should be one inviolate rule for all entries is ridiculously inflexible.  There may well be some exceptional cases that prove the rule--why not hammer them out on a case-by-case basis?  My vote: I'm with john&#8212;disregard this poll (or whatever it is), and if a genuine problem is identified (I'm not convinced there is one), revisit the issue via a more straightforward discussion.  BTfromLA 03:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally reverted the prefix to L. Ron Hubbard, FWIW. And if you read the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page you will see that I only last night put prefixes on a very small number of cases I felt would be controversial if the status quo for the MoS were upheld, and this survey has been ongoing for most of a week, with a week of discussion before that. And since there's an obvious deadlock, I've proposed a compromise above for straight up or down approval. Whig 03:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, there is a genuine problem inasmuch as the current policy is being enforced for certain controversial political and religious figures. Whig 03:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You removed the Hubbard thing only after two or three users took time to explain why it was totally inappropriate, and after you undid at least one prior--and explained--revert of your inappropriate addition. Your behavior was that of a deliberate nusiance, and your latest additions--the ones you cite above--seem to be as well. Do you claim that you've improved the article by making it "President George W. Bush is the 43rd president..."?  You are deliberately wasting the time of the wikipedia community with this nonsense. Your idea that there must be one dogmatically held, universally applied rule--ALL leaders, ALL this, ALL that, is counter-productive.  Such standards, when applied across the vast space of wikipedia's subjects (and editors), need to be flexible.  People can and do regularly resolve disputes on talk pages, with reference to general principals and precidents both within wikipedia and outside of it. The "compromise" option you offer is of little value, and you seem dead set against anyone but you formulationg an option. This is inappropriate, and, as several have noted, your imposition of an esoteric "consensus" method is also inappropriate.  I think the page is completely misbegotten, and should be declared null and void as a source of Wikipedia policy. BTfromLA 04:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem; some time ago, as I have pointed out many times, someone altered the Wikipedia page on biographies so that styles as well as honorifics (honorifics were already added due to an earlier vote) would be prefaced. That someone was jguk, and at the time he was trying to legitimize his adding his holiness to the John Paul II article. A great deal of trouble has emerged as a result of that change, and it needs to be clarified if what he did was really the will of Wikipedia. This page is necessary as a number of articles have suffered recurring edit wars over exactly this issue. And I think it is a GOOD thing to have more people involved in the vote, and honestly at the current closeness of the results it is quite obvious that jguk's edit was not the universal will of Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 05:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I do believe that President should precede George W. Bush. Yes. That's not even a style, it's his present office, and it is how he's referred to in most media and even informally by most people, and it should stay irrespective of the policy prescriptions with regard to prefixed style.


 * I'm not against someone else formulating an option. Please, propose one, if you like. Whig 04:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As a very incidental note, I'd like to point out that even the Simpsons referred to John Paul II as "His Holiness." Mackensen (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, The Simpsons Rule. I guess all those who don't like it should just accept it, then. :-) Whig 05:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the Simpsons have also made fun of the clergy more times than I can count. And frankly, taking cues for NPOV from the Simpsons is probably not the best of ideas. Kind of like CNN griping about the Daily Show's journalistic integrity; it just doesn't make sense. Titanium Dragon 05:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have three suggestions here: --Carnildo 05:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Run a sockpuppet check on Whig to see if he's Iasson in disguise.
 * 2) Trash the current vote.  It's too damn confusing.
 * 3) Start a discussion.  If it's truly impossible to come to a consensus by talking, run a vote using a simple voting method, such as approval voting.


 * This isn't that complicated, and as for "start a discussion"... this has already been done, and it got us to this point because people simply could not agree. Why? Because there are some people who are vehemently opposed to having styles prefacing articles, and others vehemently opposed to not having the Pope addressed as his holiness in a NPOV encyclopedia.
 * And right now, it is more or less a competition between 1 and 3 anyway. He chose this method for a reason. And I doubt he's a sock puppet, especially as Iasson (who I have never encountered) has yet to poke his/her head in here, thus defeating the point of being a sock puppet. Titanium Dragon 05:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Never heard of Iasson before, but his page seems incomprehensible to me. Whig 05:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Iasson disrupted VfD, FAC, RFA, and other voting-related pages by insisting that people use various incredibly complex voting methods, in particular average rule and quadratic rule, rather than the existing methods. He also insisted on having every dispute voted on, rather than discussed.  Looking at the poll on this page, Iasson's behavior was the first thing that came to mind.  --Carnildo 22:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I am rather concerned now that Option 1, if it wins, will be interpreted so as to force us to use "Dear Leader", and the like, or else will lead to constant wars over whether it should force us to do that. I would also question the distinction between honorifics and styles is false. In "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales," "His Royal Highness" is clearly an honorific. "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales" is his style. "Her Majesty the Queen" is a style, but "Her Majesty" is an honorific. john k 15:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is most certainly a style. Maybe people don't understand the (perhaps unclear) difference between a style and an honorific? Titanium Dragon 23:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at the honorific article, stuff like Mister, Missus, Miss, Doctor, Professor, ect. are honorifics. I would say, in the case of Queen Elizabeth, that the "Queen" part would be the honorific. Pope, President, ect. seem to be "honorifics". "Her majesty" is quite clearly a style, and is actually listed as an example of one. Titanium Dragon 23:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Call for a vote about the fate of this survey
Given that several users have expressed serious objections to this survey, including charges that the survey is locked into a set of poorly formulated policy options and that the methodology that has been introduced is a source of confusion and inappropriate to Wikipedia, I request a vote on the following resolution:


 * Be it resolved that the May, 2005 survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles is null and void. The article will be archived and clearly marked as void. A one-week hiatus on Manual of Style policy discussions about honorary titles and formal styles of address will go into effect on the date this resolution is accepted as having passed by consensus.  If, at the end of that period, users believe that there is a need for clarification or changes of policy in these matters, such a discussion can begin anew, by first clarifying the problem, then soliciting and discussing various proposed solutions. Any policy change will be brought into existence through the established methods of negotiating toward a consensus, using dispute resolution procedures if the need arises.  Any dispute about the outcome of the vote on this resolution will be resolved by those same methods.

Please vote "yay" (to approve the above resolution) or "nay" (to deny the resolution). One vote per user; add a description of your reasoning if you wish.

I vote yay on the above resolution. BTfromLA 18:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! -- The Anome 18:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nay. To me, this sounds like a VFD, and VFD's are not supposed to be used on policy changes. Zscout370 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No. You can't conduct a seperate vote to invalidate a vote on the vote page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * I'll grant you that the vote-to-invalidate-the-vote seems in keeping with the generally lunatic tenor of the page, but nonsense it isn't. There is a serious issue here about whether this page sets an acceptable precident for wikipedia decison making. Given that at least four editors have independently called for invalidating the survey; that editors have expressed dismay and confusion over the unilateral imposition of a totally unorthodox (and confusing, according to many) voting and tabulation method upon the proceedings, and that what, arguably, should be the default position on the matter (i.e., treat these styles of address the way established encyclopedias do--they don't mention them as a matter of policy) isn't even a listed option, there is considerable sense in creating an opportunity that allows wikipedians to consider whether they want to endorse these proceedings.  Since Whig has effectively outlawed any modification of the options or the voting procedure, how else do you suggest that these concerns be given a meaningful hearing?  BTfromLA 20:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Alternative 4 is consistent with what you suggest, BTfromLA; especially as clarified by Maurreen. Unfortunately, the "default" position is not the one unilaterally written into Wikipedia policy by Jguk, and imposed on a number of article w/o consensus (esp. the B16 article). I'd be perfectly happy with the "default" if we could get that in actual articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:02, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
 * To add to Lulu's statement, the vote will play itself out. It will only be running for a few more days. As Lulu pointed out, we will remain with choices 1 and 3, which we (eventually) can do a Up or Down vote on them. However, this vote to kill this vote is just not the way to deal with policy. Zscout370 (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, an up or down vote doesn't seem like it will do that much either. Say the "right" option wins (Alternative 3 :-)).  Then we have a yes or no vote: I can already predict the outcome: 51/49%.  And following that, Jguk will unilaterally vandalize the usage page no matter what the vote says :-(. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:29, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be Jguk, but as with anything I dealt with on Wikipedia, there is always one person who ruins its for everyone else (see List of national flags). But hey, at least you and me finally agree on something. Zscout370 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I'm glad we do, Zscout370! It's a good step for civility. I guess I was put off by Jguk's duplicity, and it unfairly prejudiced my attitude toward other "Alternative 1" voters.  But also seeing a comment by you that acknowledged the POV concern (even if not accepting it) was really refreshing.

I have asked a number of times for Lulu to please stop his personal attacks on me. WP is a hostile enough place as it is without throwing around insults aimlessly. Needless to say, there is nothing I have done that could be term vandalism: we have a disagreement, yes, but there's no reason to be uncivil.

There are many comments above, and I doubt we will have any "breakthroughs" if we go with BTfromLA's suggestion. WP works by consensus - it is not a democracy and we do not go with a simple majority (however defined!) - we seek consensus. Consensus is usually taken to mean at least 75-80% support for something. It is clear that what we do not have above is consensus (and this will be true regardless of which of Option 1 or 3 "wins" 55:45 either on simple one-person-one-vote or "condorcet" or any other way of counting anyone wishes to find.

If Lulu wants to know how I'll react at the end of this consultation period - I'll tell him. If Option 3 "wins" 55-45 I will not accept that this means a victory for Option 3 and I'll revert any attempts by him to enforce that approach on a wide range of articles. Conversely, if Option 1 "wins" 55-45 I will not treat that as a victory for Option 1 and go out of my way to add styles to established articles that have never had them. I will respect consensus - that is the Wikipedia way - but unfortunately it clear that there is no consensus here.

I would add that the attempts by Whig that have been supported by Lulu to add styles where they both know no-one really thinks them appropriate are disrupting WP. I will continue to revert such attempts and remind these users that if they wish to add a debatable style they will have to support it on the talk pages with sources. Nothing on this page overrides the requirement to Cite Your Sources. So I vote no to BTfromLA's proposal. Kind regards, jguk 20:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem, of course, with Jguk's above comment is that there is clearly no consensus to have "His Holiness" on the pope pages that really started this issue. Maybe there is 55% support for that, but I think it much more likely it is 45% support (or 30%) with Jguk being "louder" and more willing to force changes through deceit than is the quieter majority.  The "status quo" is just Jguk acting unilaterally, not some prior consensus. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * There is no deceit. Please stop these personal attacks! jguk 20:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the both of you to calm down. Let's just agree to disagree and try to, at least, keep this vote going. Lulu, just because Jguk might have done something in the past does not mean he will do it again. Jguk, I would suggest to try to reach a consensus with the users, instead of changing everything because of the outcome not coming out to a desired result. Zscout370 (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay. As much as it pains me to see the lack of consensus forming out of the survey thus far, the fate of the survey ought not to be at issue while the survey is ongoing. Furthermore, even if we find ourselves unable to find agreement here, the votes are informative indicators of opinion which can help to guide the Wikipedia community in determining an appropriate resolution either as to the overall style guide or as to the use of formal styles on particular pages. Whig 02:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay. Quit trying to make your vandalism of the biography page policy unilaterally. If that is the way the community decides, that's one thing, but it seems to me like you just don't like the fact that you got called on it and are finding a lot more opposition than you thought you would. Titanium Dragon 04:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay. In the strongest terms. To invalidate the vote now would amount to "moving the goalposts".  Worst case, let the survey go thru, let the *(*&(*& hit the fan, vote to undo at that time.  Doing so now threatens future voting on other issues.  Ones you may/may not care about.--ghost 21:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I find calling a vote to stop a vote very inappropriate. Maurreen 03:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nay. Although there is clearly going to be no consensus, this vote should remain open even if the only reason for doing so is to avoid setting a horrible precedent. Also this vote appears to be confused enough without furthering the confusion. Rje 23:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nay. Neutralitytalk 02:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward
Looking forward it is clear that there will be no consensus (usually 75-80%+ support) either to fully adopt option 1 or option 3. It would also be foolhardy to rush into another vote (which is likely only to mirror the discussions we already have). I would like to offer some comments:


 * (1) It would merely disrupt Wikipedia if one or other "sides" were to declare victory after the vote and to aggressively edit Wikipedia pages in line with their suggested "winner". Or to put it another way - no-one should use this vote as an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia.
 * (2) We could clarify the styles being talked about. I think what separates these from styles for sitting US senators, for example, is that "Her Majesty", "His Holiness", "Reverend", etc. The latter all remain until at least death (barring exceptional circumstances), and many remain after death. We could certainly make this clear.
 * (3) At present, we do not use terms like "President" and "Governor" in front of people's names, even though, at least for US presidents and governors, they remain as a term of respect once they have left office until death. We should not change this.
 * Actually, only senators, governors, and ambassadors retain their title. Presidents, technically, should not retain their title, according to most formal rulebooks. john k 18:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (4) We should acknowledge there is a clear geographical divide in the votes - with Americans mostly (though not exclusively) going for option 3, and non-Americans going for option 1. We shouldn't have an Americocentric Wikipedia - but neither should we have a Wikipedia that excludes Americans. The differences of opinion on this page are likely to, at least in part, be explained by different cultural backgrounds. This breadth of experience is usually beneficial to WP, we should not let it be destructive here.
 * (5) I'm not sure where to go after the observation in (4) - but if it would help a compromise to provide explicitly that styles are not to be used for US politicians, then I for one would accept that.
 * (6) At present, I do not think we often use styles for people living wholly before the 20th century - and even less often for those living wholly before the 19th century. I wouldn't want a hard and fast rule that they are never used for such people, but would not object to noting that WP usually does not use them for those people.

Kind regards, jguk 09:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My responses to your numbered points follows. I think it is premature (we've got a week to go yet) to assume that we won't have a useful result from the survey, but it does not hurt to discuss contingencies if we aren't disruptive to the current vote in doing so.


 * (1) If the Condorcet majority winner of this survey does not carry a supermajority, I believe we can use CSSD to find the least opposed which may form the basis of a consensus.
 * You keep saying this, and I think it's a misunderstanding of Condorcet. Condorcet methods don't find the "least opposed" anything. They find the option that is preferred by a majority to every other option. I like the fact that you used a Condorcet vote here so people wouldn't have to worry about strategy, but your defense of it is kind of strange. RSpeer 16:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Condorcet is a class of methods, of which Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping is the specific method that has been declared for the purpose of counting the votes in this survey. There is a distinction here that makes it possible to actually find the least opposed choice when the most preferred option may not carry a sufficient majority to be considered a consensus. What we do, after the votes are in, is compare each set of pairwise defeats and then begin dropping weakest defeats (those that are most closely tied -- ambiguity resolution) until achieving the result set which satisfies the criterion of success. In elections, this generally means just a simple majority, but we can carry the procedure forward to a supermajority. Since it requires a bit more calculation and explanation than using the online calculator (which assumes we only want a majority result), I don't want to go through this process every time someone votes or changes their preferential rankings, but when the poll is concluded it should be done at least to give us an indicator of voting sentiment. Whig 03:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (1) I don't think a different experimental voting method will be helpful - and we already have the views of a wide range of editors, many of who chose to express detailed preferences, others who chose explicitly not to make preferences between options they reject. WP uses consensus - if there is no "supermajority", then there is no consensus so we can't be definitive about it. That's always a shame, but much better than continuing discussions ad infinitum, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, nobody is claiming that this is a poll that decides anything. It's just a straw poll that tries to find out what people think about various way to resolve an issue. Based on everybody's response, we can either try to work out a proposal that will be acceptable to most people, or find out that we're too polarized on the issue for any of the options to be universally acclaimed. Maybe we will find that we don't agree on the basic presumptions, which might encourage us to discuss them. I'd start by pointing out that unqualified use of honorifics and styles is at least controversial (as this whole discusssion shows), so it's clearly not NPOV. But maybe we should wait until the poll is over. Zocky 19:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (2) Clarification of style doesn't seem especially helpful, because if you try to apply a very legalistic and non-commonsense definition that amounts to a question of how many angels dance on the head of a pin, the vast majority of Wikipedia readers and editors will nonetheless be unaware or unable to comprehend it. Formal manner of address is a good enough common sense understanding, and even if you want to use only those formal usages which customarily persist through the duration of life and beyond, then US Presidents would certainly be included in this definition.
 * (2) I'm quite aware that a straightforward and direct application of what is currently stated would mean that all US Presidents and Governors would have "President" or "Governor" at the start of the articles. I'm also aware that those article never have done that. Personally, I would have no problem with them changing to be prefixed by President and Governor - but am suggesting otherwise to try to find a sensible way forward, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (3) Your position is inconsistent. Either we should use customary formal styles regardless of nationality, or else exceptions should be carved out in a better NPOV fashion than simply excluding American usages.
 * (3) It was a suggestion to try to break the deadlock. And there's nothing wrong per se in being inconsistent here - very few WP guidelines are rock-ribbed. Also, I don't agree it's a NPOV question - however, if you have a better way forward, having regard to the comments above, I will look forward to reading it (but as noted above - I do not think more votes are what is wanted at this stage - instead I prefer reflection on what has gone on above), jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (3) How about I invert your suggestion, and restate my previously suggested compromise proposal to use styles given to royalty and nobility exclusive of any styles given on account of any political, religious, tribal or administrative position or office. Whig 05:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (4) I don't know the geographical location of each voter, so I'm not sure how we can determine that the division of opinion is based upon nationality. Perhaps we can derive a little bit of inference from the particular differences in spelling where people leave comments, but I don't know how strongly we can make the correlation and I don't really see why it should matter. For instance, I am American but I preferred Alternative 2 as my first choice, although it is least preferred by most ballots at the moment, because I think it can work as a compromise if a good NPOV rule of exception can be carved out and accepted.
 * (4) Sometimes it's obvious from user pages. Eg if someone says "I am German" or "I live in Augusta, Georgia" it's a bit of a giveaway. Also, if a user does a lot of edits on pages relating to a small locality, it's a fair bet that user is from there. However, it is impossible to gauge this for all users. I was merely noting an interesting geographical split, which seems not to be coincidental, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (5) Your proposal here is not a good NPOV rule of exception, simply "excluding Americans" is offensive.
 * (5) It's not meant to be offensive, just a suggestion of how to proceed forward. I was trying to recognise the cultural differences which appear to underlay many of the comments that have gone above. As noted above, personally I would have no problem adding "Governor" and "President" prefixes, but I note that it would cause a lot of concern if I tried to do that - and so I will not. I am trying to be pragmatic - I am not trying to construct a logically secure rigid new policy. I look forward to your proposals, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * (6) This observation might be helpful, but I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it into a NPOV rule of exception. Frankly, I may be underestimating the difficulty of such a task and if one cannot be made, then I don't see how we can use prefixed styles in any cases without a purely subjective determination on individual pages which violates NPOV.
 * (6) I think you misunderstand POV - objectively reporting what goes on in the world without comment is never NPOV. And, of course, though you may like it, your conclusion is clearly not accepted by a large proportion of WPians. I said at the start that WP has gone through phases of not having styles, then more and more being added, some then being removed again, and then more coming back. I honestly don't think that we will have a final permanent solution on this - regardless of how much goodwill there is on all sides. WP has never had a fully integrated ruleset on style (see how much the WP:MOS has to say that we accept all language styles, rather than being definitive on points). We normally muddle along somehow - and just concentrate debate on a small number of difficult pages - where normally the disputants end up resolving the issues on the talk pages. I'm honestly sceptical that this will change - which is why I go back to re-stressing my point (1) and that following these discussions, I think we should agree that no-one goes on a specific campaign to search out pages without styles and deliberately add them, or alternatively to search out pages with styles and remove them. Kind regards, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your constructive suggestions, it is refreshing and appreciated. Whig 16:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think discussing things civilly can always help. We do, however, have to come to terms that a definitive result is probably impossible to achieve here - and to find a pragmatic way forward, not necessarily a logically consistent one, jguk 16:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This business of the geographical divide is overstated. Americans are perfectly able to understand what a style is and the arguments about how we should include them. I'm very conscious of US-centrism on Wikipedia but if option 3 was to win this would not be an example of it. Many of us who oppose the unqualified use of styles on NPOV grounds are not American, and it doesn't follow that Americans would automatically go for this option without understanding why someone would advocate option 1. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 10:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whilst I'm sure what you say is mostly true, it is unfortunately not generally true. For instance, Lulu is opposing "His Holiness" on the grounds that he doesn't think the pope is holy (In reality, of course, I never actually stated any opinion on Wikipedia about whether the pope is or is not holy Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters). Though as you imply, most do not go out of their way to read so much into the style.


 * Also, as I'm sure you appreciate, that observation was part of a larger observation about how to move on so go back to improving WP. Kind regards, jguk 10:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Another point to bring out about the style "His Holiness" is that those who do not practice Catholicism will be "sacarelgious" (is this the right term to use) to call the Pope by his official style. I also do think we should make it clear that the uses of his styles endorses nothing and that every page should make the finial decision on styles. Zscout370 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * However, that is highly inconsistant, and no page can really agree on it. John Paul II has had a number of edit wars over the issue, as has Pope Benedict XVI. It simply is not normal for neutral sources to do it the way jguk wants; no other encylcopedia I have ever seen (including the Brittanica) prefaces the Pope's name with His holiness. I don't see it as neutral. People complain about mention of Benedict's guarding plants using slave labor, but they don't have trouble inserting His holiness before his name. I might also add that "his holiness" does, in fact, imply he is holy. People use styles because it makes them seem grander than they really are; holy, honorable, majestic, ect. Styles use real words because they are meant to convey that those who possess said styles ARE in fact those things. They aren't neutral, and cannot be reasonably neutrally applied. If you came to a page proclaiming someone the savior of earth because that was their style, and it was on Wikipedia, and you'd never heard of it before, would you respect us as a neutral source as much? I know I wouldn't.


 * You clearly, along with Lulu, misunderstand how styles are used. As Trilobite notes above, most people do not have this misunderstanding, jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I might also add that jguk is utterly ignorant of styles in the US. A president is refered to as President X for the rest of their lives, even after they have left the presidency. President Clinton is still called such, as is President Carter. If we include styles on non-Americans, we need to include them on Americans as well. Fact of the matter is, the press does not refer to the Queen of England as "her majesty", but I hear them call former presidents "President" all the time.


 * I'm so ignorant of this I referred to the point directly above! jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We need to have a single, unified policy, and excluding US citizens from that would definitely be POV. I'm hearing accusations of Amerocentrism, but in reality it seems that jguk simply does not want to give Americans styles more commonly used by netural sources than the Pope or the Queen's styles are! It is simply illogical and counterintuitive.


 * Why do we need a single, unified policy? We've never had one in the 4 years of WP before, and as this page has already demonstrated, we are unlikely to find consensus on one now. It's also been noted above (I forget by who) that the MoS is a guideline, it is not binding - each page will do what is most natural to it, jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for not forming a consensus - it is too early to predict that (Though that is how it looks), but how many people who voted for one voted for three as their second choice, and vice-versa? It doesn't seem to be such a deep divide.


 * It's not too early to predict that - there are already clear divides above, jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, as jguk was the source of all this strife, making the edit to the honorifics section of the biography page oh so long ago to support his position that Pope John Paul II should have His holiness put before his name, maybe all this would not have happened. And now he is complaining still, perhaps because at this point it looks like we're going to be able to remove it and be able to state firmly that it is in fact Wikipedia policy not to put styles before names.


 * An edit to the MoS to reflect what was happening in practice hardly makes me the source of this strife! jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's get this straight:
 * You kept on editing the Pope John Paul II entry, adding His holiness before his name, contrary to the desires of other editors.
 * You then decided to unilaterally change the actual page outlining the rules, WITHOUT consensus.
 * You then cited your changes to aforementioned page as a reason why the Pope should have His holiness before his name.
 * There was no consensus and you unilaterally changed the biography page, and now you are whining about consensus? I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly with me. You don't care about NPOV. Yes, I'm from the United States, but the only reason you know that is because of my user page. The articles I have edited usually have little to nothing to do with the United States directly. Evolution, Atheism, the two Popes, Lucian Pulvermacher, Satanism, Otherkin - these are what I have on my watchlist. The only thing I have which explicitly is US is the presidential election of 2008, and I only watch it.
 * I've cited other encyclopedias and the press as reasons why it is not NPOV to add styles in before names. You, however, are simply denying that it is POV to add them. Show some evidence. Styles are meant to convey that the person having them actually IS what their style conveys; that is why they are "normal" words.
 * YOU unilaterally changed the page, and now you are claiming you were wronged. I'm sorry, but given your behavior in the past and the allegations by several users that you were doing all this in bad faith should at least give you some pause. You are claiming we are changing policy without consensus, but you DID change policy without even a nod at it. I would argue that you are in fact the source of the strife because you were the one who changed the page and one of the people who engaged in the edit war on the Pope John Paul II article in order to append His holiness to his name. Titanium Dragon 23:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We need to form a policy on the issue, and doing it article by article simply won't work because different editors have different PoVs and many will push them. How many people will defend Dear leader versus His holiness, despite the fact that people are ascribed with both styles. One is a Communist and the other is an ex-Nazi, one is an unpopular leader who has a cult of personality among his own people and the other is despised by many and venerated by others. Honestly, the whole issue is farcical. It is PoV to give one the style while denying it to the other, and moreover is highly inconsistant. Titanium Dragon 11:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As stated above - we have never had a policy on this before, and are unlikely to find consensus on one now. The idea that reporting a style is POV is, quite frankly ridiculous. It is also quite clear that you understand nothing about the real situation and are just politicking. Kim Jong-il is not regularly termed "Dear Leader" now, not even by the North Koreans. Nor was "Dear Leader" ever a formal style. We do have styles on unpopular, and quite dispicable people. See Dipendra of Nepal, who murdered his family and spent the whole of his reign in a coma after he shot himself.


 * Finally, it is unfortunate that you are still trying to get at me rather than looking forward positively and constructively towards resolving this issue so we can get back to improving WP. Kind regards, jguk 12:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that having a consistent rule for all biographies on wikipedia is not practical. My impression is that some people don't like the "His holiness" for popes, and are essentially saying that those articles must be changed, because we need a consistent rule, and applying styles to everyone is absurd, therefore we must be neutral and consistent, and give styles to no one. I disagree with that premis. For American politicians, styles are almost never used, except in odd formal occasions. For a few people (like the The Prince of Wales) they are often refered to be their titles or styles (I don't even know what the real name of Prince Charles is). As for John Paul II, none of those words are actually the person's real name (in the usual sense of the word name), and I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about whethor he is called "His holiness" or some such. I do suggest that editing other articles (like Hillary Clinton) to make a point is a bad idea, although it was effective in getting more people aware of this issue. Morris 03:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not at all absurd, and you are missing the point entirely. My point is that neutral sources do not use styles for anyone, period. The Vatican uses His holiness for the Pope, but CNN doesn't. CNN doesn't call the Queen of England Her majesty. Nor do encylcopedias, including the Brittanica. It is just as wrong to apply styles to either.
 * As for Americans not often getting styles... judges get them all the time. How often do people in England get styles? I would wager the only times they are usually given their styles is formally.
 * Prince Charles' last name is (IIRC) Windsor. And being referred to as President, Pope, Prince, Duke, ect. is not at all the same as being called by your style. I might say "the President of the United States" for Bush, or "The Prince of Wales" for Prince Charles, but that is much different from referring to the Pope as His holiness. "Pope" is his position/job, which is quite different from his style His holiness. Titanium Dragon 05:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Debian's Use of the CSSD Method
The Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method is used by the Debian organization to count ballots, and is able to apply this to measures requiring a supermajority for passage by the method described below (taken from the Debian Constitution Section A.6.):

Note: Options which the voters rank above the default option are options they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default options are options they find unacceptable.
 * 1) Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred to all unranked options. Voters may rank options equally. Unranked options are considered to be ranked equally with one another. Details of how ballots may be filled out will be included in the Call For Votes.
 * 2) If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other than the default option which do not receive at least R votes ranking that option above the default option are dropped from consideration.
 * 3) Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
 * 4) Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who prefer option A over option B.
 * 5) An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
 * 6) If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio is S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.
 * 7) From the list of undropped options, we generate a list of pairwise defeats.
 * 8) An option A defeats an option B, if V(A,B) is strictly greater than V(B,A).
 * 9) From the list of [undropped] pairwise defeats, we generate a set of transitive defeats.
 * 10) An option A transitively defeats an option C if A defeats C or if there is some other option B where A defeats B AND B transitively defeats C.
 * 11) We construct the Schwartz set from the set of transitive defeats.
 * 12) An option A is in the Schwartz set if for all options B, either A transitively defeats B, or B does not transitively defeat A.
 * 13) If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we drop the weakest such defeats from the list of pairwise defeats, and return to step 5.
 * 14) A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if V(A,X) is less than V(B,Y). Also, (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) if V(A,X) is equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
 * 15) A weakest defeat is a defeat that has no other defeat weaker than it. There may be more than one such defeat.
 * 16) If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the winner is chosen from the options in the Schwartz set. If there is only one such option, it is the winner. If there are multiple options, the elector with the casting vote chooses which of those options wins.

While this description may seem a bit technical, it is used in actual practice and it seems to work well. While I don't expect everyone to understand the language, once the votes are concluded we can apply the method and see whether it gives us a useful result here. Whig 05:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If I can pipe up again: Most of the rules and sub-rules in CSSD are to address the case where there is no Condorcet winner. If there's no Condorcet winner, there is an extreme lack of consensus. You could replace all those rules with:
 * If one option beats all other options pairwise, that option will be considered to be the consensus choice.
 * What you've seen is that if people can't immediately understand a voting method, they reject it - often because they assume that you're hiding your own bias in the rules. The fewer rules you have to tell them, the better.
 * So why does Debian use CSSD instead of simple Condorcet? Because - particularly for things like electing the project leader - they're not just looking for a consensus, they want a result, even in the wackiest possible election.
 * RSpeer 05:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Rspeer, no, this language has been very specifically made to handle supermajority determinations where no result needs to beat the default, or in this case, Alternative 5. Debian Leader elections don't require a supermajority at all, but things like Constitutional Amendments require typically a 3:1 supermajority. The language isn't directly on-point to our case, insofar as we have no "elector with the casting vote" so in the case the final Schwartz set contains more than one option, we won't be able to say which one "wins" but we might have some useful information to help us build some kind of consensus after the vote, even if the "consensus" is that "there is no consensus" and that we ought to reflect this on the Manual of Style (biography) page. Whig 05:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If I can make a second reply, there may very well be a Condorcet winner in this survey (as there is presently), when the criterion is not defined to require a supermajority, whereas Debian (and we) want there to be a consensus stronger than a simple majority. Whig 05:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's still not that complicated. What you're looking for is a Condorcet winner that beats the default by 3:1. Just say that it has to be a Condorcet winner and beat the default by 3:1 to be a consensus. No beatpaths are necessary. RSpeer 06:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think your wording is excellent, unless multiple options beat the default by 3:1 and a cycle existed whereby each could defeat the other under some circumstance. This is when the CSSD method gets applied, but frankly, it's very rare that such cycles occur and it's not likely in this case (actually, three options would literally have to beat the default by 3:1 for this to even be mathematically possible!) Whig 07:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. If people wanted to move away from the status quo, strongly, in three different directions, with a cycle of preferences, that would indicate to me that the issue was so confused that no consensus was possible. RSpeer 15:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Since Alternative 1 is pretty much exactly what the status quo requires, if the result winds up that this option is not even the Condorcet majority winner, I think we have to acknowledge that there is no consensus for the status quo. If no other alternative achieves a sufficient supermajority against the default option, then we don't have a policy and we will either have to continue discussion towards reaching a new consensus or ultimately archive the survey and state on the MoS (bio) page that no consensus exists at this time. Whig 03:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Debian approach first excludes those options that are not preferred by MORE than 3:1 against the default. Of those which defeat the default, the Condorcet winner is found, and if a cycle exists, CSSD resolves the ambiguity. Your wording reverses the logic and I think doesn't work as well, because you could wind up with a Condorcet majority winner which is not capable of defeating the default, whereas another option might defeat the default but because it wasn't the Condorcet majority winner, you have a deadlock. Do you want to try a rephrase since you seem to be better at putting things in less technical terms than I am? Whig 07:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not Debian. Gentgeen 05:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. And we're not bound by this language. It's just a useful approach that is used in practice by which we can gauge the results of the survey. Whig 05:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If we do want to compare each alternative pairwise with the default (none of the above) option, and if we want to require a 3:1 supermajority, then no option currently strictly defeats the default, so given the above rules, Alternative 5 wins right now. Whig 06:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * (Alternative 3 has precisely a 3:1 supermajority to the default, it just does not strictly exceed that ratio.) Whig 06:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As Gentgeen said: Wikipedia is not Debian. We operate by consensus - not strict interpretations of votes - regardless of how the votes are counted. If you had been a WPian longer, you would appreciate that. It's silly pretending there is a consensus where there is none - and then acting on it. Anyone doing that would piss off a lot of people very quickly. I strongly recommend that rather than trying to foist ever more complicated ways of counting votes on us that you look beyond mere votes. There are a lot of comments above that are relevant - please consider these - at present you are blinkered by each person's first two words! jguk 07:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No need for personal insults. I read and respond to all the comments that seem pertinent, and the comments people leave along with their votes do help others to consider reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with those preference rankings. In the course of these discussions, I've personally changed my vote since the inception of the survey, as have many others, and this is an ongoing process in pursuit of a consensus. At the end of the day (well, this week, actually), we do need to count votes, even if the result winds up being that we haven't achieved a sufficient supermajority for any alternative, because whatever result we get may be helpful in seeking a consensus after the survey concludes. And if we can't even get that, then we say that we have no concensus, note the MoS (bio) page appropriately, and figure out what to do next. (I really would prefer we get this settled and behind us, however.) Whig 08:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no personal insult there - certainly none was intended. It'd probably be best leaving off editing the MoS (bio) page till the issue is sorted. As I note above, I think it behoves all of us not to rush out and change lots of pages - there is clearly no consensus here, and it would only piss a lot of people off if anyone made substantial changes as a result of their chosen interpretations of what's gone above (and that's a comment directed at everyone and not specifically at any one WPian), jguk 08:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at Jguk's recent change history, you'll see it consists largely of unilateral changes to support his interpretation of the ongoing vote (including to the MoS). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:07, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

"gaming the system"
Lots of people are suddenly casting full votes, and expressing regret that they have to "game the system".

This is not gaming, it's the system working correctly. You were "gaming the system" when you voted for only one choice, thinking that would somehow make your vote stronger. Of course, it doesn't; it gives less information and makes your vote weaker, so it wasn't a very good strategy for "gaming".

In short: You chose not to express any preferences besides alternative 1 before, therefore making alternative 3 tied for your second choice.

Whig even said as much, but you assumed he was trying to manipulate your votes. Whig's fault was in picking a complicated enough voting method that it looked like he had to be manipulating something.

But how would you expect to show your lack of support for alternative 3 without indicating it somewhere in your vote? Don't be shocked about your vote being ineffective when you abstain!

RSpeer 18:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems completely perverse to me to say that, if you want your views to have equal weight with others, you have to express "preferences" between 4 options, all of which are unpalatable and unacceptable to you - and that failure to do so counts against you.


 * Nothing counted against your first choice preference for #1. The point is that you clearly do have preferences between the other 4 options, as Zocky points out below, and you chose not to express them. The preferences you didn't express, such as your preference for #5 over #3, don't show up in the vote. Does this "count against you"? Only in the way the Iraqi presidential election "counted against" the Sunnis who didn't vote. RSpeer 21:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope I never see this method of voting on WP again - we should seek consensus - not allow ourselves to become a testing ground for new voting methods (especially as I know at least one of the contributors to this page has a financial interest in promoting such voting methods and showing that they work in practice! (though he seems to have been proved wrong here)), jguk 20:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Jguk, I'd like to know who you claim "has a financial interest" in promoting Condorcet voting methods, and upon what basis you lodge this claim? Whig 07:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk, what I fail to understand is how is #5, none of the above i.e. throw out the poll, unpalatable and unacceptable to you, when most of your other comments claim exactly the opposite.
 * And this way of voting - numbering options in order of preference - is actually nothing new on Wikipedia. Whether the methods of counting that Whig proposes are appropriate is open to discussion, but to claim the vote itself is somehow complicated or confusing is quite an exaggeration. Zocky 20:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Jguk, it seems that you similarly have a vested interest against Condorcet voting, because it's showing support for an option you don't like. RSpeer 21:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * My one and only vote had three purposes:
 * Voting for #1, by far my prefered option
 * Expressing my opposition to the voting system
 * Expressing how much I didn't understand the voting system.
 * However, as I understand it, my changed votes have not made a difference. The only contest was between #1 and #3, and my preference is still for #1 over #3. As the votes were not scaled, the overall effect of my votes was the same.  If it wasn't, then this system is way too difficult to understand.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, your preference is still #1 over #3, and nothing is scaled. The point of ranking your other preferences is so that you still express an opinion (like #5 over #3) if #1 doesn't win. RSpeer 21:47, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've written some stuff about how this kind of vote should work at a non-policy page: How to hold a consensus vote. RSpeer 02:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I really disagree with a great deal of your page. I agree with the first part, that discussion should always precede any sort of survey, and only be resorted to when there are clear divisions of opinion that are not going to be resolved without going to the time and trouble of voting. We discussed the issues here for many weeks without resolution before a survey was proposed, and then spent another week discussing the survey before it was submitted.


 * You make several false assumptions, however, that follow after this. The most important objection I have is to your preference for simplistic systems that are easily gamed/manipulated. The second objection I have is to assume that default = status quo. If the status quo is being questioned, then the default must be no consensus for or against the status quo, and the proper policy is therefore undetermined. If I weren't so busy at the moment with the present survey, and maybe when this vote is concluded, I'd be interested in discussing your proposals in more depth. However, I do feel that the method used here has prevented a rump of determined individuals from dictating a policy against a majority who oppose it. Whig 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I used "status quo" roughly synonymously with "no consensus". It makes sense to me - you have no consensus before the vote, or else you wouldn't be having the vote, so the status quo is to have no consensus after it. Is this oversimplifying?
 * Your other complaint - that the methods I recommend are "too simplistic" - shows an extreme lack of pragmatism, just like in the way you set up this vote. I have observed many Wikipedia votes, and invariably the more complicated a vote is, the more likely it is to fail. Just like this one is failing.
 * Basically, I've seen two extremes now. jguk says that Condorcet should never be used on Wikipedia, and you seem to be saying that Condorcet should always be used (and you also seem to want not just Condorcet but CSSD). Both of them are unreasonable positions to take, and yours is more unrealistic as well.
 * RSpeer 06:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have that extreme position. I think simple Approval voting is absolutely ideal when the question presented is a SINGLE decision, to be determined straight up or down. It's quick, painless and in the vast majority of cases, a consensus is found within a very short period of time. When there is more than one possible answer, Approval doesn't always work so well in practice, and strategic voting becomes very possible. I do think Condorcet methods including a default option are always preferable when there are more than two possible options being decided between. Whig 06:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I stand corrected: you support Condorcet in any case but the two-option case which has an obvious solution (and when you're having a single yes/no vote, you don't call it Approval, by the way.) That's still unreasonable. Most Wikipedians are not trying to manipulate the vote. The problem in this vote is that people are on the defensive because of the very long rules for the voting system - it looks like you manipulated it first. RSpeer 07:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * There was no manipulation. Whig 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A secondary reply. Those who seem to be most on the defensive are those who have been voting as a bloc for the status quo Alternative 1. Those who don't want prefixed-styles reverted have a vested interest in criticizing the survey because it has the possibility to challenge their current practice. A simpler voting system like Approval would probably have been much more easily dominated by a rump group of people who voted as a bloc. That doesn't work so well with this method. So, they don't like it. But I don't think that's an argument against the method. Whig 07:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the pro-formal-styles argument
Since it seems clear that the majority of folks here think this survey is an appropriate method of establishing style policy--a view I don't share, but so be it--I'd like to better understand the arguments. I hope that my question below is useful to others as well.

After reviewing the comments of voters, I remain baffled by the degree of support for including formal styles of address at the beginning of encyclopedia entries. While supporters have asserted that "the rest of the world does it" (or words to that effect), I'm not aware of any disinterested sources (i.e., encyclopedias, or reputable journalistic or academic publications) who employ such a convention in writing (unless the writing itself is directly addressing the titleholder, such as a letter addressed to the Pope, which is not relevant here). I see some charges of Amero-centrism; I'm in the US, am I oblivious to a different convention that prevails in Commonwealth countries? Some of the comments seem to imply as much, but I don't find specific examples. Do particular UK or Australian encyclopedias, for example, use formal styles in the way proposed here? Do reputable news magazines or academic articles do so? If not, what is the best case for adopting this convention? BTfromLA 19:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My basic view is that formal styles have the role of honorifics in many circumstances. I failed to see how "The Right Honourable Tony Blair" is any different from "Sir John Smith".  While referring to the Prince of Wales as "his royal highness" (or, in direct address, "your royal highness") is a style, and one which should not be used in references to him in the encyclopedia, he is formally known as "HRH The Prince of Wales," and in this instance "HRH" seems to me to also be an honorific, and not a whole style in itself.  As to your other questions - I looked in the Times, and they seem not to use full formal styles.  The Prince of Wales is simply "the Prince of Wales," not "HRH The Prince of Wales," in articles.  That said, I don't see why we should not use the full formal style as the initial description in the article.  Just as we give somebody their full name in the first mention, it seems to me that for completeness sake we ought to give the full style.  If we don't do this, it becomes difficult to know what, exactly should be the initial reference for articles on, say, British royal peers.  At any rate, my support for styles comes basically out of the feeling that the initial name given should be as full and formal as possible.  I also think that the distinction which others are making between honorifics (which are to be used) and styles (which, supposedly, are not) is being too finely drawn, so that it's hard to make the designation on styles  without some fairly strong overlap onto honorifics, since the two simply aren't clearly distinct. john k 19:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, John, here's how I (and I think many other people here) view it. An honorific is distinct from a style when it neutrally gives a positional office, as, for example, referring to "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" or "Pope Benedict XVI". In both cases, there is one important purpose in disambiguating the person being referred to from "some other person named Elizabeth/Benedict", and a second important purpose to inform the reader that "Elizabeth II is the Queen of the UK" and "Benedict XVI is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church." Without these honorifics, the reader may be actually confused because insufficient information is being conveyed to know who the article is about and what the person's official importance is.


 * On the other hand, styles like "Her Majesty" and "His Holiness" serve no similar purpose. They only tell the reader how the person may formally be addressed, which is not something the average reader needs to know at the outset of an encyclopedia article. Providing the style in the body of the article may be (and I agree) important information for some readers, but is it the most important thing the reader needs to know up front? (I'm not addressing the Queen, or the Pope, I just want to know who they are, their history, and other relevant facts about them, etc.) Whig 05:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your definition of an honorific is a strange one. I would normally think of "Pope" and "Queen" as titles, not honorifics.  Our own English honorifics (besides having a bizarre table that is inaccurate and which I just removed), says, "An honorific is something that is attached to the name but is not normally used elsewhere, e.g Mr, Sir, Mrs, Dr, Master. Contrast this with a title or position can appear without the person's name e.g the President, the Earl, and may be associated with a particular role or area, eg. the US President, Financial Director, Earl of Cornwall."  So "King" and "Pope" are not, so far as I am aware, honorifics at all.  "His Holiness" and "His Majesty" would fall under the category of honorigic, "Queen" and "Pope" would not.  The most notable use of (what are indisputably) honorifics in wikipedia is for knights and, for instance, sons of marquesses.  So for articles on baronets we start out with Sir Robert Peel, or for the younger son of a duke Lord George Hamilton (this honorific actually gets to be in the title of an article).  Neither of these explains who the person is unless you already know how baronets and younger sons of dukes are styled.  But the issue is not how people are addressed, but how they are known.  Juan Carlos is not simply addressed as "your majesty," but in formal situations, he is known as "His Majesty Juan Carlos I, King of Spain and the Indies, &c." or "His Majesty the King."  That makes the style, essentially, part of his name, and it's normally our policy to include the full name. john k 13:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Styles are part and parcel of life - they are just there much of the time, which is why deliberately omitting them seems unnatural. Every day I walk past a foundation stone unveiled by "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother" - if I watch the news, it is as likely to come up "The Rt Hon Tony Blair" as it is "Tony Blair". If we're talking about the Queen - "Her Majesty" may be used instead of "she". It's just not a big deal - it's part of life - and it's not as strong here in the UK as it is in some places (for instance, it would probably be considered somewhat disrespectful in Tonga to omit styles).


 * Part of the issue here is that WP is an international encyclopaedia - people cannot be expected to know what the right style is, and the right style is encyclopaedic information that we should include. This actually puts us ahead of some encyclopaedias that are rather remiss in not even reporting the fact. The other point is that some traditional British-oriented encyclopaedias will, no doubt, take the view that everyone (amongst their readers) naturally knows what the right style is - so why clutter the articles with info everyone knows?


 * The best case for adopting styles (rather than banning them) is that they are natural. We should not have a rule that requires us to report unnaturally or a rule that bans interesting (and sometimes useful) information. That does not mean we should go overboard and use styles at every opportunity (that would be unnatural too) - but we should permit writers to use language that is normal and natural to them.


 * The most straightforward way of doing this is to prefix the style at the front of the formal name right at the start of the name. Despite what some have said above, a style is not a big deal - we should therefore just report it, not give any undue attention to it, and move on. That is why I support Option 1 - it imparts information without over-egging things. It reports - it does not question. Option 3 gives undue attention to something in such a way as to question whether a style should be used or not (which isn't what we should be doing) - or otherwise gives rise to nonsensical formulations such as "Pope Benedict XVI, styled His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI....". Unnatural formulations such as that always beg the question - why has it been adopted - and that's where we have difficulties again. Kind regards, jguk 19:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Jguk has repeated this point many times, and I think I understand where he is coming from. Living within an environment where formal styles are used on a regular basis, they would seem like no big deal and just part of life. Likewise, for a North Korean, however, Dear Leader (though apparently no longer being officially used) might seem like no more of a big deal than Her Majesty might seem for a British subject. The point is, Jguk is a British subject, he sees the world through a perspective uniquely British, or at least uniquely different from the perspective an American or national of some other non-Commonwealth country might have. I can tell you that in America, the style Her Majesty is absolutely never seen, it is very unusual indeed. Nor would our papers ever refer to the Pope as His Holiness and that may be a more important point, because we have a much stronger and historical separation of church and state (and even the "Christian right" is neither Catholic nor Anglican). What is "no big deal" for someone who encounters a certain thing daily is not universally so. Whig 05:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whig, it has never been demonstrated that "Dear Leader" even was a style in the same sense that "His Majesty" is. I would add that while the press itself doesn't use the style, they do frequently quote people using styles.  I would further add that wikipedia is not a newspaper. At any rate, it's still not been demonstrated in what way these styles are a big deal. john k 13:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me add,, which shows the South African Broadcasting Corporation using "his holiness" to refer to the pope. A simple google news search for "Her Majesty" reveals numerous references to Elizabeth II (and various other queens) as "Her Majesty" in various world press outlets.  .  So, to put it simply, you guys are just wrong. john k 13:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Where are these papers? Unsuprisingly, Commonwealth countries. Moreover, in many cases the results don't even mention the Queen! Some only have the words "her majesty" in the title, and oftentimes are doing so in reference to an organization with "her majesty" as part of the name. Moreover, most of these sources are obscure at best; I haven't noticed many sources I've heard of before in the list; the only one I recognized was The Mirror, and when it used it it used her majesty rather than the Queen or Queen Elizabeth; it didn't use it as a style but rather as a pronoun, and in other countries with prominant royalty it would be quite confusing. Titanium Dragon 21:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically, formal styles are not used by any reputable journalist or academic publication, in any country or region (including not by Encyclopedia Britannica and other British publications). Except as a form of direct address (rather than as description).  However, a few (pro-) Catholics feel so strongly that the pope must be called "His Holiness" that they conclude "bugger all else" if they think it can get that style into his article.  It's notable that not a single Alternative 1 voter has provided one single citation for anyone outside of Wikipedia ever using the style (except, e.g. the Vatican or other direct follower of a particular styled person). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:26, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Let people speak for themselves. john k 01:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have deleted profanity in the above comment. The comment was otherwise left intact. Whig 02:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess. I probably shouldn't have said it, anyway.  That said, I'm getting really sick of TD and Lulu's attacks on other people's motives. john k 02:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S., I am much more concerned about British styles than about that of the Pope. Since the addition of styles actually started with British styles, rather than the pope, I would suggest that this is true of most of us. john k 01:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also,, , . john k 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Those links are irrelevant. Why? The search for evil pope brings up nearly as many results as for her majesty. So obviously the Pope is evil! Google has spoken!
 * The number of google results is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the question. Saying the internet is a disinterested source is just plain silly; many, perhaps most websites have agendas. Titanium Dragon 21:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Gaming the system", equality of preference
To all of you who have used the phrase "gaming the system" in fleshing out your votes: it's not "gaming" the system. Condorcet/Beatpath (Beatpath == CSSD) was openly announced as the voting system, and Condorcet has rules. Just because you're not aware of the rules and expect "first and only choice" to mean something it doesn't, doesn't mean you're gaming the system once you alter your vote so it does mean what you intended.

By the way: Condorcet does not require strict ranking. You could have given your vote as Third choice, Fifty-fourth choice, fifty-fourth choice, Eighteenth choice, Ninety-fifth choice, and that would correspond to a ballot 1>4>2=3>5. I daresay poor Whig would prefer you don't leave gaps (and we'd all like to be able to read the votes without a spreadsheet), but expressing equality of options, like that vote as "First/Third/Third/Second/Fourth", should be perfectly allowable. Whig? TreyHarris 21:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gosh, please don't do that. It is not strictly prohibited by Condorcet rules to use random numbers to rank your preferences, but we want to be able to reasonably infer voter intention from the ballots cast. Some people have voted a First and Fifth choice, for instance, in which case, a strict reading might say that the other three options are ranked BELOW Fifth, but this is clearly not the voter's intention. First/Third/Third/Second/Fourth isn't too hard to figure out because all options are ranked, and you are certainly allowed to rank choices equally. Whig 02:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to say, by the way, that those who are intentionally trying to game the system are being intentionally disruptive. The nice thing about Condorcet voting is that it doesn't really work. The most that can be said for the attempt is that it failed, and while we currently are locked in a Condorcet cycle, with no supermajority for any alternative, this too is a result. It means that there is no current consensus for the status quo and while perhaps we may not be able to establish a new style guide in its place, we can then defer the question to individual page editors or perhaps seek some guidance from the Wikimedia Foundation. Whig 05:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
Can we get a discussion here on whether the non-Wikipedia-standard vote here will actually lead to a consensus policy? Since this vote does not establish consensus, can we even say that the results will be binding? My opinion is no. RickK 05:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we wait until the voting is closed before we decide that no consensus will emerge? People continue to vote and some who have voted continue to change their rankings. We can certainly talk about what alternatives we may have if a consensus fails, but we should not prematurely assume that it will. Whig 06:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote Corralling
Per requests, this section is being archived to reduce the level of incivility here. Whig 21:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes from bogus user?
I don't want to offend anyone, and I hope I'm posting this message to the right page. I have a query about two votes which were posted anonymously (from computer number 66.82.9.22) according to the history of the page, yet were signed as from houshuang according to the page itself. The first vote, at 19.54 on 9 May, was First choice for Alternative 4. The diff is here. The second vote, made one minute later, was Second choice for Alternative 3. The diff is here. Houshuang seems to be a valid user - I had a look at his page yesterday - and I have no wish to deny him a valid vote. But if he was not logged in, then the ~ would not have produced his user name. If he was logged in, then the history of the page would show that those two edits were made by him, rather than by a computer number.

As far as I can see, any anonymous user could look through Wikipedia to find some users that are unlikely to visit this particular page, and could then enter this page anonymously, and vote by signing something like A.N.Other. It would then appear on the page as A.N.Other, and the time could be added.

I have had a look at the contributions of computer 66.82.9.22 and there are very few. I can see nothing that would connect it to houshuang.

Whig, since you seem to be organizing this vote, perhaps you could check this out? Many thanks. Ann Heneghan 09:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I will post a Talk query to houshuang. If the votes are not properly authenticated, they will be discarded. Whig 09:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I noticed the edits and had asked him about it two days ago. Since he never replied, I think his votes should be flagged as coming from an anon (but not removed), and if no reply is forthcoming by the end of the vote they should not be counted. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 07:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have so far not received a reply from houshuang. I have followed Asbestos advice and flagged the vote; it is not included in the current results and will not be counted in the final tally unless authenticated before then. Whig 12:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes from Carnildo
I do not believe the current votes of User:Carnildo should be counted. Although the (non-contiguous) numbers given are technically orderable (5>3>1>4>2), there does not seem to be any intention to express meaningfully preferences among the alternatives (rm this comment if remedied). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 2005 May 11 (UTC) (comment withdrawn)


 * I think it was a perfectly valid protest vote, and since all options are ranked, it would be improper not to count them. Whig 20:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bratsche talk random 21:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Votes from Hoary
User:Hoary provided only partial votes (with commentary). But per the prior stated policy of Whig (which seems consensus, and reasonable), Hoary's votes for "first", "second" and "fifth" only should be taken to mean no preference among the non-voted choices--but all of them below first/second and above fifth. In other words: 4>5>2=3>1. (no criticism of Hoary meant here, just a clarification of apparent intent) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:29, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time; I'm sorry that I seem to have wasted it. -- Hoary 07:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

What we learned so far and finding out more
Aside from its varying success as an experiment in preferential voting, this poll seems to show that opinions are too polarized to reach a consensus at this time, but it also helps crystallize the debate. The main points seem to be:
 * (1) Should Wikipedia describe the styles that are used for certain people?
 * (2) Should Wikipedia employ styles that are used for certain people, as a matter of principle?
 * (3) Where should those styles be described and/or employed (in the title of the article, at the start of article, when referring to the person, in the article about the position that brings the style, etc.)?

Nobody is arguing against describing styles, so we have consensus on (1). (3) is entirely dependent on whatever we agree on for (2), so it should be dealt with after (2) is decided. So, (2) is what we have to decide on.
 * There is consensus on (3) that styles should not be employed in the title of the article. Whig 06:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

To allow further discussion to concentrate on the issue, here's a list of facts to consider when deciding on the question, as well as justificiations for both YES and NO. "Facts to consider" are non-disputed bits of information which may be helpful in answering the question. Justifications are accurate explanations of why the answer is correct in view of those supporting the answer.

This list is a collaborative project. It has no bearing on the currently on-going vote. Please be bold in editing this list (i.e. add or edit your or other people's text), but don't try to falsify either position. To keep this list useful, please keep it in list form (i.e. a sequence of one-liners, no signatures) and add any comments and discussion below the line. If you wish to comment on a justification or a fact to consider, please consider copying it to the comments section. Thanks. This is not a poll. Zocky 17:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia employ styles for people, as a matter of principle?
where employ means "use as a prefix to a person's name when writing in neutral encyclopedic tone". Also, see the explanation just above.

YES, because
 * Employing them is less intrusive than describing them
 * They are no big deal to many people

NO, because
 * It's regarded as POV by at least a substantial minority
 * Other reference works don't use them, therefore not using them is not POV
 * Use of styles in neutral prose is quaint
 * Styles are used selectively
 * Styles are reverted when used in many cases
 * Styles are either meaningful or redundant

Facts to consider
 * The English Wikipedia is written in English
 * The English Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia
 * Styles should be described
 * Styles are not a part of a person's name
 * Most styles are associated with an office or position
 * Most styles are meaningful phrases
 * NPOV trumps consensus for the Wikipedia

Comments:
 * Obviously, I support NO, so I won't pretend to be able to accurately desribe the opposite position. Zocky 17:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I also support NO, but I believe I understand the opposite position, and have tried to fairly represent some of the YES arguments. Whig 06:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * How can NPOV trump consensus? The only way to agree on what is NPOV is via consensus. I'd also question the "styles are not a part of a person's name" fact to consider.  I think it can be argued, at least, that styles are part of a person's proper, full name, at least in some sense. john k 14:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right on point one. While there's no consensus, there's no NPOV. Would you care to elaborate on the second point? Would Ratzinger's full papal name be "Benedict XVI" or "His Holiness Benedict XVI"? Zocky 16:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * With people with titles, which parts are "name" and which parts are not becomes sticky. The Prince of Wales, for instance, is normally called "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales."  In full legal documents, I believe he would be (although I am not certain of this) "His Royal Highness the Prince Charles, Prince of Wales."  This would suggest that this is his full name, including the "HRH". Similarly, one might suggest that "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" is the pope's full name.  This is certainly arguable, but it is at least a matter of dispute. john k 17:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * John K is wrong on point one. Read NPOV and understand that it is a hard and fast rule of Wikipedia. Not subject to be contravened even by consensus. The question as to whether the use of styles violates NPOV is subject to debate and discussion, but the fact that NPOV trumps consensus on the Wikipedia is not in any doubt whatsoever. Whig 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I also take issue with John K's point 2. A person's name does not include whatever titles, honorifics or styles he or she may have, as may be adduced by the fact that Benedict XVI would not refer to himself as "My Holiness." Nor would Prince Charles refer to himself as "My Royal Highness." Etc. It's just silly. Whig 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Whig, if everyone agrees that to put something in would be POV, but they want to do it anyway, then obviously such a consensus would be invalid. I defy you to find a single example of this happening.  Even most people agree that something is NPOV, and one other person comes in claiming it is POV and has to be changed, despite a long consensus, that single person's claim of POV does not trump consensus.  The basic fact is, NPOV is meaningless as long as people can't agree what is NPOV - which is the likely situation in any dispute.  Putting it there as a principle seems to imply that any claim of POV should be enough to destroy a consensus, which is bullshit.  As to point 2, would you like to tell us what the Prince of Wales's name is, please?  Hint: It's not "Charles Mountbatten-Windsor."  Peerage titles, at least, are very definitely parts of someone's name.  Whether the rest is is more disputable, but it's certainly not clear cut. john k 23:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to be a bit clearer, "NPOV trumps consensus" is true in a narrow sense, but entirely meaningless, since that narrow sense never arises. Given that fact, the only reason to list it as a principle is to give support to the position that even if there's a consensus that styles should be in, it would be invalid because styles are "POV," in spite of the fact that people dispute that they are POV. john k 23:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

As for POV or NPOV of using styles: Let's consider "his holiness" again. Atheists and agnostics might find it in bad taste, but we tell people who find other things in bad taste to go stuff it, so we could do the same here. But, have you considered people of other religious convictions? Is it blasphemous for an Orhtodox Christian or an orthodox Jew to call the pope holy? Can such a person contribute to an article which calls the pope holy? Do we want only people who don't object to popes being holy to edit pope articles? Zocky 00:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are all kinds of things that are considered blasphemous or wrong by various religions, so I would assume that there are religions that consider it so. But I don't think we can exclude information simply because there are people out there with religions that say certain things. So it seems to me that we should tell those people to go stuff it, too. I mean, our Jesus article doesn't say Jesus was the Son of God, but that hasn't prevented Christians from working on it. That said, as I have repeatedly pointed out, calling the Pope "His Holiness" does not actually mean that one thinks he's holy. To quote, yet again, the OED, definition #2 of holiness: With possessive, as a title of the Pope, and formerly of other high ecclesiastical dignitaries. That is the entire definition - the word holiness, when used with a possessive, can mean "a title of the pope, and formerly of other high ecclesiastical dignitaries." And that is all it means. It is a way of referring to someone without any direct connection to the more common meaning of "holiness" (although of course it derives from it.) john k 02:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Also notice that our Jesus article desn't call Jesus "Christ", but rather sensibly says that that's what Christians call him. Zocky 02:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A rather different thing, I think. It would be inaccurate to say that "Catholics call him His Holiness," since that is misleading - his holiness is a style appertaining to the pope.  Of course nobody is required to call him that, but nobody is required to call anyone anything in particular. john k 04:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think someone could say that "Christ" is an attribute appertaining to Jesus, and sincerely believe this is NPOV. However, a common understanding of the words "His Holiness" may take precedence over a very peculiar meaning used by stylists, and unless the style is linked to the particular definition (His Holiness) the definitional confusion would persist.
 * Furthermore, as listed under the NO heading above, "Styles are either meaningful or redundant." If "His Holiness" is not meaningful, but just a phrase appertaining to the title/honorific of "Pope" then it is redundant. All Popes are "His Holiness" by this implication and therefore ought properly to be included in the article on Popes (though I think the style of formal address may be considered useful information to be provided in the body of the article on the present Pope Benedict XVI). If the style is meaningful and hence not redundant, then it is inherently POV because would then imply the Pope to be holy, which many may indeed believe to be so, but it is hardly neutral to assert it without recognizing that not everyone may.
 * As for the phrasing, "Catholics call him His Holiness," I agree it is too limiting, as others do so as well, but the usage is far from universal. I think a better wording should be found. Whig 07:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the style is redundant. But the style is part of the way the person is officially referred to in the most formal situations, and the styles that pertain to various offices are not known by most people. For it to be pointless, it should have to be both redundant and obvious. Let me add that I agree that styles ought to be linked to articles about them. john k 16:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * the way the person is officially referred to in the most formal situations... This strikes me as something we might be having a communication noise about. Our (at least my) argument is that a wikipedia articles aren't and shouldn't be "formal" situation in the sense that deference applies. Zocky 07:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that nobody has actually said this - I would guess that certain brands of evangelical protestant would be the most opposed to this. We shouldn't be constructing arguments about what people with other religious beliefs would view as "blasphemous." I mean, Anglicans, who believe in the apostolic succession of bishops, but not in the claims of primacy of the Bishop of Rome, might find it offensive (theoretically) that we refer to the Bishops of Rome as "Popes," since it implies primacy that Anglicans don't recognize. But that doesn't mean we should stop referring to popes as popes because Anglicans might be too sensitive to contribute otherwise. john k 02:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that words don't always mean what they mean literally, and discussions over fine points of semantics are probably futile. OTOH, even if style by itself is not POV, that doesn't necessarily mean that the use of the style in Wikipedia articles is not POV. Zocky 05:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also say there is not consensus on 1; option number 4 has rather a lot of votes, and many have indicated not including styles at all would be quite acceptable to them. But I do agree that 3 most likely has consensus, given that I've never heard anyone arguing in favor of including styles in article titles, and heard many people say it would be too long for an article title (which I would agree with). Titanium Dragon 21:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Dragon, I think you mistook the (1) (2) and (3) up there to mean options #1, #2, and #3 in the poll. They in fact refer to my points above and nothing else. Zocky 01:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not. I was saying that 1 is not really consented on (that we should include styles in everyone's entry), given that alternative 4 is doing pretty well (and is in fact in the cycle of wins). Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying (maybe you're saying it should be described somewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps under Pope in the case of his holiness for the Pope, which I WOULD agree with), I meant that including the styles in every article is not necessarily something everyone agrees on; at least a substantial minority seems to say it should be relegated to the pages for the office (such as Pope) rather than put in every single biographical article. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No, because to employ these styles is to be unusually obsequious, and to no informative end. "His holiness" (for the Pope) seems to be one of those that are most discussed here: I believe I've encountered it, but I have never heard it in conversation (even conversation with people who appear to be practising Roman Catholics) and the newspapers, etc., that I read don't present it. Such etiquette trivia may be worth a mention somewhere, I suppose. How about chucking it all into an article on Prefixed honorary titles? I'll concede that this might have a certain bizarre fascination. -- Hoary 07:37, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Article 1, Section 8 US Constitution says that Americans may not accept titles. Perhaps this refers to not being allowed to inherit a title, but still being allowed to inherit property.

Whatever. Recently during Supreme Court hearings one of the judges objected because the lawyer did not say address his comment to a "Justice". He insisted upon being called "Justice" Judge Kennedy then pointed out that the US Constitution also makes that mistake. Frizb (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

External Style Usage
I find this discussion of outside use of styles extremely useful. However, this discussion page has grown huge, and this topic is independent of the vote/poll itself. I have split this discussion into an independent page: External Style Usage

Please Reconsider, Alternative One Voters
Obviously, everyone's vote is their own. However, I just now reviewed the vote comments, and noticed a fair number of voters rank alternative 1 (or alternative 2, to a lesser extent) highly, with an explanation along this line of "This is how the rest of the world does it, we should follow."

If you look at the link above to External Style Usage , you'll see that some of us have actually inventoried some outside sources, both printed references and journalistic sources and online publications. As a rule, essentially no identified publications use styles widely. The most "reputable" academic/reference works avoid them entirely. Those sources that use them tend to use them only in narrow context--the most common rule is that the national royalty within somewhat authoritatian societies are addressed (in newspapers of that nation) with styles, but no foreign figures are so addressed.

While WP has the right to set its own policy, a vote for alternative 1 is most certainly not a vote for conformance with widespread usage, but rather a vote to make WP different from (nearly) all other reference works. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)


 * Btw. I very much encourage editors to provide additional examples for the External Style Usage page. I hope to turn that topic into an independent article, so the more factual information in it, the better. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Survey completed
The vote ended with a cycle of preferences. I think that the only reasonable way to interpret this is as "no consensus", so we should have further discussion. /External Style Usage is a good start.

RSpeer 01:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. Further discussion (Alternative 5) was defeated by all other options. Alternative 2, which allowed for prefixed styles to be used selectively, was defeated by everything else. Therefore, either prefixed styles should be used in all cases (Alternative 1) or in no cases (Alternatives 3 and 4), and Alternative 3 defeated Alternative 1.

There will be a ratification vote posted shortly to accept or reject the prescriptive language of Alternative 3. Irrespective of the outcome of that ratification, NPOV trumps consensus and a majority found the status quo ante unacceptable. With or without specific language to be included in the Manual of Style (biographies) as to the appropriate mention of styles, the status quo ante is overturned. Whig 02:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't get carried away with voting. The way feelings run now, the proposal will not pass ratification vote and we'll have to go through the whole process again.
 * This whole thing should be archived and the results and main arguments tabulated. Then we should think about what next. There is no reason to assume that proponents of any option are unreasonable people, so there is a large probability that we have a misunderstanding here. We should try to find out what it is about and maybe we'll manage to put a more basic principle into words and make further heated debate redundant.
 * My candidate for the misunderstanding is that some people think that Wikipedia articles should be written in formal voice, and others disagree. If so, we should find out why both sides think what they think. Zocky 02:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * RSpeer's concern over the cycle of preferences notwithstanding, this outcome is not fatal to the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping method used for counting the ballots in this survey. Moreover, had we used any other counting method, the outcome would still be the same: Alternative 3 won an absolute majority of all ballots cast. While I agree that we should not get carried away with voting, a ratification vote is appropriate to determine whether or not a consensus for Alternative 3 exists. As you say, it may not, in which case Alternative 4 may implicitly prevail, but the status quo ante is overturned and no further debate or discussion is necessary to that conclusion. Whig 02:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think a 52% majority can be qualified as a consensus. Bratsche talk random 03:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why the question of convention is being subjected to secondary ratification. Whig 03:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If we were to nitpick, status quo ante would be in fact no styles, as the debate on this issue started the moment people started adding them, so consensus would technically have to be shown for their inclusion. But as said, let's concentrate on the editorial issue and let off the voting for a while. Zocky 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A cycle may not be fatal to CSSD, but it is fatal to Consensus. --Carnildo 05:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming a consensus for the prescribed convention. That is the purpose of the ratification process. Whig 06:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Status quo ante is what the MoS (bio) currently states, and which has now been overturned, hence ante. The ratification vote page is now posted &mdash; Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification Whig 04:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Whig, you are being absurd. The very notion that this absolutely ridiculous survey has had any impact on Wikipedia policy is utterly laughable. Stop making policy pronouncements as if you have some authority to do so. Proteus (Talk) 09:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh... actually, he's quite correct. There was, and has never been, a consensus on the use of styles in biographies. The edit war has crossed many pages, including the biography template page, which was modified by jguk and reverted by myself a few times. This is an attempt to build consensus. Titanium Dragon 23:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's been a consensus on the pages themselves for ages. Just because consensus isn't mentioned in the MoS doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Proteus (Talk) 07:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are...it's a duck." There is not concensus.  Nor is there uniformity.  The only uniformity that exists is enforced like dogma by a few users who point to the MoS, while ignoring it's provisions for flexability.  What's wrong with clarifying the policy?  I, for one, am sick of seeing people get their heads kicked in for trying to change things for the better.--ghost 13:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)