This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Biography page. |
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Disabilities are almost never mentioned in first sentences, just nationality and occupation. See Category:Deaf actors for examples. However this article (Kaylee Hottle) seems to be breaking established status quo. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 ( talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have been active in creating and editing business biographies here for many years. For a few weeks now I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc". The latter is more concise, and I think clearer and more neutral. The edit summary I have typically given is "copyedit, more neutral language". None of my edits have been reverted. On my talk page, User_talk:Edwardx#"serving_as"_non-neutral?, Anastrophe has asked "can you point me to the policy or discussion where it was determined that "serving as" is non-neutral language?".
MOS:OPENPARABIO reads "The first sentence should usually state ... One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I think that "serves as" is subjective and contentious. Private sector companies, PR and the business press encourage us to (at least subconciously) see some sort of equivalence between private sector business roles and what might traditionally have been called "public service".
For business biographies this seems clear-cut. But what about politicians, armed forces personnel, roles in not-for-profit organisations, and unpaid roles? I think that we should consider removing "serving/serves/served as" from all articles, and would much appreciate hearing the views of other editors. Edwardx ( talk) 19:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
"[...] I'm still unclear in what way describing someone as serving a particular position or role is non-neutral - it doesn't sympathize with nor disparage the subject in any way that I can discern. Politicians and military personnel work within the broader scope of what is commonly and accurately characterized as "public service". With the exception of extremely minor public service, such as serving on a small town's city council, where the members only fill that role part-time and earn a living elsewhere, those in public service aren't expected to work for free. Being paid doesn't change what their role is."
"But is that the case? I hate to throw out the original research argument, but that's what this appears to be. Absent a concrete policy stating that the terminology is overtly violating WP:NEUTRAL, rather than an individual editor's notion about what the term might mean, I think you should bring the matter up in the appropriate place for broader discussion, rather than imposing this as a blanket change. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support your opinion on this. I've seen 'serving as' used to describe a "low level" customer service representative position - that's why it's described as "customer service".
I see that @ Edwardx: continues to purge the terms "serves", "served" etc from articles, but with no rationale, just 'copyedit'. I repeat my objections - however mild - to this, as there's no policy or guideline or even reliable source that I can find that states that those terms are bad/wrong/inappropriate/manipulative/disembling/deceitful/nefarious/must be purged from Wikipedia.
I, and probably most people, wouldn't get the impression that Jamie Dimon is a public servant if his bio noted that he 'serves as the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of JPMorgan Chase'. I see no difference between "serves as", "acts as", "works as". It means filling a role and doing a job. It's plain english.
It doesn't praise or denigrate to say "X served as regional manager" rather than "X was regional manager", or even "X acted as regional manager". WP:ELEVAR suggests avoidance of excessive use of variable wording, particularly where it introduces confusion. I don't think it argues that variety in terminology is to be avoided at all costs.
As I suggested before, if an editor runs across an existing article and it uses 'is/was' or 'serves/served' etc., leave it as you found it, as both are reasonable. Absent some guidance that these words are problematic, I think that's a fair compromise.
As there's no clear consensus above, perhaps someone can link to any reliable sources outside WP that argues that there's something inherently problematic with the terms. I can't find any. The terms are used broadly in business, politics, academia, research, activism, and more. We shouldn't be making up language rules based on whims. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Collapsed below is a list of biography entries from brittanica.com. I've done my best to randomly poke around through different disciplines but it's obviously not comprehensive; in fact, the list is short, because I've spent way too much time finessing the formatting to wikitext; that's also why I haven't bothered with visiting the other online encyclopedias, I've put more than enough work into this as it is. I prefer to make decisions based on information, not speculation or personal observations in a vacuum.
I have excluded any person whose notability is primarily in public service – politicians, military leaders – or where the only use of 'serves/served/serving/' etc. is in regard public service outside of their primary notability. If I had included its use in public service bios, I'd estimate the list would be half-again larger.
The split between 'public service' and 'not public service' is not black & white at times, and I'm open to striking any for which a compelling argument against inclusion is tendered. I would note, however, that in earlier discussion the split was on formal public service, i.e. political/government/military service, which seemed less of an issue in discussion. Working for a publicly-funded organization, or one that receives some level of government funding, doesn't explicitly mean it's "public service", imo.
I've restricted findings to occurrences in the first or second graf; only the latter is noted when it occurs. Editor Edwardx is not confining the removal to the first or second graf, I would note – all instances are seemingly being removed, but I haven't reviewed every single edit; if I'm mistaken, apologies.
The only elisions are when the use is in the first sentence, as it would mean including birthdate/place etc.
I could discern no obvious inclination or reluctance on Brittanica in using the term. Brittanica seems to have no issue with its use in business bios. I acknowledge my own confirmation bias in this, as I hope others would of their own findings. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Click at right to show/hide ___
|
---|
André Lwoff – French biologist (2nd): Andrew Dickson White – American educator and diplomat (2nd): Anna Wintour – British editor (2nd): Azim Premji – Indian businessman: Barry Diller – American media executive: Beno Gutenberg – American seismologist (2nd): Carlo Rubbia – Italian physicist: Carol Ann Duffy – British poet: Columbus O'D. Iselin – American oceanographer (2nd): Craig C. Mello – American geneticist: (indirect usage) Denis Diderot – French philosopher: Dumas Malone – American historian, editor, author: Ellen Fitz Pendleton – American educator: Fenton J. A. Hort – British biblical scholar: Franz Mehring – German historian and journalist (2nd): Fukui Toshihiko – Japanese economist and banker: Georges Cuvier – French zoologist (2nd): Henry Dunster – American minister and educator (2nd): Hunter S. Thompson – American journalist (2nd): Ignacy Krasicki – Polish poet (2nd): Indra Nooyi – American business executive: Ita Buttrose – Australian journalist, editor, businesswoman: Jackie Milburn – British football player: James Manning – American educator: Jerzy Neyman – Polish mathematician and statistician (2nd): John McPhee – American journalist (2nd): John Pond – British astronomer: Lei Jun – Chinese entrepreneur: Lene Hau – Danish scientist: Lou Gerstner – American businessman: Maria Ramos – Portuguese South African economist and businesswoman: Marissa Mayer – American software engineer and businesswoman: Martin Evans – British scientist (2nd): Meg Whitman – American business executive and politician: Moses Hess – German author and zionist (2nd): Myron C. Taylor – American financier and diplomat (2nd): Nora Perry – American journalist and poet: Ohno Taiichi – Japanese businessman (2nd): Ozzie Guillen – American baseball player, coach, and manager (2nd): Patricia A. Woertz – American business executive: Paul Gervais – French paleontologist and zoologist: Paul Nurse – British scientist (2nd): Ray Stannard Baker – American writer (2nd): Reed Hastings – American entrepreneur: Rex W. Tillerson – American businessman and statesman (2nd): Rex Warner – British writer (2nd): Robert Nardelli – American businessman: Roger Ailes – American television producer and political consultant: Rubem Braga – Brazilian journalist (2nd): Saad al-Hariri – prime minister of Lebanon (lede begins with 'Lebanese businessman') (2nd): Shirley M. Tilghman – Canadian molecular biologist: Sir Julian Huxley – British biologist (2nd): Sir Michael Ernest Sadler – English educator (2nd): Tom Brokaw – American television journalist and author (2nd): Ulf von Euler – Swedish physiologist (2nd): Umberto Agnelli – Italian industrialist: Ursula Burns – American executive: W. Averell Harriman – American diplomat (2nd): Walter Cronkite – (2nd): William Rainey Harper – American educator: William S. Paley – American executive: |
So, I posted factual information here two days ago that clearly shows that "[...]the leading reliable sources and profiles in Britannica.com [...]
use 'served/serves' in biographies for people in "[...] for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles [...]"
, contrary to the claim that none of them do, and that it is used [...] in the opening sentence, and often in the entire first paragraph."
I agree that "We should be seeking to emulate the best secondary sources"
, and one of the best sources uses the terms. I can find no reliable secondary sources - none, anywhere - that claim or even allude that "Using "serves/served as" can be seen as a value judgement [...]"
. Yet the purging of the term continues. We should not be making wholesale changes to WP based upon vague feelings, when we have objective evidence that the terms are acceptable for one of the best reliable sources. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is. 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps there's a UK/US component here, and certainly there's a lot of personal preference, but whenever I read "Joe Biden is serving as the Nth president" or some-such, I wonder what the REAL president is up to while this Biden stand-in fellow does his job. This is a usage not dissimilar to Popcornfud's example above "Q. is it really a car park? A. No, but it will serve", ie is an adequate substitute. Clearly military serve abroad and in their particular branch and it is not uncommon to thus refer to diplomats, but isn't it the most common usage for political/public roles that "Biden is" and "Trump was" president. What useful purpose does the more elaborate phrasing serve? Pincrete ( talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, we keep going with personal opinions and speculation, and apparently evidence is not helpful at best, dismissed at worst (while we're here, Pincrete can you explain your addition of "Italic text" to the William Rainey Harper entry in the collapsed section above?)
I've never come across the notion that the term confuses people into thinking there is a shadow presidency or other conflations. It seems a stretch, and only if one is overthinking the plain language presented. In my opinion.
The various iterations of how the term 'serve/s/d' is used differently aren't a strong argument against this usage - shall we digress, for example, into the definition and usage of the term 'set', in all its 430 (and growing) distinct usages? If I said "I set the chair aside me", is it likely someone would misinterpret that to mean that I congealed a chair next to me?
I'll refer to sources 'outside of' WP and outside of our own personal opinions (and, again, actually provide the results, rather than 'summarizing' it through my own lens). While not acceptable as reliable secondary sources, they provide a look into what large-language-models "think". I chose three of the better known AI.
Click at right to show/hide ___
|
---|
ChatGPT1.) Me: "What does it mean to "serve as" a position?" ChatGPT: "To "serve as" a position typically means to fulfill the duties and responsibilities associated with that position. For example, if someone serves as the CEO of a company, it means they are in the role of CEO and are performing the tasks and making the decisions expected of someone in that position. It implies active engagement and participation in the role, rather than merely holding the title." 2.) Me: "Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?" ChatGPT: "No, the term "serves as" in relation to a job or position doesn't inherently imply a value judgment. It merely indicates the function or role someone holds within an organization or context. Whether that person performs their duties well or not is separate from the statement itself. For example, saying someone "serves as the manager" doesn't pass judgment on their managerial skills; it simply states their position within the company." Google Gemini1.) Me: "What does it mean to "serve as" a position?" Gemini: When someone "serves as" a position, it means they hold that position and fulfill its duties and responsibilities. Here's a breakdown:
For example:
Here are some synonyms for "serve as":
2.) Me: "Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?" Gemini: "No, the term "serves as" in relation to a job typically doesn't imply a value judgment. Here's why:
For example:
However, there are some situations where the context can introduce a subtle judgment:
Even in this case, the judgment is more about the unexpectedness of the situation, not the job itself. Overall, "serves as" remains a neutral way to describe someone's role in a job. The surrounding context is more likely to introduce a value judgment than the term itself." Anthropic Claude1.) Me: "What does it mean to "serve as" a position?" Claude: The phrase "to serve as" something typically means to function in a particular role or capacity. Some examples: - She serves as the president of the company. (Meaning she holds and performs the duties of the president role) - This document will serve as a contract between the two parties. (Meaning this document will function as and be treated as the official contract) - The internship will serve as valuable work experience. (Meaning the internship will provide and act as beneficial work experience) - This valley serves as a wildlife corridor. (Meaning this valley functions as a route/pathway that wildlife use to travel between habitats) So in general, to "serve as" a position, role, thing, etc. means to act in that capacity or perform the purpose/function of that position, role or thing. It denotes taking on the responsibilities, duties or purpose associated with whatever is stated after "serve as." Let me know if this explanation makes sense! 2.) Me: "Does the term "serves as" in relation to a job imply a value judgement?" Claude: "When used in relation to a job or position that someone holds, the term "serves as" does not inherently imply a positive or negative value judgment. It is still simply stating what role or capacity that person is functioning in. For example: "John serves as the company's CEO." This is just a factual statement about the position John holds, without any implied criticism or praise of his performance in that role. "She serves as the head of the marketing department." Again, this is just objectively describing her job title and responsibilities, not making a subjective assessment of how well she does that job. "He currently serves as a judge on the district court." Stating the position or occupation someone has, without judging whether they are good or bad at being a judge. The phrase "serves as" is still just descriptive and denotative in this context, not connotative or evaluative. It does not automatically signal whether the person is doing a good or poor job in that role. Only additional context clues, like describing the person as "effectively serves as" or "poorly serves as" would start to imply an evaluative judgment of their performance. But the base "serves as" phrase alone is still just stating the role itself, not judging the quality of their service in that role. It remains an objective descriptor when used in relation to jobs or positions. |
cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc": Good. Having such a role is not "service" in any meaningful sense, and using that term in that context is clearly promotional/aggrandizing ( MOS:PEACOCK). We might get a consensus that the term is more properly applicable to the military, maybe to political office and civil service positions, and conceivably even to ecclesiastical roles, but after 20+ years it's clear there is no consensus appetite for using such language with regard to commercial job titles and board/officer positions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
For a lot of people, "served" contains an implication of positivity. This is easiest to see in non-uses of the term. According to us (Wikipedia), Elizabeth Holmes didn't "serve" as CEO of Theranos; Sam Bankman-Fried didn't "serve" as CEO of FTX; Gregory W. Becker didn't "serve" as CEO of Silicon Valley Bank; Richard S. Fuld Jr. didn't "serve" as the final CEO of Lehman Brothers; Kenneth Lay didn't "serve" as CEO of Enron; Putin doesn't "serve" as President of Russia; (let's jump straight to it...) Hitler didn't "serve" as Chancellor of Germany (but the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany did). (Brittanica follows this pattern for ones I've found, except Putin, who acquired "served" in 2008 and still has it.) This association of "serve" with something positive or at least self-sacrificing doesn't hold in all cases, of course, but there's plenty of evidence that it exists. EddieHugh ( talk) 15:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"For a lot of people [...]"Can you quantify this? If I wrote "For a lot of people, "served" contains no implication, positive or negative", would that hold any more water? Instead, I think a more honest construct would be that "Some people infer that "served" expresses praise; some other people don't make that inferrence".
"This is easiest to see in non-uses of the term."Is it easy though? The Elizabeth Holmes article here appears to have not used the term either before or after her fall. Same for Sam Bankman-Fried. Gregory Becker's article did use it - until Edwardx removed it this past January, so that's a null example. Contrarily, here on WP
"By using "serve" for various leaders, we can be seen as impying that, in addition to leading, their acts as leaders were useful or needed.Only the Collins' definition adds a modifier that could be inferred to mean 'praise' - 'useful' (and that is some seriously weak "praise"). In all of the others, it describes utility. Alone, the term is neutral; only if we add modifiers does it carry a value judgment. What is a value judgement is how some editors infer praise in an otherwise neutral term. I don't think we're required to dumb-down wikipedia to cater to the whims of some editors. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
For a lot of people, "served" contains an implication of positivity.Not necessarily. For example, prison sentences; "serving one's sentence" is the most common way of referring to someone's time incarcerated. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
spend (a period) in office, in an apprenticeship, or in prison.‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding
MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources.
Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender?
Jeffrey Epstein and
Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
con artist and serial killer, not just as a felon.
X is an American musician and entertainer. In 20xx they were convicted on Y counts of Z.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
...was an Americanworks better? If so, I agree. — HTGS ( talk) 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)sex offender andteacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child
When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!"Stylistically, and in more efficiently fully relating the narrative
Letourneau ... was an Americanworks better. As doessex offender andteacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child
Weinstein ... was an Americanditto how one would write Epstein or Jimmy Savile as their profession followed by their 'crime' stated explicitly wherever possible. I have so often found myself arguing that, except in a small number of cases, the previous life is a significant component of the notoriety, not an afterthought. Even if Weinstein is now mainly regarded as an offender, his role in the film world facilitated those offences, ditto Savile, Epstein and Mary Kay Letourneau. So "profession who did this" is the most concise way to give context to the crimes. Nobody bothers to write articles (either in the real world or on WP) about un-finished sex trials committed 45 years ago, unless the accused is famous for other reasons. So even to those who write about his crimes, or who despise him for his crimes, he's the internationally known film director who had sex with a 13 year old model not the accused sex offender who happened to make successful films. I don't also see the sense of 'felon' or 'sex offender' when the charges can be stated explicitly. If it's worth telling me that someone committed a crime, it's worth telling me what it was, otherwise we might just as well say 'bad person'. Where subject's SOLE notability is their crime, this obviously doesn't apply, but those cases are rare and tend to be the most heinous crimes. Pincrete ( talk) 07:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)convicted rapistfilm producer who was found guilty in ???? to XX counts of rape and other sex offences
, and convicted felon" in the lead of an article, it could be dropped without much issue. Usually, it does not seem relevant enough to the article to warrant being in the lead. There are a few people famous solely for their criminal acts, like famous serial killers or drug lords or whatever. In this case, we can just say "Alice Jones is a Swiss murderer" or "Bob Smith is a Canadian mafia boss" or whatever in the lead. This also has the advantage of being more accurate. In cases where it's like "Carol Glockenspiel is an Irish-Botswanan lawyer, politician, and convicted felon", where she was on the cover of magazines for all this other stuff 40 years and was disbarred after some kind of legal malpractice mumbo-jumbo -- is it really that important that we need to put in the very first sentence?
Either there isn't any guidance or I haven't been able to find it, but I've not been able to find any guidance on how aristocratic names are treated in infoboxes or other box lists. I have included Lord Rosebery's infobox as an illustration of the issue. According to MOS:SURNAME the first use of an aristocrat's name should be in full, or using the title that they held at the time they held office. Additionally Wikipedia:NOPIPE suggests that piping the link from ' Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery' to the Earl of Rosebery isn't the right approach. I also don't think simply listing the title without the holder's name is particularly effective, given that a father and son might hold the same office and this might be easily missed by readers. Ecrm87 ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The Earl of Rosebery | |
---|---|
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom | |
In office 5 March 1894 – 22 June 1895 | |
Monarch | Victoria |
Preceded by | William Ewart Gladstone |
Succeeded by | The Marquess of Salisbury |
Leader of the Opposition | |
In office 22 June 1895 – 6 October 1896 | |
Prime Minister | The Marquess of Salisbury |
Preceded by | The Marquess of Salisbury |
Succeeded by | Sir William Harcourt |
Lord President of the Council | |
In office 10 March 1894 – 21 June 1895 | |
Prime Minister | Himself |
Preceded by | The Earl of Kimberley |
Succeeded by | The Duke of Devonshire |
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs | |
In office 18 August 1892 – 10 March 1894 | |
Prime Minister | William Ewart Gladstone |
Preceded by | The Marquess of Salisbury |
Succeeded by | The Earl of Kimberley |
In office 6 February 1886 – 3 August 1886 | |
Prime Minister | William Ewart Gladstone |
Preceded by | The Marquess of Salisbury |
Succeeded by | The Earl of Iddesleigh |
Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal | |
In office 5 March 1885 – 9 June 1885 | |
Prime Minister | William Ewart Gladstone |
Preceded by | The Lord Carlingford |
Succeeded by | The Earl of Harrowby |
First Commissioner of Works | |
In office 13 February 1885 – 9 June 1885 | |
Prime Minister | William Ewart Gladstone |
Preceded by | George Shaw-Lefevre |
Succeeded by | David Plunket |
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department | |
In office August 1881 – June 1883 | |
Prime Minister | William Ewart Gladstone |
Preceded by | Leonard Courtney |
Succeeded by | J. T. Hibbert |
Member of the House of Lords | |
Hereditary peerage 7 May 1868 – 21 May 1929 | |
Preceded by | The 4th Earl of Rosebery |
Succeeded by | The 6th Earl of Rosebery |
Personal details | |
Born | Archibald Philip Primrose 7 May 1847 Mayfair, Middlesex, England |
Died | 21 May 1929 Epsom, Surrey, England | (aged 82)
Resting place | Dalmeny Parish Church, Edinburgh, Scotland |
Political party | Liberal |
Spouse | |
Children | Sybil, Peggy, Harry, and Neil |
Parent(s) |
Archibald Primrose, Lord Dalmeny Wilhelmina Powlett, Duchess of Cleveland |
Alma mater | Christ Church, Oxford |
Signature | |
Ecrm87 ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
infobox person}}
and derivatives of it, to shoehorn aristocratic titles into the |name=
(or sometimes other inappropriate) parameters, and have just gone and done this to tens of thousands of articles, despite this not being consistent with the templates' own documentation of the meaning of these parameters, or with
MOS:BIO regarding such titles (covered in various subsections of
MOS:PEOPLETITLES. In short, we have a disputed mess in which the infobox of, say,
Margaret Thatcher claims that her name is "The Baroness Thatcher", which is obviously badly incorrect. That title belongs in one of the other parameters, |honorific_suffix=
. To make matters worse, the |honorific_prefix=
parameter (intended for things like "Duke" and "Dame") has been widely misused to insert a form of address that would be used only when writing a letter to such a person or perhaps when introducing them at a formal engagement, but which is not how they are normally referred to in writing by anyone ever. (The most common of these misuses is "The Rt. Hon." or "The Right Honourable".) And even the baroness part should not have "The" on it (that's used when describing the title in a stand-alone manner, not when used directly with the person's name). For the Thatcher case, the obviously solution is: |name=Margaret Hilda Thatcher
|honorific_suffix=Baroness Thatcher<br />{{
Post-nominals|country=GBR|size=100%|LG|OM|DStJ|PC|FRS|HonFRSC}}
, and this is what agrees with the lead of the article. Another potential solution is one or more additional parameters, e.g. for gentry/peerage titles, and possibly for formal address, though the latter is arguably not encyclopedic information (much less infobox-level core information), and is better covered at the article on the general class of title (i.e., it is "how to address peers of particular ranks" and "how to address knights/dames" and "how to address Scottish lairs and clan chiefs", and "how to address judges", and "how to address members of parliament", and etc., etc., etc. information, and not particular to someone's bio. A simpler solution is to just remove the address string, and put the aristrocratic titles in the extant |honorific_suffix=
parameter; there's something to be said for such simplicity versus making a complex template even more complex without there being a clear reader-facing benefit.Anyway, there have been several abortive discussions about this at various places, but nothing has resulted in action, and this might have to be resolved with an RfC, perhaps at WP:VPPOL since it has implications for a large number of articles. I've had other projects going on which absorb most of my time, and this is why I've not bothered RfCing this already. It definitely does need to get resolved one way or another.
PS, on the matter of link-piping with regard to such a person in other articles: It would depend on the context. If it's clear in the sentence that "the Earl of Rosebery" is in reference to a specific person known by that title at the time, then the piped link is not necessarily problematic, but only if the actual name of this person has been given previously in the same article. Far too often I run across piped links of this sort in a non sequitur manner, seemingly put there by British editors who are personally familiar with who the subject of the link is, without considering that even many other British readers would not be and that virtually no one outside the UK will be. So, at least at first occurrence, using [[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery]],
will be more appropriate. It might simply be [[Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery|Earl of Rosebery]],
in a later occurrence, since depending on the context we might take advantage of the new standard (since about a year ago) of linking once per major section yet also consider who the person is/was already adequately explained in a previous section. There's a bit of a tension between those two ideas. In various cases, such a title should just be left off, when it's not contextually pertinent and/or doesn't match typical RS usage; e.g.
Christopher Guest is not normally referred to as [5th] Baron Haden-Guest except in reference to his brief stint as a parliamentarian, or in other peerage-pertinent contexts, but not as a actor-director-writer (where even the "Haden-" is almost universally dropped, at his own preference). On the other hand, any time the title is being referred to as the title itself, or in the plural, it should link to the article/section on the title not the present title-holder. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
butchered", tortured a description as that is of using someone’s common and given name. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
biography Binfajnr1 ( talk) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I see the following: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise."
I do not understand the reason that it holds for any phase of the person's live unless they indicated a preference otherwise. I want wikipedia to be a source of reliable information.
I find it ridiculous when you write about some non binary in wikipedia "Nemo began their interest in music at the age of three"
I think the reader who want to know the facts want to know that everybody considered Nemo as a male at that time and from the value in wikipedia people cannot know the facts when they read wikipedia because of the rules that this holds for any phase of the person's life. אורי בלאס ( talk) 05:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm restoring the section on tribal citizenship per Tribal sovereignty in the United States:
Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names.
- Wilma Pearl Mankiller (November 18, 1945 – April 6, 2010) was a Native American ( Cherokee Nation) activist, social worker, community developer, and the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation.
@ David Fuchs: this is not simply "a couple individuals" discussing this. Tribal sovereignty is recognized by the Unites States and Canada to this day and historically through the creation of treaties. Please provide sources that show tribal nations are not sovereign nations and do not determine their own citizenship before removing again. You can discuss wording, but it's a federal fact these are sovereign nations that determine their own citizenship laws. oncamera (talk page) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident- and indigenous nationality is a prime example of a set of cases where the original rule doesn't work as a rote formula. In fact, if a BLP subject is, say, a Navajo whose career is based in Navajo national territory, it would be a more natural application of the rule to use Navajo instead of, or in addition to, American nationality. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
the denial of tribal nation statehoodGenerally speaking, Native tribes are not sovereign states [5]. They are not "independent and not under the authority of any other country". PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident, which doesn't mean the Westphalian system (which is "a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory"). oncamera (talk page) 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
tribes are not merely clubs; they are sovereigns – domestic dependent nations who never voluntarily relinquished their powers over their territory. Moreover, the treaties and statutes recognizing the reserved rights of tribes implicitly affirm tribal political powers of their retained lands.Treaties are literally de jure recognition of a separate sovereign.
critical mass of editorswas achieved in this discussion last year, the result of which was that the text in question remained in the MOS based on the support of more than
a grand total of two people. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
or as a clause after their names, as shown at WP:NATIVEIDENTITY with the example " Deb Haaland ( Laguna Pueblo)". While that form may work for style within articles, it's too specialized a way of referring to someone to be used in the first sentence of a lead.
I know that Native American voices are always going to be outnumbered here (and, while Wikipedia publicly laments lack of Indigenous inclusion, it provides no support for those of us here), but I am still going to try to not have our tribal citizenship suppressed on this platform. Tribal sovereignty proceeds the existence of the United States and Canada; treaties with tribal nations are the supreme law of the land ( U.S. Senate). The Jay Treaty still allows First Nations and Native American people to freely cross the U.S.–Canadian border. Not all people enrolled in Native American tribes even live in the United States. People use their tribal IDs at airports, etc. For notability issues, typically tribal citizenship is the defining feature of many Native peoples' core identity. It's usually the first thing we list after our names. Why are you so invested in removing this information from its place in Native biographies? What do you gain from not allowing us to list our tribal citizenship, as we do in real life? Yuchitown ( talk) 19:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
...and sometimes uncontested self-description...Our category structure for people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent - without independent reliable sources either confirming or questioning that self-identification - are placed in categories such as Category:People who self-identify as being of Native American descent. This places them in the category tree under Category:Transracial (identity) and Category:Native American-related controversies, alongside proven frauds. Being of Indigenous descent and being a current member of a First Nation/tribe aren't the same, but it would be surprising if simple self-identification of membership were accepted as sufficient, given the highly skeptical default approach to claims of descent.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
“parenthetically, or as a clause after their names”is no better than simply allowing people to write prose that works clearly case by case. And as for the example of Wilma Mankiller, she is already notable for her tribal affiliation. She does not need the parenthetical, nor any additional justification for mentioning her tribal citizenship. Her article would be worse with that addition, and as such, the article doesn’t actually use the parenthetical as it’s written above. If we are to give an example with the intention of saying that any random bio who has/had tribal citizenship should have that citizenship in the lead, it should be one who is not notable for any reasons connected to their tribal status.
To recap my position (from the category discussion):
As a result, I would strongly recommend leaving this out of MOS biography policies and to evaluate each article on a case-by-case basis. Equiyamnaya ( talk) 00:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to make some suggestions for changes to the initial part of the MOS:CONTEXTBIO since Ethnicity redirects to that section, and to make it a little clearer and inclusive of information in the examples. Can I work on a draft and post it here - or is there another process? Thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Tribal citizenship is a political status not an ethnic status. There are innumerable classes and books available on Native American law. Yuchitown ( talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
“Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should not be used in the article …”
In reviewing A 2018 RfC on Spanish regional identity in the lead resulted in consensus to use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies.
, I wonder:
If there are two or more regional areas of importance, use the regional identity that reliable sources use most often and with which the subject identifies.How is that?– CaroleHenson ( talk) 14:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notableahead of the section header. I have always read that sentence as governing what is to be included in terms of "nationality".
generally...unlessreads to me as filling in some of the exceptions, noted in the previous paragraph with
in most modern-day cases. By moving it to a separate paragraph the impact of both sections shifts towards "use nation-state nationalities" - "don't use things that could be seen as ethnicities", whereas the current flow of text does a better job of acknowledging the logic of the exceptions IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability or of defining importance.Underline just for emphasis here.
I changed "Native American and Indigenous Canadians" to "Indigenous people" to be universal
here for the parenthetical / phrase part. (I am sure more will come about Native Americans and Indigenous Canadians).–
CaroleHenson (
talk) 14:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi MapReader, I substituted ‘be’ for ‘include’ in MOS:CONTEXTBIO (as below) because it seems pretty obvious that place will never be the only context for someone’s notability. People are usually notable for achievements, often within organisations or sporting codes or artistic movements and so on, and even sometimes for their race, gender, family, and other contexts which are the dominant subject of this section. The word ‘be’ there implies to me that the place is the only context for their notability. It wasn’t a major error, but I feel it’s clearer with ‘include’. Do you read this differently?
− | The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will | + | The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will include the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a [[Citizenship|national]] or permanent resident |
— HTGS ( talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Ernest Bloch (July 24, 1880 – July 15, 1959) was a Swiss-born American composer. Bloch was a preeminent artist in his day, and left a lasting legacy. He is recognized as one of the greatest Swiss composers in history. As well as producing musical scores, Bloch had an academic career that culminated in his recognition as Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1952.
Ernest Bloch (born July 24, 1880, Geneva, Switzerland—died July 15, 1959, Portland, Oregon, U.S.) was a composer whose music reflects Jewish cultural and liturgical themes as well as European post-Romantic traditions[9] - which reflects better the context for notability offered in the best sources and gives readers a better picture of Bloch's work.
“Jack Smith was an American.”or
“Giacomo Ferraro was an Italian.”so I don’t see why we would want wording that implies the only contextual fact necessary is their nationality/citizenship/residence (or similar). — HTGS ( talk) 02:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
almost always. This may possibly be a de facto consensus on-wiki, but it isn't what CONTEXTBIO in its status quo language actually says - it uses words like
generallyand
in most cases, which in their plain meaning do not equate to "almost always".
Could we add guidance to
MOS:JOBTITLE that recommends consistent capitalization for comparable job titles in close proximity? I'd say a sentence like "President Adams and President Bates met with UK prime minister Collins"
would be stronger with a capitalized "Prime Minister". The temptation I see in other editors is to rewrite to enable capitalization while complying with current guidance, going with something like "Prime Minster Collins of the UK", which is an undesirable outcome.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message. 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)