Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family? The 118 New Answer

You are viewing this post: Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family? The 118 New Answer

Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.

Keep Reading

Everyone in this world desires a very neat and good looking body. And for the perfect and well-groomed body, they do a lot of exercise and a diet plan. As weight has become a big issue for today’s generation, they are putting more effort into it. But losing weight is not easy for everyone. They go through different exercise plans and other things to lose their weight. Some people are very inspirational because of their awesome body transformation. They’ve lost so much weight to make their bodies fit. The fact is, it is very important that your body weighs the perfect weight required for your height. The reason I am talking about maintaining the body is because this article is about a woman who has undergone an amazing body transformation. She has lost so much weight and now looks very healthy with a trim body. Her name is Martha Borg.

Martha Borg’s Family

Marth has three children with Dav Borg. Information about their children is not available. But we do know that one of her daughters named Sissy Borg works for the Sonlife Broadcasting Network. [kpo_related_url url=’joe-mettle’]

Borg’s Wikipedia

As already mentioned, Martha Borg is an American singer. The popular songs she has performed are I Give you Jesus, I Call Him Lord, Try Jesus, Holy Ground, Joy In The Morning, Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus, God Lead Us Along, You’re Still Lord and many others . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swzlfv9rWiE Martha also performs with singer and member of JSM such as Joseph Larson and Grace Larson Brumley. She has also performed at her solo concerts across the United States.

advertisement

Martha Borg’s Weight Loss Diet

The detail on Martha Borg diet for weight loss is not available yet. It might have been very useful for some of you who are looking for a good weight loss diet plan. But we are sorry to say that we haven’t found the information about it yet.

Martha Borg Husband (Dav Borg)

Martha Borg is married to a man named Dav Borg. Details of their marriage are not available. However, we do know that her husband, Dav Borg, is also connected to Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. And according to information online, the couple sometimes appear together in special services on JSM.

Martha Borg Age

Martha Borg has not yet revealed her age to the media. And it’s also very hard to guess her age, because you all know that girls’ real skin is rarely seen because of all the makeup. However, if you look at her pictures in different sources, she looks like she is in her late thirties.

Martha Borg Wiki

Martha Borg is an American singer who performs for the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries (JSM). She lives with her family in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Since her wiki is not available, we have no information about her early life and academic education.

When was Martha Borg born?

Martha Borg, born 1909.

How old is Jimmy Swaggart the evangelist?

Who are the SBN singers?

Who is Grace Brumley?

Does Donnie Swaggart have a wife?

What is Donnie Swaggart’s salary?

Swaggart, who said he has never before revealed his salary, said he donates $30,000 of his $86,400 annual salary to the ministry.

Did Jimmy Swaggart pass away?

Who is Kim Coleman married to?

What does Randy knaps do for a living?

I’ve been doing voice work and singing professionally since 1984. My main focus has been automotive advertising but I have also done long form narration and character voices as well as spokesperson and featured talent.

What does Joseph Larson do for a living?

Joseph Larson is the Jimmy Swaggart Bible College Music Director and an Adjunct Professor. In addition to his oversight of the Chapel Worship Team, Larson is also a faculty member of Family Christian Academy. He is a very talented Musician along with his sisters; Grace Brumley and Rachel Larson Ford.

---

15 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Gay!

15 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Gay!

15 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Gay!

Images related to the topic15 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Gay!

---

See some more details on the topic Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family here:

Mindy Grossman – Wikipedia

Mindy Grossman (born September 8, 1957) is the former CEO of WW International (formerly Weight Watchers). The Financial Times listed her in the top 50 women …

+ View More Here

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Date Published: 1/24/2021

View: 6245

Roman Empire – Wikipedia

The Roman Empire was the post-Republican period of ancient Rome. As a polity, it included large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, …

+ Read More Here

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Date Published: 5/28/2022

View: 9030

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2012 archive

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2012 archive · Contents · Waller · Need help on titles and honorifcs · Birthplace/hometown · Sheikh? · How to handle name …

+ View Here

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Date Published: 10/18/2021

View: 1383

List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes – Wikipedia

List of episodes from the 1955–1962 television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents and the 1962–1965 The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: …

+ Read More Here

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Date Published: 11/18/2021

View: 4228

Jimmy Swaggart Net Worth

Jimmy Swaggart Net Worth and Salary: Jimmy Swaggart is an American Pentecostal pastor, author, and televangelist who has a net worth of $10 million. Swaggart’s television service began in 1975 and his service continues to air in the United States and around the world.

At the height of his power in 1987, Jimmy Swaggart World Ministries and its Bible College were generating $150 million in revenue, more than $500,000 a day. Of that $150 million, $135 million came from individual contributions from his television service. At this time more than twenty members of Swaggart’s immediate family were employed by the Church in various capacities. The church had an annual payroll of $11.5 million for 1,200 employees.

Sexual scandals involving prostitutes in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in the Assemblies of God stripping Swaggart of rights to perform the functions associated with a spiritual leader and also prompted him to temporarily step down as head of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. Today he continues to build on the scandal. His programs Jimmy Swaggart Telecast and Study in the Word are broadcast on 78 channels in the United States and in 104 countries. Its service is also transmitted over the Internet. Swaggart’s ministry is now considered nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and significantly smaller than it was in the years before the scandal.

Swaggart was born on March 15, 1935 in Ferriday, Louisiana. He is the cousin of rock ‘n’ roll star Jerry Lee Lewis and country star Mickey Gilley. He married Frances Anderson in 1952 and the couple had a son, Donnie, in 1954. According to his autobiography, Swaggart, along with his son and wife, lived in poverty while preaching in rural Louisiana in the 1950s. Too poor to own a home, the Swaggarts lived in church basements, presbyteries, and small motels. In the 1960s, Swaggart began recording gospel music albums and broadcasting them on Christian radio stations. In 1975, seeing that television offered the opportunity to reach larger audiences, he switched to television service, and by 1983 more than 250 television stations were broadcasting Swaggart’s show. Along with his televangelism, Swaggart has written about 20 Christian books offered through his ministry and also publishes a monthly magazine called The Evangelist. Swaggart’s wife, Frances, also hosts a television show called Frances and Friends, which airs on SBN, and his son, Donnie, preaches in churches across the country.

[The photo of Jimmy Swaggart on this page is licensed via Creative Commons by Wikimedia user Jntracy75]

Mindy Grossman

American business woman

Mindy Grossman (born September 8, 1957) is the former CEO of WW International (formerly Weight Watchers). The Financial Times listed her among the top 50 women in the world economy in 2010 and 2011, and she was ranked among the 100 most powerful women in the world by Forbes in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013. In 2014, she was #22 in Fortune’s Top People in Business.

Grossman began her career in 1977 in the menswear industry. After 28 years in the apparel industry, including nine highly successful years at Ralph Lauren Corporation and six equally successful years at Nike, she became CEO of HSN in 2006. She aggressively reinvented and relaunched the brand, taking HSN public in 2008 and leading its multi-billion dollar retail portfolio and multimedia expansion.[1] In July 2017, she left HSN to become CEO of WW International.[2] She stepped down from her role as CEO of WW after the first quarter of 2022.

Early life and education[edit]

Mindy Grossman was born on September 8, 1957.[3] Her adoptive parents were Donald and Elaine Waldman, Jewish merchandisers and housewives on Long Island, New York, who married young but were unable to have children.[4][5]

She attended Manhattanville College in Westchester County, New York, and transferred to George Washington University in Washington, DC[6] She wanted to go to law school after high school. However, during her senior year at George Washington University, she broke off her engagement to her high school boyfriend and dropped plans to go to law school, instead moving to New York City to pursue a career in fashion.[4][5]

Career [edit]

Grossman moved to New York City in 1977 and was offered a job at a company called Manhattan International. It was then a menswear conglomerate, and she was assistant to the president of its international department.[4][7][8] From 1978 to 1980 she was an account manager at Jeffrey Banks Menswear.[8] From 1980 to 1981 she was account manager at Ron Chereskin Menswear.[8] From 1981 to 1985 she was Regional Sales Manager at Merona and then Vice President of Sales at Jeffrey Banks; Both Merona and Jeffrey Banks were divisions of Oxford Industries at the time.

From 1985 to 1988 Grossman worked for WilliWear by Willi Smith. She started out as vice president of sales and became vice president of menswear in 1987.[8][10][11]

From 1988 to 1991 she was Vice President of Sales and Merchandising at Tommy Hilfiger.[8] She was almost downstairs at Tommy Hilfiger, which was founded in 1985.[5] Grossman later recalled, “It was a small company at the time, and sales were meteoric. They went from about $38 million to $350 million.”[8]

Ralph Lauren[edit]

From 1991 to 2000, Grossman worked for Ralph Lauren brands. From 1991 to 1994 she was President of Chaps Ralph Lauren, a division of Warnaco, Inc., and she was also Senior Vice President of Menswear for Warnaco, Inc.[6][8][12] during those years. Chaps was Ralph Lauren’s mid-range department store brand;[5] It turned the Chaps division around and increased its annual sales from $26 million to $250 million.[1][13]

From 1994 to 1995 she was Vice President of New Business Development at Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation.[6] During this time she developed new brand concepts, including polo jeans. She convinced Lauren that he needed to embrace new ideas to attract younger customers and that the Polo Jeans Company was a good way to turn a younger audience into lifelong customers.[14] Grossman calls founding Polo Jeans “my start-up experience”;[4] she was President and CEO from 1995 to 2000,[8] launched the brand in 1996[15] and raised it from a standing start $450 million deal[1][5] and built it into the leading denim brand with department store status.[16]

Nike [edit]

In 2000, Grossman joined Nike, Inc., where she served as vice president for Global Apparel from 2000 to 2006, leading the multi-billion dollar global apparel business.[8] Nike CEO Phil Knight brought her on to revitalize Nike’s ailing apparel business,[16][17][18] while benefiting from her expertise in fashion, brand strategy, product development and retail space management.[19]

In her role as Head of Global Apparel, she oversaw global strategic planning; product development; and global apparel manufacturing, operations, sourcing, merchandising, advanced innovation, quality assurance, and compliance and sustainability. She was also responsible for Nike’s women’s business.[20] She has aggressively and successfully restructured the entire apparel organization, creating three sub-brands for Nike apparel: Nike Performance, aimed at athletes and serious consumers; Nike Active, a line that can be worn from the gym to the street; and Nike Fusion, apparel featuring higher-performance fabrics and aggressive styling.[21] Under her leadership, Nike also introduced new NikeWomen stores, launched NikeWomen catalogs and established a new division called Fitness Dance. She has driven Nike’s apparel innovation agenda, led the development and growth of the global women’s business, and founded and helped shape Nike’s Global Women’s Leadership Council.[1][22]

Grossman has been credited with showing a shoe company how to become a clothing company.[21] She brought her strong fashion background to Nike apparel and renewed it, devoting much of her energy to the company’s weaker women’s apparel business.[21] Annual sales of Nike’s apparel business were $2.7 billion when she joined her in 2000;[17] by the end of fiscal 2005 she had grown that to $4.1 billion,[21] which is 32% of Nike brand revenue.[23]

2006 to 2017: HSN [ edit ]

Arriving at HSN[ edit ]

By 2006, after six years at Nike, Grossman wanted a position as CEO, preferably at a company that didn’t require her to commute across the country like Nike did. Nike had recently appointed their own new CEO and President, so they were actively seeking an opportunity at another company, this time one that was direct to the consumer, entrepreneurial but not a start-up, and one that they could transform by taking advantage of new technological advances. She was approached by a recruiter about IAC/InterActiveCorp (IAC), the parent company of HSN, Inc., and after studying HSN’s broadcasts, she realized that, in her words, “HSN really is more of a lifestyle had to become a network that would inspire people “Products”.[1] Their vision was to offer inspirational lifestyle programming, especially with charismatic celebrities, with all products for sale – instead of the usual dry and old-fashioned standard sales format.[5 ]

She brought the idea to Barry Diller, head of IAC, and although she had no television experience, no direct sales experience, and no experience in most of the product categories that HSN sold, he hired her.[1][1][1] 5] In April 2006, Grossman was appointed CEO of IAC Retailing, overseeing HSN, catalog company Cornerstone Brands, Shoebuy.com and IAC’s international retail operations.

HSN has had seven CEOs in the past 10 years, and according to Grossman, the company, offices, and employees seemed dejected and frozen in time.[1] One of their first actions was to throw away all old, broken, or dirty office furniture and give all employees Aeron chairs.[1] To focus on reviving HSN, she shut down IAC’s failed UK auction business, sold its German shopping channel, shut down the ailing DirecTV clearance channel and put another executive in charge of Cornerstone brands.[1] She also eliminated negative or “toxic” employees, sourced committed, knowledgeable people inside and outside the company to lead key areas, and ensured all employees were on board with the company’s new vision.[1][5 ]

She also noted that the network and brand itself was a “very stagnant, linear, non-immersive experience.”[24] By October 2006, she introduced HSN’s new brand image, slogan, vision, customer intent and advertising. The company’s new manifesto was “to create a new lifestyle experience for consumers.”[1] To implement the plan, she halted $150 million worth of unsuitable brand sales and worked hard to persuade higher-value brands and new personalities to sell products.[1] She recruited Sephora, Emeril Lagasse, and Todd English for on-air sales, among many others, early on. She also aired a two-hour runway show featuring high-end clothing.[1] It also brought the company’s overseas call centers back to the United States.[24][25]

Relaunch of HSN and IPO of the company[ edit ]

By mid-2007, the relaunch and redesign of HSN’s channel, website, and campus was in effect, and business was beginning to turn.[1] In November of that year, Diller decided to split IAC into several of its constituent companies and spin off HSN, Inc. as a public company via an IPO with Grossman as CEO.[1][26] The IPO started in August 2008.[27] A few weeks later, Lehman Brothers collapsed, followed by a stock market collapse and recession. Grossman kept HSN afloat during the weak recession years of 2008 and 2009 and prospered through intense savings and a strict commitment to her vision, and by tailoring HSN’s marketing to the needs of her customers to save.[28][29][30]

She has continued to aggressively transform, re-define and reinvent the HSN brand, improving its demographics and increasing the value of its shares from $10 when it went public in August 2008 to $55 per share in 2014. The success of HSN fueled the launch of a second 24-hour television channel, HSN2, in 2010.[31][32] Grossman’s turnaround approach was multifaceted: she upgraded the product tier to high-end products; numerous digital and mobile access options implemented offensively and preventively; made the shopping experience fun, immersive, fun, creative, informative, exciting, interactive and inspirational; and brought big celebrities and high-end fashion designers on board to sell their lines, most of them exclusive to HSN.

Under her leadership, HSN grew into a multi-platform company, providing a seamless shopping experience across multiple channels and platforms that was accessible anytime, anywhere, that was fun, entertaining, and exciting.[6][36][37] Forbes and Fortune described the new brand as a “hybrid” – a media, entertainment, technology and retail business.[29][38]

Determined to stay ahead of the curve in terms of technology,[39] Grossman also introduced new HSN venues, including Shop by Remote (shopping by TV remote control), HSN Arcade (online gaming), Video on Demand, HSN Live, shopping via YouTube , and in-flight purchases.[22][37] She revamped HSN’s website and turned HSN into a significant e-commerce presence;[25][30] as of 2013, HSN.com has been one of the top 10 most visited e-commerce sites.[13][40] It evolved HSN from a linear network into a multi-platform company and created “borderless” retail;[34][36] according to Fast Company, nearly half of HSN’s revenue comes from digital platforms.[35]

She recruited major celebrities such as Jennifer Lopez, Queen Latifah, Mariah Carey, Iman, P. Diddy, Padma Lakshmi, Martha Stewart, Jessica Simpson, Keith Urban, Nicki Minaj, Mary J. Blige, and Serena Williams, as well as major cosmetics companies such as Lancôme and Stila to appear on the network and sell their own brands of merchandise, most of which were developed exclusively for HSN. She brought in high-end fashion designers to sell exclusive clothing lines on the network and put Grossman and HSN on the front row at fashion week.[1][24][25] She also partnered with big companies like Disney and other Hollywood studios to sell merchandise, hosted movies and TV series, and aired live concerts from singers like Rod Stewart and Randy Travis. [42]

HSN became a Fortune 1000 company in 2009.[43] As of 2014, Grossman is one of only 51 women to lead a Fortune 1000 company.[44][45] In 2015, Fortune published an article stating that women-led Fortune 1000 companies outperformed the S&P 500 three times from 2002 to 2014 and that HSN’s returns have been among the top two since its IPO, despite the stock market collapse that immediately followed its IPO.[46] Other retailers, including Penney’s, Target and Avon, have attempted to recruit Grossman to run their businesses.[33][47][48][49]

2017 to present: WW[ edit ]

Arrival in WW[ edit ]

On April 26, 2017, Weight Watchers (now WW) ​​announced that Mindy Grossman would assume the CEO position in July 2017, replacing former CEO James Chambers, who left the company in the fall of 2016. Once in office, she said her plan included a push beyond dieting and toward wellness, as well as partnering with Oprah Winfrey, who owns nearly 15% of WW stock and sits on the board.[50] In early 2022, she resigned from her post.

Board of Directors mandates and consultations [ edit ]

Grossman has been a director of HSN, Inc. since its IPO in August 2008.[6][51] She has been the director of Bloomin’ Brands since 2012.[36] She is a member of the Board of Directors and has served as Vice Chair of the National Retail Federation since 2015.[52] She is also a member of the Board of Directors and, since 2015, Chair of the National Retail Federation Foundation, the non-profit arm of the National Retail Federation.[53][54]

She is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Fashion Institute of Technology’s Executive Women in Fashion.[55] She is a member of the Industry Advisory Board for the Jay H. Baker Retailing Center at the Wharton School of Business.[56] She is also a consultant at venture capital firm Metamorphic Ventures.[57]

Grossman is on the board of directors of the United States Fund for UNICEF.[22] She also founded and directs HSN Cares, the philanthropic arm of HSN.[58][59]

In June 2017, Grossman joined the board of directors of sportswear e-commerce retailer Fanatics.[60]

Awards and honors[edit]

Personal life[edit]

Mindy is married to Neil D. Grossman, an investment manager and analyst and the creator of Bloomberg’s Neilytics.[73][74] You have a child.

Wikipedia talkManual of StyleBiography2012 archive

A current FAC starts:

Hector Macdonald Laws (Hec) Waller, DSO and Bar (April 4, 1900 – March 1, 1942) was a senior officer…

Where do we usually put the “hec”? – Thanks (push to talk) 22:50, 7 Jan 2012 (UTC)

The best way is to provide each informal name or nickname separately from the full legal name, so:

Hector Macdonald Laws Waller, DSO and Bar, known as Hec Waller (April 4, 1900 – March 1, 1942) was a senior officer…

, DSO and Bar, known as (April 4, 1900 – March 1, 1942) was a senior officer… Hector Macdonald Laws Waller, DSO and Bar (April 4, 1900 – March 1, 1942) was a senior officer… He was known to friends as Hec Waller.

This helps make the meaning clear; otherwise it could be misinterpreted as “Hec” being an unused middle name. It has the advantage that the full legal name runs continuously. It’s probably fair to say that the Manual of Style doesn’t specifically say this at this time, and it might help the editors if it did. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:06, 7 Jan 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks. – Thanks (push to talk) 23:14, 07 Jan 2012 (UTC) Um, I think that makes a mountain out of a molehill. I have spelled his name as it appears in his Australian Dictionary of Biography. Hec is a typical short form of Hector, not unique to this guy, and I don’t see how it would confuse people. I’ve used the same style for FA level bios like William Dowling (Bill) Bostock, Valston Eldridge (Val) Hancock and others with no problems. Cheers, Ian Rose (lecture) 02:12, 08 January 2012 (UTC) Assuming he was commonly referred to as ‘Hec’ both during and after the service, I’m on this one with Ian; FAC has no shortage of picky reviewers (myself included) and I don’t recall this causing a problem for FAC. OTOH, if just some people called him “Hec”, or just for part of his life, then I think we need to say that instead of writing (Hec). – Thanks (push to talk) 03:10, 08 January 2012 (UTC) I understand that, thanks, and if there was a specific point when that started I would note it, but all the biographical material that i have about him seems to do call him pretty good from birth hec without making a deal about it. OTOH, his nickname “Hard Over Hec” (unique to him) was earned for a certain trait observed during the Mediterranean campaign during World War II, and I have highlighted that at the appropriate point in the narrative. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 08 Jan 2012 (UTC)

I’m trying to be specific about what titles and postnomial letters are allowed. The article in question is the list of Royal College Colombo alumni. I tried to remove almost everything but got undone by another user. We agreed to some removals, not others. More specifically, here are the ones that are controversial (which I say should go, but he doesn’t):

Military Ranks (Major X, Lieutenant Y)

FRCS etc.: These are club affiliations and seem (if I understand correctly) to be identical to the expressly forbidden first name “Doctor”.

Justice (when used as a title for a judge or ex-judge)

pdc, ndc: These indicate that a military officer attended a specific military school.

SLA, SLAC, etc.: These indicate the branch of the military in which an individual has served

CCS, SLAS, SLOS, etc.: These indicate the branch of the Sri Lankan government in which the person works (like adding DoJ after a person’s name in the US).

MP: You state that you are/were a Member of Parliament.

Deshamanya and others I cannot find: Titles conferred by the Sri Lankan government.

The only one of the above that I think might possibly fit in the MOS is the last one as it looks like the equivalent of “sir” which is allowable. One thing the other user keeps arguing is that a lot of these are based on British tradition… but as far as I can tell we don’t use them for UK people (for example I see MP by the names of members of the British Parliament). Essentially the other user is arguing that this is a specific Sri Lankan tradition while I am arguing that we do not follow these traditions with some very narrow exceptions. However, as someone of US origin, I find the whole topic a bit outside of my knowledge base, so input from MOS regulars is appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the retention of military ranks, senior scholarships (like FRCS), and titles like Deshamanya, but not the others. We certainly don’t use them in British biographical articles, so the other editor is wrong. – Necrothesp (lecture) 15:13, 17 Feb 2012 (UTC) Just so I understand, could you explain why a military rank is more acceptable than say a political rank (which we don’t include, like “President”)? What makes these communities more important than membership in a limited membership commercial guild? I’m not saying I disagree, I’m just trying to figure out how we make these distinctions. Qwyrxian (lecture) 04:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC ) The use of post-nominal letters and prefixes in Sri Lanka is a mixture of native, colonial and post-independent styles that have evolved over the years, hence suffixes like Dissawa, Adigar derive from the native kingdom of Kandy; titles like Justice (Sri Lanka still used Roman-Dutch law), Mudaliar by the Dutch and was continued by the British.Due to the more than 100 years of British colonial rule The heavy use of titles and honorifics became popular in Sri Lanka and continued after independence. In the post-Republic era, when a local honors system was developed, the old practices persisted, even after they might have died out in Britain. Qwyrxian compared to US, Commonwealth countries have heavy use of titles, military ranks are such. Officers tend to retain and use their military ranks as titles after leaving service in good standing, although they may not have been their old uniform (unlike in the US) unless reactivated or preserved a military funeral. The practice of using military ranks as titles is rarely used in the United States except in the pre- and post-Civil War South. Cossde (lecture) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, commissioned military ranks are generally retained for the rest of life. Other titles don’t. For fellowships I prefer to follow formal UK practice which is to always include senior fellowships (FRS, FBA, FRCS etc) but no other memberships, qualifications etc. Post-nominals such as MP, SLA etc are also temporary . You don’t use them again after you leave the organization. — Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 20 Feb 2012 (UTC)

In biographies, especially info boxes, should we indicate the community where the person was born or the community where the person’s family lived at the time of birth? In modern times, many people whose families live in the suburbs are born in a nearby major city where hospitals are located. The actual city of birth seems less encyclopedic than the city where the person was born when they were born, but it’s more technically correct, isn’t it? Powers T 15:31, 22 Jan 2012 (UTC)

In my view, a person is born in the city (municipality, whatever is appropriate for the country) where they “live” at the time of their birth, not at the location of the hospital, car, or taxi. To me it only gets more complicated if they are born while the mother is visiting another city and if there are sources for this I would treat that on a case by case basis depending on the source.–Bbb23 (talk) 15:54 , 22 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Anyone else have input? Surely we have some kind of standard? Powers T 14:11, 24 Jan 2012 (UTC)

We should do what is clearest to readers, which means adopting the common convention used by existing reference sources. I think the convention is that the “place of birth” is the actual place where the child was born. More evidence and reasons why I’m inclined to this interpretation:

Our own article on place of birth states: “The place of birth is not necessarily where the parents of the newborn live. If the baby is born in a hospital in another location, that place is the place of birth.” The article doesn’t include a citation for it, but it still makes sense to be consistent with this article so as not to confuse readers.

The article doesn’t include a citation for it, but it still makes sense to be consistent with this article so as not to confuse readers. The place of birth is of more practical importance. For example, birthplace often plays a role in determining citizenship, while parental residence does not (although parental citizenship often does).

The text of the info box reads “Born: October 28, 1955 (age 56) / Seattle, Washington, USA”. This means that we state exactly where a person was born. If the infobox field was labeled Home City or City of Origin, I might lean the other way.

. This implies that we state exactly where a person has been. If the infobox field was labeled or I might lean the other way. The guideline “community where the person’s family resided” is more difficult to interpret consistently. If a family from Mercer Island, Washington, has a baby in Seattle, by such a standard, the baby’s place of birth is Seattle. What if the family delivers the baby in Everett, Washington (while visiting Grandma in the suburbs) or Vancouver, British Columbia (during a day trip) or Beijing, China (during a short vacation—or a year and a half)? sabbatical). There is a continuum of possibilities and no clear place to draw the line. The actual place of birth standard is much simpler.

—Caesura(t) 15:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It’s not really difficult, is it? Birthplace is where the mother is when the baby is born – how could birthplace possibly mean anything else? Therefore, I agree with Caesura and our current policies. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Of course the place of birth is the geographical name (e.g. city) of the place of delivery. An exception might be where this location cannot be easily determined or if it is a meaningless set of coordinates if delivery is at sea. In this case it should be the name of the ship, possibly associated with a nautical location. Mootros (talk) 07:53, 09 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh is an honorific title that has the same connotation as “Lord” or “Lord Prince”, especially in connection with members of Arab royal families. According to WP:HONORIFIC, the honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord, and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person. However, there is no guideline regarding the honorary title “Sheikh”. Also WP:NCNT does not give any clear advice, except that “there is no explicit convention for Middle Eastern countries”. Since it bears similarities to the honorific titles Sir or Lord, I would argue that it is therefore logical to also include the honorific title “Sheikh” in the original reference. I’m right? Mr. D.E. Mophon (lecture) 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. — Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 15 Feb 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I respectfully disagree completely. Mr. D.E. Morphon, you seem to know a lot about western titular families but do not have comparable visibility of the labor practices of Islamic communities, particularly those outside the Arab world (where hereditary titular families still exist). The use of “Sheikh” as an Arabic hereditary title is a minority usage of Sheikh nowadays. I live in a place with thirteen mosques, six madrasahs and two Islamic centers. Each is headed by an imam (or imams) or other high-ranking authority figures. None are from a titled family or have acquired an officially conferred title from a national honorary board such as those found in Great Britain and most Commonwealth countries. However, all of these unit leaders are variously called “Mufti”, “Shaykh”, “Maulana” etc. by those within their groups. It doesn’t really bother me that occasional Wikipedia articles refer to such an Imam as “Imam Smith”, although as you know it is not customary or desirable on Wikipedia pages to refer to individuals by their title (“Professor Smith then …” , “In 1987, Dr. Smith …”). For example, see the articles for famous physicians such as Paul Gachet and Christiaan Barnard. In addition, there is a much broader “problem”. Perhaps you could google the likes of Abdur Raheem Green, Yusuf Chambers, Ahmed Deedat, Hamza Yusuf, Yusuf Estes, and Zakir Naik to name just a few examples. They are routinely called “Sheikh” (also commonly spelled “Shaykh”), “Hazrat”, “Maulana”, etc., regardless of their family background, the quality and extent of their formal education, or their authority in hierarchies. Yusuf Estes, for example, often speaks publicly around the world where he is called “Sheikh Yusuf Estes” or calls himself. Yet Estes has not inherited any hereditary title, he was not born into a high social class Muslim family (in fact he is a convert), he has not acquired any higher formal qualifications and no organization has given him a title to act as their representative. In other words, Sheikh Yusuf Estes is a Sheikh because he says so or because the people who promote his speeches say so. This is VERY common. In my view, we should limit the use of Islamic honorifics on Wikipedia to (a) hereditary titles; and (b) FORMALLY AWARDED titles representing specific posts or levels of education/achievement.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 09:46, 13 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gorge. The policy on post-nominal initials can offer guidance: it requires that “they be issued by a country or publicly identifiable organization with which the subject is closely associated”. I would say that if we allowed this, we would need a citation showing that this condition is met. We have the same problem in the Hindu realm with the word “Swami”. It’s not always officially awarded, and we have too many article titles that start with this badge of honor when they shouldn’t. Yworo (lecture) 20:26, 13 Mar 2012 (UTC)

If the (living) subject of a biography changes name and publicly identifies and is known to use the new name, I think we should rename the article and generally change the name in the article to the new name (with the addition of the maiden born name in leadership for a married woman). However, are we changing all uses of the name, even if some obviously refer to things that happened before the name change? Barring last minute objections, I intend to rename the Alicia Gorey article to Alicia Loxley to reflect her recent marriage and name change. (We have relevant references, including public self-identification. Talk:Alicia Gorey#Name change: Gorey –> Loxley has the details.) However, sentences (alone) with the new name don’t make sense, e.g. B. “In July 2008, Loxley joined Nine News Melbourne as a reporter” — because she wasn’t Loxley at the time, she was Gorey.

What should we do – address them by their current name throughout the article or their former name? Does the MOS policy explicitly cover this? Should you?

On a related matter, I suspect some references to her from other articles should not be changed as they refer to previous roles before her name was changed eg in Today (Australian TV programme) #Finance. However, this can lead to anomalies, e.g. when the same article refers to them in the present tense by their new name (e.g. Today (Australian TV programme) #substitute presenters. Does MOS offer any guidelines on this? Mitch Ames (lecture) 11:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar argument last year about Louise Mensch, née Bagshawe, who changed her last name upon marriage but is keeping her maiden name for her books. I firmly believe that we should not rewrite history and all matters dealing with the past should use the old name before a name change. It is clear to the reader of a biographical article, for they should have started with the introduction explaining the name change. For other articles, it’s easy to include a link for explanation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about people who appear in someone else’s BLP and change their name after having no connection to the topic of the BLP? If your name is subsequently changed in a third-party article. MoS/B is not clear on this issue and some people want to put (currently known as ABCDE) after the name they were using at the time. I agree with SB above that we should use the name that was in use at the time. Introducing a new name that was not in use at the time can cause confusion. I suggest adding something to MoS/B like: “If someone mentioned in someone else’s BLP changes their name after they’re mentioned in the BLP, continue to use the name they were using at the time of their mention. If he has his own wiki article, link to that article from the name they were using at the time. “Momento (lecture) 22:44, 04 Mar 2012 (UTC)

First, I would move a page to the new name, which automatically inserts a redirect for the old name. Assuming the bio is written in chronological order, I would leave everything before the name change as is, cover the name change in a wedding section, and then use the new name for the rest of the article. I don’t think this will be too confusing as the lede should have both names in the first sentence, then the article will always refer to the person by the old name until a clean switch to the new name is made. I don’t think you should go back and change other articles with links – it’s technically unnecessary due to the redirect and doesn’t make sense from a stylistic point of view either. In particular, if the individual is an attribution (artist, actor, author, etc.), those attributions will not be revised after the name change, so changing the name would be incorrect in our articles on these topics. I can try to write something up that goes in the MOS if you agree with what I said here. Live it ⇑ Eh?/ What? 14:23, 06 Mar 2012 (UTC) I agree with your suggestion. You may have intended this, but perhaps say something like “Since their marriage, Gorey began using Loxley as her surname” in the marriage section to make it clear that she initiated the name change, not us wiki editors. Momento (Talk ) 02:05, 7 Mar 2012 (UTC) I will make the above change unless objection is posted here.Momento (talk) 22:34, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Adding to my previous comment on naming order for Thai names… Is it worth mentioning in MOS:BIO#First that for people from some countries/cultures the “full name” is written last name first and/or others may conventions apply as the first name last name? WP:NCP#The scope of this policy mentions language/culture specific deviations with a reference to {{naming conventions}}; should we add a similar brief mention to MOS:BIO#first mention? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:02, 18 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I added the following as per Talk=

name changed

If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention, rather than a name they might be using before or after the mention Has.

Thanks.Momento (talking) 09:00, 19 Mar 2012 (UTC)

What does “former nationality” mean? Given the already highly controversial use of terms like “nationality,” “citizenship,” and “ethnicity,” I don’t think this term helps people when writing lead paragraphs – it just confuses them more. If anyone is unsure what “former nationalities” means, please rewrite the article. —Very trivial (talking) 06:24, 26 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add an exception to the WP:LASTNAME policy for Thai names, corresponding to the remark on Icelandic names. In articles about Thai people, it is already common practice to address their subjects by their first names, because editors who started these articles and are familiar with Thai naming conventions adopted this practice instinctively. It is really strange for someone familiar with Thai naming practice to read a person referred to by their surname only.

Some notes on using first names when referring to Thais: “Where possible, address Thais with military, professional or academic title + first name.” (Mary Murray Bosrock: Asian Business Customs and Manners, 2007); “For Thai people, the first element is usually the first name and takes precedence over the second element, the surname, in identifying people. For example, the usual form for a general in the Thai Army is the general’s title followed by the first name – not the surname as in the West” (Paula Kay Byers: Asian-American Genealogical Sourcebook, 1995); “…the average Thai, who is still mostly addressed by his first name only. For example, a person named Sulaksana Patibatsarakich would simply be called Sulaksana or Nai (Mr.) Sulaksana; …” (Valentin Chu: Thailand today, a visit to modern Siam, 1968); “A surname or family name is never used alone, even in the most formal of situations…” (Shōichi Iwasaki, Inkapiromu Puriyā Horie: A Reference Grammar Of Thai, 2005)

In the English-language literature on Thailand topics and Thais you always read it that way, also in the book titles, e.g. “Thaksin: the political business in Thailand” (not: “Shinawatra: the political business in Thailand”); “Shared over Thaksin: Thailand’s coup and troubled transition” (not: “Shared over Shinawatra…”); “The Thaksinization of Thailand” (not: “The Shinawatrization”)

Further evidence of this practice in English-language texts: “Mr. Thaksin left the country…”, “Mr. Thaksin is back at the center of Thai Politics…”, “Ms. Yingluck, a businesswoman with no political experience” (New York Times, August 16, 2011); “Well, I just want to congratulate Prime Minister Yingluck on her leadership.” (President Obama’s speech, November 19, 2011); “…government spokeswoman Titima Chaisang told reporters and added that Yingluck had asked her deputy to chair a cabinet meeting in her place.” (The Telegraph, November 29, 2011); “Abhisit was supported by 249 MPs…” (The Guardian, March 19, 2011); “Thai opposition calls for Prime Minister Abhisit to be impeached” (The Guardian, May 24, 2010); “Constitutional Court impeached Samak on Tuesday” (The Australian, September 11, 2008); “Airport siege ends after a Thai dish the Disbanded Mr. Somchai’s People Power Party for alleged vote-buying” (WSJ, July 3, 2011).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Other usage should be supplemented accordingly to avoid ambiguity, misunderstandings and contradictory usage in the future. –RJFF (talk) 14:10, 8 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Reject . I’m not sure that seemingly anecdotal evidence would justify such an entry. Yes, many English-language newspapers follow these conventions for some politicians, but it seems far-fetched to say that there is such a “right” way in English. I would say on a case by case (i.e. article by article) basis this could be the way forward, but not a template. A reference grammar of Thai, “the average Thai”, Asian business customs & etiquette… That’s exactly the problem: the “average Thai” doesn’t speak English; she speaks thai. The references are to the Thai language or the social context in Thailand or Asia. Living or dead people are usually referred to by their surname (if not their full name) in EN.Wikipedia. However, I have no problem with the fact that some articles may not do this, since sources may not either. The Icelandic comparison is perhaps too far-fetched as it is not a surname but a patronymic. In summary, the problem with such a MOS entry is that it suggests that there is authoritative agreement on Thai names in English rather than specific practices in specific circumstances. Would this entry improve the quality here? Mootros (talk) 03:35, 09 Mar 2012 (UTC)

I find the idea that we shouldn’t document a practice because it’s not clearly set in stone elsewhere, despite the lack of evidence to the contrary and even though it’s already being done in every Wikipedia article about Thai people, quite absurd. Wikipedia’s Style Guide is not required to follow any authoritative convention; that is what is required of encyclopedic articles, not guidelines. We shouldn’t have to cite the main English style guidelines when we say that a Chinese name has the surname before the given name. It is of course appropriate to determine the correct usage on a case-by-case basis, but in most cases the first name is used with Thai people and I see no argument against mentioning the practice in this MoS. This is unrelated to the presence or absence of hat notes dictating the fact to article readers. –Paul_012 (talk) 07:34, 9 Mar 2012 (UTC) For a concrete and explicit example, see the quote from the Telegraph Style Book below.[1] –Paul_012 (lecture) 08:38, 09 Mar 2012 (UTC) In Thai and Malay, the first name comes first, followed by a surname or patronymic, but the first name is used after the first mention, as in Mahathir Mohamad (his father was Mohammed something). Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Burmese also use this system, but sometimes in reverse order. (Aung San Suu Kyi’s father was Aung San. She is Suu Kyi at second mention.) And also: Asian Pacific American Handbook, via the California State Library:[2] Most Thai names have only two name parts, family names last. But the spelling of parts can be exceptionally long by Western standards. Thai people are usually known by their personal name, which is listed first, even at the second reference: Prapass Charusathira, Mr. Prapass, Mrs. Prapass; Prem Tinsulanonda, Mr. Prem, Mrs. Prem. Thai royal names are actually written as one long Thai word and only broken down for foreigners. They usually consist of seven syllables; the pause usually occurs after the third syllable.

Reuters Handbook of Journalism:[3] Thai names

Second name is used alone, e.g. Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan said… Chatichai added…

University of Queensland Style and Production Guide 2012:[4] Most Thais have two names. The first is the first name and the second is the family name. Use both names at the first mention, then use only the first one. So Chuan Leekpai is Mr. Chuan. Why is this discussion even necessary? –Paul_012 (Talk) 08:51, 09 Mar 2012 (UTC) The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not this entry should be included in the MOS. Nice job by the way! Mootros (Vortrag) 10:03, 9. März 2012 (UTC)

Hinzugefügt. –Paul_012 (Vortrag) 14:51, 17. März 2012 (UTC)

Ich denke, dass die jüngste Hinzufügung (des thailändischen Sprachgebrauchs) erweitert und / oder geändert werden muss, aber ich bin mir des Materials nicht sicher genug, um es selbst zu tun. Der Rest von MOS:BIO bezieht sich auf „Vornamen“ und „Nachnamen“ (dh Familiennamen), aber die thailändische Verwendung bezieht sich auf „erste“ und „zweite“ Namen. Ich bin Australier und gebe zu, dass mein Wissen über nicht-westliche Namenskonventionen bei weitem nicht vollständig ist. Während westliche Namen im Allgemeinen als Vorname-Nachname geschrieben werden (z. B. John Smith), weiß ich, dass “asiatische” (im sehr allgemeinen Sinne, der von einem unwissenden Westler verwendet wird) Namen als Nachname-Vorname geschrieben werden (z. B. Wen Jiabao). Aber ist Thai „asiatisch“? Laut unserem asiatischen Artikel ist dies der Fall, aber die meisten der obigen Diskussionen deuten darauf hin, dass Thais die Namen als Nachnamen mit Vornamen schreiben. Ist der „Vorname“ (mit dem wir uns später auf eine thailändische Person beziehen sollten) also der Vorname oder der Nachname? Mitch Ames (Vortrag) 02:39, 18. März 2012 (UTC)

Der Vorname ist der Vorname. –RJFF (Vortrag) 02:43, 18. März 2012 (UTC) Ich habe dies ein wenig weiter verbessert durch: (1) Erweiterung der Kontextdetails (2) Umformulierung durch Hinzufügen von Pronomen und Einführung einer Zwei-Satz-Struktur zur Unterscheidung von rational Handlungsempfehlung in Leitlinie. Mootros (Vortrag) 06:09, 4. April 2012 (UTC)

Wir sollten auch entscheiden, wie wir thailändische Namen einheitlich in Kategorien sortieren. Derzeit verwenden einige Benutzer den Sortierschlüssel “Lastname, Firstname” (westlicher Sprachgebrauch), während andere “Firstname Lastname” (thailändischer Brauch) verwenden, sodass die Sortierung in Kategorien, die Thailänder enthalten, – im Klartext – ein Chaos ist. Einige Artikel finden sich unter dem Vornamen, andere unter dem Nachnamen. –RJFF (Vortrag) 12:58, 18. März 2012 (UTC)

Dies wurde kürzlich bei WP:NAMESORT geändert. Da werde ich eine Diskussion starten. –Paul_012 (Vortrag) 06:36, 20. März 2012 (UTC)

Gehe ich richtig davon aus, dass die Postnominale JP mit dem Namen einer Person in den Anfang eines Artikels aufgenommen werden müssen, da diese eher von einem Staat als von einer akademischen Einrichtung herausgegeben werden? Als solche sollten sie wie die Post-Nominals einer staatlichen Auszeichnung wie VC, ONZ usw. behandelt werden. 121.73.7.84 (Vortrag) 11:26, 5. April 2012 (UTC)

Bei Talk:Donald Tsang wird derzeit darüber diskutiert, ob der vorläufige Titel „Sir“ in den fettgedruckten Text im Anfangssatz des Artikels aufgenommen werden soll. Die aktuelle MoS-Richtlinie sieht keine Ausnahmen vor – das heißt, jeder, der Anspruch auf “Sir” oder “Dame” hat, erhält den Titel im führenden Satz fett gedruckt. Donald Tsang hat Anspruch auf die Verwendung von “Sir”, hatte seine Ritterwürde nicht aufgegeben oder verleugnet, verwendet den Titel jedoch (teilweise aufgrund eines Wechsels der Nationalität) nicht regelmäßig. Die Medien scheinen den Titel in den ersten paar Jahren, in denen er zum Ritter geschlagen wurde (1997-2000), verwendet zu haben, haben dies jedoch eingestellt und nennen ihn konsequent “Mr. Tsang”.

Meine Ansicht dazu ist, Sir nicht für lebende Empfänger von Ritterwürden einzuschließen, die ihre Ritterwürde verleugnet haben, sondern sie für diejenigen einzuschließen, die verstorben sind oder ihre Ritterwürde nicht verleugnet haben. Tsang fällt unter letzteres. Ich denke, der fettgedruckte Text, der den vollständigen Namen zusammen mit Vornamen enthält, soll nicht den allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch widerspiegeln.

Kommentare und ob der aktuelle Wortlaut korrigiert werden muss, um Fälle wie diese widerzuspiegeln?–Jiang (Vortrag) 01:46, 4. April 2012 (UTC)

So wie ich es verstehe, sind nur Bürger von Ländern, die die Königin als Staatsoberhaupt haben (mit möglichen Ausnahmen wie Irland), berechtigt, “Sir” zu verwenden, wenn sie mit einem KBE ausgezeichnet werden. also zum Beispiel “Bill Gates, KBE”, aber nicht “Sir Bill Gates”. Menschen, die später britische Staatsbürger werden, können das Recht auf den Titel “Sir” erwerben (und Bill Gates wäre zweifellos sehr willkommen), aber kennen wir die offizielle Regel oder inoffizielle Konvention für diejenigen, die später die britische Staatsbürgerschaft verlieren? –Boson (Vortrag) 13:14, 6. April 2012 (UTC)

Schauen Sie sich die erste Fußnote des Artikels an. Bürger von Ländern, die zum Zeitpunkt der Verleihung der Ritterschaft die Königin als Staatsoberhaupt haben, sind berechtigt, “Sir” zu verwenden, wenn sie ein KBE erhalten, unabhängig davon, ob die Commonwealth-Staatsbürgerschaft zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt verloren gegangen ist. Der Titel “Sir” wird für immer (oder bis zum Verfall) gehalten. We have parallel cases involving Indian nationals who were knighted before 1947. We have cases where the knight continued to use the title, cases where the knight stopped using the title, and cases where the knight repudiated the title and returned the insignia. Where do we draw the line on when to use “Sir” and when not to?–Jiang (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Talking general principles (which I think is appropriate on this page), I would say: As a general rule, we want to follow conventions.

We want a very reliable source for what the conventions are. If none is available, we can decide on the normal criteria for deciding MOS rules.

We want uniform rules (even if they are complicated and take account of personal preference).

Because the rules are complicated, there is a danger that normally reliable sources will get it wrong, which is one reason why we should not necessarily follow sources that are reliable in other respects.

For persons whose notability (since being awarded their KBE) are mainly notable in a non-Commonwealth jurisdiction/culture, we should follow the conventions of the appropriate location, with the conventions of England taking second place.

We should take the preference of the person concerned into account.

We should take into account that acceptance of awards or use of titles might be illegal or otherwise frowned upon in certain places and that our use of such honorifics might imply such use.

If we know what the rules are (and can source them reliably), we should state them (probably in a footnote), whatever choice is made in the body text. If possible, we should link to an article where the details are explained (what about an Englishman with a knighthood who later acquires American citizenship?). So, if the facts are as I understand them, in the case of (Sir) Donald Tsang I would say one should omit the “Sir” throughout the article but indicate that he was awarded a KBE and (in a footnote) that he is (or may be) entitled to use the “Sir” (with appropriate sources). I think the Economist’s solution is elegant (“Sir Donald, as he prefers not to be known”), but not quite encyclopedic in style. –Boson (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is not whether “Sir” should be used throughout the article but whether it belongs in the bolded text in the lead section, which takes exception to common usage by displaying the full and complete name of the person. On the one hand, a title is not the same as a name; on the other hand, the bolded text was never designed to reflect “personal preference” or “common usage”. see also List of honorary British knights and dames on what we have to say on loss of citizenship.–Jiang (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC) A problem here is that if Tsang had registered himself as a British national (overseas), he is still a Commonwealth citizen, since British nationals (overseas) are Commonwealth citizens by definition. Jeffrey (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Tsang did not register himself as a British National (Overseas), as did not Anson Chan and other officers of the new SAR government, and that is why her damehood awarded in 2002 is honorary. If she had been given a damehood in 1997 like Tsang, she would similarly be entitled to be styled “Dame”.–Jiang (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A request for comment has been filed regarding the use of “Sir” in Donald Tsang’s biography. Please join the discussion here. –Jiang (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A Serb editor is adding in a name in Serbian Cyrillic to the lead of an Australian actress whose father was Serbian. I am assuming that the convention is to use script translations only when the subject is from that country. I can’t find a specific guideline for this. Your views are appreciated. Thanks Span (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there even a reliable source attesting to the Serbian Cyrillic name? If not, it’s OR and goes straightaway. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Eiður Guðjohnsen, names which are hard to read for me. Why don’t we put the common English spelling of the name in the beginning of the lede, in parentheses as a significant alternative name? If I want to find out how their name is commonly spelled in English I have to go all the way down to the references section. That makes no sense. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand it either, it is flat out against Wikipedia guidlines. The most common guidlines like WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, but also many other, states: “It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English”. This makes sense because this is the English language Wikipedia, not some Icelandic one. Internationally, not many people can read Icelandic either. I will change the titles of the pages. dr D.E. Mophon (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Firstly it isn’t against WP guidelines see WP:MOSPN#diacritics. As for “internationally” educated Europeans evidently can read ð as the interwikis show. We’d need to start a new wikipedia us. uk. or au. if we are are going to go by “native English speakers” rather than “all English speakers”; see James Stanlaw -Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact 2004 Page 280 “The British Council as early as 1986 recognized that the majority of English speakers were not ‘native’.” In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Belatedly agree with In ictu oculi. As written unless someone is so well known by an English common name (similar to place names) that there is a solid case for that usage. (And I would probably add that there is also sufficient difference, not just diacritics applied to otherwise the same letters.) How Eastern European hockey players’ names appear on their uniforms in the U.S. NHL is a typical nexus of a great wailing and gnashing of teeth which typically degenerates into the non-diacritics camp being denounced for being anti-name-your-nationality and of being nationality/ethnicity denialists and the diacritics camp being labeled as POV-pushing article-owning nationalists. Redirects exist to address this sort of stuff. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, this matter is, as you say, one of “great wailing and gnashing of teeth”, ANI, DR, and other noticeboard issues, and the behavioral issues are not, I fear, going to resolve until there is better policy guidance. I would have hoped that common sense and civility would reign, but that’s not the case. As such, I’m going to make an RfC below, and I’ll try and write a more general question than one specific to Icelandic, as lovely as that language is. –j⚛e decker talk 19:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing rules – WP:CREDENTIAL starts with “Academic and professional titles (such as “Doctor” or “Professor”) should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person’s name .” What is the point of the section in red, since it seems to cover all situations? Similarly, “Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject’s name in the first line…” (followed by a parenthetical dealing with articles not about the subject person) doesn’t address the rest of the article (i.e. after the first line). Should they be used there? That would seem oddly inconsistent. Disrespectful policy – Assuming that the ultimate intent of this (and the rest of the section) is to say that the prefix “Doctor” and suffixes “Ph.D.” or “MD” should not be used at all for articles about the subject person, unless it is a pseudonym or stage name (whether earned or not), especially in combination with the following section about using honorary titles and postnoms, I think we’ve got it completely backwards. To refer to someone given an honorary title by a non-elected monarch as “Sir”, or who undeservedly decides to call themselves “Doctor”, but yet not refer to someone who spends a third of their life learning how to save lives as “Doctor” is just plain disrespectful to the latter. How/why did WP arrive at this decision?

—[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 11:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It’s no more disrespectful than not prefixing names with “Mr”, “Mrs” etc. Should we also do that? To refer to someone given an honorary title by a non-elected monarch as “Sir” – I think you’re showing your colours here. “Sir” is a title granted by the United Kingdom to honour its most outstanding citizens. Try not to insult a country by denegrating its honours system. It and its associated titles are also used in almost all encyclopaedias, whereas academic titles are not, and are invariably used when addressing the individual so honoured, effectively becoming part of their name. It is actually incorrect to refer to Sir John Smith as simple “John Smith”; it is not incorrect, in any country, to refer to Dr John Smith as “John Smith”, any more than it would be incorrect to refer to Mr John Smith as “John Smith”. It would be incorrect to refer to Dr John Smith as “Mr Smith”, but we don’t do that anyway.

Remember that usage of academic titles varies across the world. In America, for example, all doctors, vets and dentists hold doctorates. In most Commonwealth countries they do not and medical doctors (but not usually vets and dentists) use the title of “Dr” only as a courtesy, despite having done as much training as American doctors (it’s simply a different academic system). What titles should they have under your proposals? Their title is far more honorary than any knighthood, as it’s just a courtesy title, but they certainly should not be considered inferior to Americans with the same level of qualification but with different postnominal letters (in Britain, an MD is a prestigious higher research degree held by only a handful of physicians, not a basic vocational qualification). In many Commonwealth countries, qualified surgeons revert to “Mr”, using this title even if they do hold an MD. Many doctorates are merely honorary – and many holders of honorary doctorates do use the title “Dr”. In some European countries it is usual to prefix all degrees (not just doctorates) to a recipient’s name and far more people hold doctorates than in English-speaking countries (many lawyers, for example, who rarely hold doctorates in English-speaking countries unless they’re in academia). In short, academic titles are a minefield and therefore best avoided. — Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In recent days this IP editor Special:Contributions/90.219.64.194 has been going around changing articles in a very POV and contradictory way. They have replaced introductions saying someone is British to simply say Scottish along with removing United Kingdom as a location, but at the same time has been changing articles saying someone is English to British and adding UK.

There is at present no formalised way to handle British nationals, the essay at Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS is useless and out of date. Can there not be a discussion on trying to agree a single format? People are British citizens, the UK seems to be the only country with its citizens not described as such on articles, and this is unreasonable. There are many possible ways of handling the situation, but it would at least make far more sense for it to be British by default unless there are specific reasons and justification for only saying English or Scottish. Or to mention both. English/British or Scottish/British etc. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do i propose an alteration to the Manual of Styles? Does it have to be something like an RFC? What needs to happen for it to be formally discussed. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best solution might be the following.

The introduction by default of a British citizen should start “is a British…” except when: The person’s primary notability is for a sport that is competed by the Home nations (Such as Football and Rugby) The person is a politician for one of the devolved assemblies or parliament or governments. The person’s notability relates specifically to being English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish. Sources are provided showing the person rejects their British nationality or favours the break up of the British state. The person considers themselves Irish and holds an Irish passport.

The infobox nationality field states British by default: If the person is known in the media or to identify as English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish or is notable for that reason (culturally, politically, sports etc) then the infobox should say British (Scottish) / British (English) etc If the person rejects their British nationality or favours the break up of the British state then simply put English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish or Northern Irish.

I believe this uniformed approach might work well and prevent a huge amount of alterations that presently happen as people change things backwards and forwards so often. it avoids calling someone British if they reject British nationality.. so for example Alex Salmond would be a Scottish politician and the infobox simply says Scottish. But Chris Hoy would say British track cyclist and his infobox would say British (Scottish). It seems to me a reasonable compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did a spot check “is a British actor” “is an English actor” both had around 1,500 articles. Leave it as it is, each article creator has put thought into it based on context and sources. It is just removing useful information for the sake of what is evidently a POV. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC) But this is not about what each articles creator put, this is about the fact editors like this IP go around changing things such as British to Scottish. The status quo is hugely problematic with constant changes backwards and forwards on numerous articles, there needs to be some form of standardised process rather than leaving it to be completely random dependent on which editor gets their preferred version in first. Now who is talking about removing useful information? What i have proposed above provides MORE information. It would say English/Scottish if that is what their notability is related to such as footballer, but at the same time it would also say British in the infobox (along with English or Scottish etc), unless they reject their British nationality to avoid causing controversy or offence. At present a legal nationality recognised around the world is totally ignored on numerous articles, even of people who openly say they are proud to be British. The UK is the only country treated in this way and it is unfair and gross bias. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC) “Proud to be British”? if that’s the reasoning then you should definitely not be adding “British” to English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish. Unless there’s evidence in the article that the person concerned is a British nationalist then English/ Scottish/ Welsh/ Northern Irish is more neutral and more precise. Please leave this alone, it is obviously POV and not appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The point is if sources identify them as British and they are on the record as supporting their British nationality, it is crazy that the anti British bias that blatantly exists on wikipedia prevents it from being mentioned on their article. How is it “more neutral” to simply to refer to someone as English or Scottish. The legal nationality is British, they are British citizens. In your previous post you claimed that i was proposing to remove useful information, i hope you will withdraw that incorrect claim. It is infact you who are seeking to prevent more information from being included by the offensive suggestion that stating someones legal nationality would some how not be “neutral”. Please explain that too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC) BritishWatcher, agree with you 100%. Unless someone has expressed an actual and documented preference to be identified as Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish, represents one of those countries in a sport such as football or rugby in which each home nation competes as a separate country, or is a member of one of the devolved legislatures or governments, then “British” should be the preferred descriptor. Many British people have “mixed” ancestry and/or have moved around (or their parents have) and don’t necessarily identify with the one of the four home nations in which they were born or specifically with any of them. To force an identifier on them because of where they were born, other than the nation state (i.e. the United Kingdom, making them British), is POV. — Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I also agree. There’s a big tendency to look at birthplaces but this can lead to mistakes: Ian Hislop isn’t Welsh but David Lloyd George certainly was. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is more complex than BritishWatcher suggests, and cannot be resolved by rules or guidelines that try to impose some form of consistency. Some people are legally of British nationality but would never describe themselves as such, preferring Scottish, Welsh, English, etc.. Others are happy to be described as both British and Scottish, etc. And the fact that it may be “obvious” to people in the UK that a person can be – for example – both British and Scottish, it may by no means be obvious to readers in other parts of the world. There are also issues relating to historical figures, and those who identified with a nation different to the one in which they were born (Lloyd George, for instance). The solution to BW’s problem of IPs changing nationality without discussion (other than sometimes in a cursory edit summary) is that all such changes should be summarily reverted unless there has been a discussion leading to a measure of agreement on the talk page, in each case. And, if there is any evidence of sources indicating different nationality (for example, one source describing an actor as “British” but another describing them as “Scottish”), this should be explained, probably very briefly, in the article itself. Consistency is impossible to achieve because it does not exist in the real world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I accept that there cannot be a uniform policy of simply stating everyone is British because the issue is complex, but that is why my proposal specifically rules that out, making it very clear if people do not identify as British or reject the British state, dont put British. Here is another example.. history of Michael Jamieson article. An editor creates an article about a British swimmer taking part with Team GB at the olympics and calls them a British swimmer. Along comes a different IP [5] changing British to Scottish. And then yesterday along comes another IP, changing nationality in the infobox from UK to Scottish [6].

Now using my proposal above, the article would start he is a British swimmer, his nationality would be put as British (Scottish) in the infobox or United Kingdom (Scottish). If there were sources showing he supports Scottish independence or rejects his british nationality, then removing British from the intro would be be in line with it. I do not get how my proposal does not take into account the difficulties you mention, and additional safeguards would be possible.

On the example of a British/Scottish actor.. Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) comes to mind, someone notable for British television, i believe it would be more reasonable for him to be described as a British actor in the intro + title (unless there are disambiguation issues which there are not in this case), with the infobox saying British (Scottish). Where as someone only notable for being in a Scottish television programme like River City would be better described as a Scottish actor, with the infobox nationality saying British (Scottish) unless a source exists demonstrating they reject British identity, only view themselves as Scottish or support the breakup of the British state. I think a reasonable guideline could be drawn out that would be acceptable to all sides, it would prevent any person from the SNP for example being described as British in the article/infobox to avoid any controversial disputes, even though they are in fact British nationals.

I accept there is not consistency in how everyone is treated in terms of media sources, but one thing is factually accurate, the legal nationality recognised around the world, is British nationality. That is what their nationality is no matter what their preference, but that is why guidelines with exemptions seems a reasonable compromise. And in terms of the infobox if Scottish (British) / English (British) makes more sense than British (Scottish) or British (English) then i would equally see that as a solution too. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I don’t dissent from that to any significant degree. I’ve made a change to the Michael Jamieson article – he was born in Scotland, represents Team GB, and I’ve not seen any sources that say that he self-identifies as Scottish rather than British. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Did you actually look for sources? This shows Michael Jamieson self-identifies as Scottish. A Google search using “Michael Jamieson Scottish” show many more reliable sources that he is Scottish. Daicaregos (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Do you have sources showing he rejects his British nationality? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (e/c) Apart from the fact that Twitter is not a reliable source, what I did was simply to revert to the status quo ante – the article accurately described him as British, before it was changed without any discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC) You may be interested to know that WP:SELFSOURCE confirms Twitter may be used as a source of information about the author. I have no particular interest in the Michael Jamieson article, and any discussion on it is best confined to its talk page. Given that you said you had not seen any sources that say that he self-identifies as Scottish, I only wanted to know if you had looked for sources and failed to find any, as I found them very easily. Daicaregos (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC) The question is are there sources that show he identifies as Scottish and rejects his British nationality. Considering he plays for Team GB the evidence would suggest otherwise. I did a google search, i find more sources saying British than Scottish for Michael Jamieson. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks i agree with that sort of approach, i think it makes sense to say born ** , Scotland , in the same way some American articles simply say (born ***, State) on articles. It is the nationality issue that seems to cause by far the biggest trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) This line “[if] he supports Scottish independence or rejects his british nationality” is silly. Most people use the terms “English” “Scottish” “Welsh” “Northern Irish” for precision, not greatly different from “Cornish” “Midlands” “Yorkshireman”, and perhaps to others additionally because “British” carries overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour. Someone is Scottish because they are Scottish, it has nothing to do with supporting Scottish independence. Please do not go adding “British (Scottish)” to infoboxes. In fact please drop this silly subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC) What is someone who is born in Scotland with one Scottish parent and one English parent but then spends most of their life in England? Someone born in England with two Scottish parents who is educated in Scotland and then moves back to England? I know two people with broad Scottish accents who were born in England to English parents, grew up in Scotland, were educated in Scotland, but have lived almost all their adult lives in England. One is a Scottish nationalist. I know another person, also with a broad Scottish accent, who was born, grew up and was educated in England, but who married a Scottish woman and settled in Scotland, where he has now spent most of his life. He is pro-United Kingdom, as is his (wholly Scottish) wife. I personally was born in South East England (although I have substantial amounts of Scottish and Irish blood), grew up in Cornwall, was educated in England and Wales, and have spent most of my life since in South East England and the Midlands. I happily and proudly identify as Cornish, English and British and see no conflict between them. You see the problem with identifying someone as coming from one of the four home nations? That’s why British, our legal nationality, is generally a safer and more NPOV option. As to carrying “overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour”, that sounds like your POV. Why on earth would “British” carry this flavour? To many, the word “nationalism” is what carries this “flavour”. — Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps among other reasons because “British Nationality” has been co-opted by the British National Party. But there’s also “British bulldog” “British beef” “Best of British” “Buy British” etc. The term, when used outside the neutral/natural/unavoidable parameters where UK won’t serve, to many people carries baggage. There’ll be exceptions such as Cool Britannia, Team GB In ictu oculi (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Do you know how incredibly offensive some of your comments are in terms of your derogatory views on British people and British nationality, although this does demonstrate some of the anti British bias that exists on wikipedia. People are British citizens, my proposal above would avoid calling anyone British that does view it as carrying “baggage” and objects to being British or opposes the British state. How is that not reasonable. You say Team GB is an exception, well there are sadly many examples of Team GB participants whos articles do not say they are British because of the actions of a minority of editors seeking to censor British nationality from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Quite. “British Nationality” has been co-opted by the British National Party. What utter and complete drivel! Just because a tiny minority group uses a term does not mean it becomes associated with their politics, which are anathema to most people who call themselves British. “Co-opted” indeed. Good God, I’ve read some rubbish on Wikipedia talk pages… Using your logic (which, thank God, I don’t), “Scottish” and “Welsh” should also be seen as carrying “overtones of jingoism and/or a slightly creepy/nasty flavour”, given some of the arrogant, offensive, racist comments that have on many occasions issued from the mouths of Scottish and Welsh nationalists, many of them with overtly far less extreme politics than the BNP. People from all parts of the United Kingdom are British. Fact. It’s on their passports. — Necrothesp (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Look guys, I don’t have a dog, bone or kennel in this, or in fact anywhere near this. I’m just telling you how it sounds to some people and you’re reacting by being uncivil and rather confirming the direction this kind of MOS arguing will take. ::::::This has nothing to do with “derogatory views on British people and British nationality” – the responses show that, BritishWatcher, Necrothesp, you don’t have any sensitivity or “ear” for how the term – when deliberately contrasted with English/Scottish/Welsh/NorthernIrish – can sound to many British people. Passports have UKGB&NI on the cover and “British Citizen” on the ID page. Anyway, whatever you may think. As per Jacklee below. All the best. I won’t be responding further. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It is not “uncivil” to refute ludicrous arguments. — Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I participated in the last round of discussions that led to WP:UKNATIONALS and am not planning to take part in the present discussion on the matter. I just wanted to say that the discussion thus far shows there is unlikely to be any consensus on this issue, and that WP:UKNATIONALS (an essay, not a guideline or policy) was drafted to record the lack of consensus following the last discussion. For what it is worth, my personal view was that “British” should be used as a default, but no consensus could be reached on that. All the best for the present discussion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, it hardly seems an unreasonable position to hold in terms of having a basic policy of British by default with exemptions to avoid any controversial issues arriving and where it makes more sense to say Scottish/English etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And just came across this user making the same sort of changes. adding United Kingdom for someone from England whilst removing it for someone from Scotland and within 4 minutes on 31 July changing English to British and British to Scottish. These continued alterations back and forward with it going Scottish, British, British, Scottish etc is exactly why we need to try and reach clear guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That’s exactly the sort of behaviour we need to oppose. One of this editor’s edit summaries was “England is NOT a country on its own. It does not govern itself [presumably implying that Scotland was not a country either before devolution in 1998, something I think would be rightly opposed by most Scots]. And Besides that, England is still a part of the UK!” [italicised text mine], while at the same time deleting British/UK from articles on Scottish individuals. Clearly POV and highly biased. It seems strange to me that it is implied in some of these arguments that those of us who champion the neutral and legally accurate “British” for all natives of the United Kingdom are biased, while this sort of partisan behaviour is considered to be understandable. It seems that many believe that the English make no distinction between English and British – this is simply not true and many English people (including myself) identify as English first and foremost. Nevertheless, the descriptor “British” is best for people from the United Kingdom except in certain circumstances. It’s accurate and it’s neutral. — Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I have to firmly express that any editing of the nature presented above amounts to nothing but disruptive editing. Glad to see they agreed to stop. I have seen an entire range blocked (IN ENGLAND LOL) for a similar editing pattern not too long ago…don’t tolerate it, give warnings and report if needed – if the user is clearly only interested in furthering their POV agenda and has no leg to stand on – just report and move along. –Τασουλα (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Jennie–x and I have been in a bit of a debate regarding how biography articles should be written in regards to a person’s last name, specifically when a person’s name changes (or becomes a pseudonym) later in their lives, as stated in the article. The example I am going to present involves the article which we have been debating for a couple of days now: Nicki Minaj. A couple days ago, I was making some edits on the article in regards to the chronology in the article in which the names “Maraj” and “Minaj” should be used to refer to her last name. Per WP:LASTNAME, the very first sentence reads “After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only…” How I would interpret this is that a surname for a person should not be used until it is mentioned in the article in the person’s timeline. The example in that article under debate is this section in the article: 2004–2007: Career beginnings. As of this moment, the person which this article is about is not officially recognized in the timeline as “Nicki Minaj” until the second to last sentence in this section. Since I interpreted the WP:LASTNAME section as I did, and since the subject has the last name “Maraj” in the previous section, I went on to change all mentions of the last name “Minaj” to “Maraj” prior to the point in the section when the subject was officially renamed “Nicki Minaj” (at the second-to-last sentence.)

The only other section that I can find in the WP:MOS that makes even a close reference to this subject is Changed names section of MOS:BIO; however, that section does not currently apply to this discussion as it reads:

“If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention.”

My thought is, though, either the Changed names section could be used as precedence to arrive to a conclusion regarding this topic, or there should be documentation on either the Changed names section or WP:LASTNAME that either opposes, or agrees with, my interpretation of WP:LASTNAME.

Thank you for your time in reading this and giving this topic consideration. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted the guidelines to an extent. Nicki Minaj has not changed her name in any way, “Nicki Minaj” is the pseudonym of “Onika Maraj”. The Changed names guidelines applies to people who have changed their legal name, for example, Reginald Dwight to Elton John, so they don’t apply in this situation.

The Nicki Minaj article previously used “Minaj” as the surname throughout the article until Steel1943 edited to include her legal surname in the early-life section. Personally, I would advocate keeping her pseudonym of “Minaj” throughout. As per WP:LASTNAME, “People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames”. This can be seen across countless articles in Wikipedia, one prominent example is Lady Gaga, in which her legal surname (Stefani Germanotta) is mentioned in the first sentence, but she is subsequently referred to as ‘Gaga’, even when she hadn’t adopted the pseudonym. The potential use of twos surnames, in my opinion, would only aid confusion (despite the editors intent to reduce confusion) and I don’t think this practice is present on many (or even any) articles on Wikipedia. Jennie | ☎ 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, and all of this is pointing to the fact that this article can be interpreted in multiple ways, and should be addressed for a interpretation that can be amended into the WP:LASTNAME section, or even MOS:BIO as a whole. As I have interpreted this guideline as so, and am still not convinced that my interpretation is incorrect, what this means is that this guideline could have multiple interpretations, and the multiple interpretations contradict each other. (And yes, I am not saying that the Changed names section refers to this topic in the least, as it does not. I put in bold the keyword that shows that it does not, but rather, was using that example as a possible precedent that could be used in an agreed decision for this discussion.) The specific point I am trying to locate in MOS:BIO to answer my question specifically does not exist; there are only precedents that have been added to this article that could be used to make a decision regarding this debate.

Sidenote regarding the case of Nicky Minaj, Jennie–x’s claim is not completely true regarding the entire article having “Minaj” listed prior to my edits: in the section 1982–2003: Early life, the section referred to her occasionally by her initial legal given name “Onika”, which needed to be fixed per WP:LASTNAME, which I did in addition to the changing of “Minaj” to “Maraj”.

The point of me bring this discussion here is this: if this is supposed to be the way that all articles have been agreed to be written in Wikipedia regarding biographies, a specific statement needs to be amended into MOS:BIO to include this point. As MOS:BIO stands right now, this specific topic could be interpreted in multiple ways. Many Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the MOS:BIO guidelines are quite clear and I’m not sure where the confusion is coming from. If the individual has a name, such as David Cameron, their surname should be used throughout the article – e.g. Cameron lives at 10 Downing Street. The guideline later states that if an individual has a pseudonym, they should either be (a) referred to by the pseudonym as a whole – e.g. Madonna has a daughter, Lourdes or (b) if the pseudonym has a surname, such as Nicki Minaj, then the surname should be used. If the individual has a pseudonym, but chooses to use a legal surname professionally, e.g. Beyonce Knowles, then use the legal surname.

In the case of Nicki Minaj (a pseudonym with a surname present) this should be used throughout the article, as found with countless examples: Lady Gaga, Jackie Chan, Ringo Starr, Marilyn Monroe and David Tennant. Jennie | ☎ 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My only point with all of this is that I want to see this officially stated clearly in MOS:BIO that this is or isn’t the case. And if this is not supposed to be the case, then there are a lot of articles that supposedly need correcting. At this point, I’m waiting for outside input regarding the way MOS:BIO is written and/or how it needs to be corrected/clarified. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an issue being hotly debated over on Talk:Homeopathy about what (if anything) to say when we mention someone’s name and link to them. (For example “German physicist physician Samuel Hahnemann said XYZ”). This is a kind of mini-biography – so I’m asking about it here.

The question is whether there is any kind of guideline about how to (or, indeed whether to) provide such attribution.

The specific case in point is James Randi – who is both a stage magician and a notable skeptic. In the context of his criticism of homeopathy, it’s perhaps relevant that he’s a noted skeptic – but it is also notable that as a stage magician because he exhibits showmanship in his anti-Homeopathy presentations. So should we say:

Where do we stop? We could end up with half a paragraph of biography leading up to a link to a person who merely mentioned something about the subject of the actual article we’re writing!

Looking through a range of articles at random, it seems that we’re highly inconsistent about this kind of thing. Just how much mini-biography of this person should we attempt to include when quoting them?

None (on the grounds that we’re linking to them – so a full bio is just a click away).

Only what seems relevant to the article (so Samuel Hahnemann is a ” physicist physician” because this is the Homeopathy article – and not “linguist”, for which he is also known).

physician” because this is the Homeopathy article – and not “linguist”, for which he is also known). Everything.

Does it make a difference if there is an article about the person or not? If there is a linked article, then the information could be omitted because the link can easily be clicked upon by the curious reader. But if there is no article, then perhaps a few words of context about this person is important.

Are there any existing guidelines about this at all?

SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Steve intended “physician”, not “physicist” 🙂 Some other possible criteria to consider are

Best known as X (by analogy to wp:COMMONNAME)

Most published on X (by virtue of wp:V)

Most cited on X (by extension to wp:N)

Many people have had things to say about (in this case) homeopathy. The blurb should make it clear to the reader why this particular person’s quote is worthy of mention in the article. Otherwise the inclusion could appear to be an arbitrary choice. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

When you stop and think about it though, why is Samual Hahnemann a “German physician” and not just a “Physician”? Nobody is suggesting that we say “American skeptic James Randi” – this is a clear WP:WORLDVIEW issue. Hmmmm…we really need a guideline! SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a further issue here. Though it is common in US Eng to use expressions such as “Stage magician, James Randi”…, this is not the case in Br Eng, where this would normally be “James Randi, the stage magician,…” (if he is well known) or “James Randi, a stage magician,…” (if he is not necessarily so; The Economist sometimes takes this form to extremes). In accordance with MOS:COMMONALITY, therefore, the US Eng form should be avoided where possible. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose to edit that birth and death dates can be reduced to years in the lead if the full dates are given in the body. The guideline now permits reduction if the full dates are in the infobox or the body. The problem with the infobox is that it is inaccessible to visitors who are visually impaired and depend on screen readers or other technology to convert text to speech. While an infobox is good for most visitors, all textual information in an infobox has to also be in the body. Therefore, I propose to delete “or in the infobox” from the Opening Paragraph section in the guideline. I’ll wait a week for comments. Many Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Finished. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose adding, in the section Names, in the subsection Subsequent Use, before “However, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic”, the following:

While Western names usually place the surname last, Eastern Asian names, those from China and east, usually place the surname first (e.g., Mao Zedong, whose surname was Mao). Less consistent are the names of people of East Asian heritage who move and live in a Western culture; some preserve name order and some Westernize name order, moving the surname to last, and this has to be determined on an individual case-by-case basis, although it may be found that a person with one Western name that is similar to many Western given names and that is followed by an Asian name has the surname last.

I propose adding, in the section Names, in the subsection Subsequent Use, at the end of the subsection, the following:

Full names should be used:

when two people named in the article, including in references, have the same surname, except for people in the same family (see the subsection Family Members with the Same Surname)

in quotations when an ellipsis or bracketing would make the quotation harder to read

in references, such as for an author

when the surname is easily confusable with a famous person’s name, e.g. , that of a prominent religious figure

, that of a prominent religious figure when the surname is easily confusable with a common word

when the surname sounds like another in the article even though spelled differently, for the benefit of visitors whose computers read Wikipedia aloud to them

The proposals are approximate, mainly to accommodate any intermediate edits to the existing guideline.

There’s a separate point already on the page about other countries, but, since it’s not for a foreign Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, it probably should be more closely integrated into the relevant point. However, that can come later.

I’ll wait a week for any comment.

Many Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive only looked at this diacritics issue a little in recent weeks for the first time, i certainly agree that there appears to be a crusade to undermine the English language on the English language wikipedia with the endless imposing on non English language names/words/symbols on here. Not only do just one side appear to get blocked, but i notice the other side is able to operate under the guise of countering systemic bias, a wikiproject that appears to be used to canvass for these sorts of issues to benefit the anti English language brigade, whilst i remember seeing another wikiproject shut down because it was the “opposing side”. Its a shocking state of affairs for the English language wikipedia, and i highly suspect most other language wikipedias dont suffer this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I’m dropping my proposal because this looks like it will be too time-consuming for research into Wikipedia pages, but if anyone else wants to pick it up, go right ahead. Many Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band’s name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thanks for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At WP:MOSBIO#Maiden names, it says that maiden names are often given, even when the subject is not known by that name. Why? I understand mentioning it as a birth name later in the article, but if Lucy Jones was never widely known by her maiden name Lucy Smith, why should the first words in the article be “Lucy Jones (née Smith)”? Regardless of whether the idea of married names is antiquated or sexist, it was common until the late 20th century, and this guideline seems like it’s trying to re-write history. I’d want the last line to read “A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband’s surname, nor will it necessarily include her maiden name.” and the rest of the section be made to agree. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 21:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It’s not an issue of maiden names specifically, but birth names (it’s not just married women who change their names, after all). Why do we put it into the first line? Because a person’s name and all versions they have used is highly encyclopaedic. And contrary to your statements above, the majority of women still change their surnames on marriage. I only know one married woman who has retained her original surname. We’re not rewriting history, but including information that all encyclopaedias include. — Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC) A bit late on this, but he may be referring to celebrities. Some of them will change their name but continue using a former one, but many celebrities, authors, and medical doctors tend to retain their birth names for complicated professional reasons. I also do not agree that removing the maiden name from articles is a good idea. We even put nicknames or other names on some. Spelling Style (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Spelling_Style#RE:_Biographical_articles.2Fchildren.27s_gender_and_name_in_lead. When I tried to make a change to a GA citing that there exists no guideline on this stance (I just added the subject’s child’s gender and name), three editors reverted me with one saying it was unnecessary, then a fourth one still insisting this isn’t necessarily a universal rule. I noted that some GAs and FAs do indeed list the genders and names of subject’s child(ren) so I thought this the norm. Apparently not. Thoughts? Should this be changed somewhere? Spelling Style (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I’d say it would be the same as for using children’s names in an infobox: “For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable.” –Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC) “Independently notable” is too strict a condition, in term of what WP means by notable, but in general children’s details should only be mentioned if they are well known or part of what the subject is known for. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says to include “Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity)” (emphasis added), going on say that this is (to simplify) generally where they live now. Or as an alternative, where they lived when they did their notable things, but only “if notable mainly for past events”.

Aren’t most people notable for past events? I’m a little hard-pressed to think of people notable for future events — the presumptive heir to a ruling throne or a large fortune, maybe? (And I doubt if “past events” is meant in contrast to “events occurring at this moment”, since it’d be unclear if “at this moment” refers to the time of writing or the time of reading (the latter would be essentially impossible to know, so it must be time of writing — but wouldn’t that be problematic, usually? Like if they’re notable mainly for winning a race which is still in progress when the article is written, or whatever?)

No, “if notable mainly for past events” must mean their notable achievements are mainly in the past. Right? Since that’s only definitely true of the dead (granted, sometimes dead people participate in notable events — King Tut, John Wycliffe, Elmer McCurdy — but we can probably ignore that), and probably true only of the retired or decrepit, should “if notable mainly for past events” instead be “if deceased or retired or decrepit”? (“Decrepit” is kind of subjective, so “if dead or retired (from their main field of endeavor)” would be much easier to deal with.)

I ask because Andruw Jones had “Andruw Rudolf Jones is a Dutch baseball player…”. I changed this to “… is a Curaçaoan baseball player…”. He’s from Curaçao, which makes him a Dutch citizen. I figured this is a bit of a technicality. But shouldn’t it instead be “American baseball player…”, given that all his notable accomplishments (so far) were achieved in the United States? (He has to live in the United States most of the year; I don’t know where he lives in the off-season, or if he’s still a Dutch citizen.)

Am I overthinking this? Herostratus (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This would require finding out whether or not Jones still does have Dutch citizenship. If he still does, then I personally would find it 100% acceptable to call him a “Curaçaoan baseball player”. If he has both, just change the lead to, “has dual American and Curaçaoan citizenship”. Spelling Style (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend changing “Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject’s biographers. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., George Welton III.”

to:

“Place a comma before Jr., Sr., but not before Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject’s biographers. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., George Welton III.”

This brings the title convention in line with the convention which appears in the MOS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you intended to write “Examples: Sammy Davis , Jr., …” (And they ought to be linked.) — Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I am putting together an essay at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Reliable Sources for Names in BLP, comments welcome. This is intended to be a successor to the above Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RFC: Names with diacritics and other non-ASCII letters, but restricted to WP:BLP. LittleBen (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a disagreement between Daniel the Monk and me over what counts as a post-nominal title. The disagreement emerged after this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugh_of_Saint_Victor&diff=522068025&oldid=521783146 ; the discussion that followed (User_talk:Daniel_the_Monk#WP:POSTNOM) was not conclusive. I understand the guideline as follows: always link / avoid bold typing post-nominal initials in general (as I see it this definitely includes post-nominals related to bodies of priests — Post-nominal letters#Examples). Daniel the Monk believes that since religious Order initials are not honorifics, they could/should be bold typed. Could we have this clarified in the guideline page? –Omnipaedista (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no special exception for religious vs. non-religious postnomials. — SMcCandlish ¤ þ Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ Contrib. No reason to treat these any differently. In this case their inclusion is anachronistic anyway, as I very much doubt postnoms were used in the 12th century! — Necrothesp (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Excellent point. I think postnomial abbreviations as adhering appendages to names (vs. incidental time-saving abbreviations used or not used as the writer wished) only go back to the 19th c., i.e. the Victorian era (based on my reading and retention; I’m not an expert on titles and styles). Any application here of a specific postnomial abbreviation outside of the period in which it provably was consistently used would be a clear policy violation, per WP:NOR. — SMcCandlish ¤ þ Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ Contrib. Re McCandlish’s point, these postnominal initials are precisely that, time saving abbreviations, not appendages. So regarding that and the issue of NOR, an indication of a person’s religious Order following their name can be found in illustrations of individuals going back to at least the 16th century. In texts they go back to the 12th century, when Orders other than the Benedictine began to emerge, as a means of identifying the individual’s religious affiliation. In modern times, the name of the Order was simply abbreviated. As to the point of anachronism, if the individual belonged to an Order which still exists and uses these postnominal initials, why should they be treated differently in a contemporary text? Are they not to be treated as a member of the Order, albeit no longer living? Clearly if they were alive today, they would use the postnominal initials. This is not an ancient document, but an encyclopedia. But as to the main point, why are they to be treated the same as honorifics, such as OBE or Ph.D.? I have yet to hear a good rationale. As I indicated in my initial exchange with Omnipaedista, they clearly are not that, but instead indicate membership in a community. Any member of the Order is entitled to their use, whether they are the Brother who repairs the plumbing or a cardinal. Therefore they should be considered the equivalent of Jr, Sr and III. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC) They aren’t equivalent. Jr, Sr and III are part of a person’s name, whereas postnominal letters indicate membership of orders or qualifications. If used, which they don’t have to be, they should not be bolded. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Jr and Sr do not have to be used, and often are not, so what is the difference in that regard? Plus what do you mean by qualifications? Other editors here don’t say that they are part of a name, so that seems irrelevant. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC) You mentioned PhD above. Membership of orders should be treated the same way. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

So presumably you’re also saying that postnominal abbreviations like RAMC, RAF and RN should be bolded as they also denote membership of an organisation? Sorry, but no. It’s a postnominal like any other. In actual fact, far from being bolded, none of these should even be used, because as you say they don’t actually denote any achievement but a simple membership. We don’t use degrees inline; why should we use postnoms denoting membership of an organisation? — Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Membership in a religious Order is legally recognized as equivalent to a family relationship throughout the world. So your comparison to an occupational organization is not equivalent. Perhaps that is the problem for people to grasp their meaning, as there is no equivalent otherwise in society, other than the familial titles of Jr., Sr., etc. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC) You presumably have documentary proof of this claim? A religious order is an “occupational organisation” to all except the religious. — Necrothesp (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC) In the United States, there have been a number of court rulings to this effect. For this reason, a religious superior is accepted as the next of kin by the legal system. I can’t speak to your own country, but I doubt that it is significantly different. Can you provide documentation for that last comment? Daniel the Monk (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Once again, would you like to provide proof to that effect? And tell us why it’s relevant to this discussion? As to my other statement, it’s blatantly obvious, I would have thought, since non-Christians clearly don’t accept that being a monk, nun or priest is anything other than a job. If we believed they were something higher then we’d obviously be Christians! That doesn’t need documentary proof, just common sense. — Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Only the article title is bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLD and the article title does not include post-nominal letters. DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I would love to see documentation for your assertion, Necrothesp. I am not arguing about anything being “higher”, simply that being part of a religious institute is being bound into a particular group with their particular way of life, one which is legally recognized as not being simply a job. The difference from a job is that otherwise your supervisor at the office could legally determine whether or not to pull the plug on your respirator, which a religious superior can do. Thus the closest civil parallel is familial. Consequently they should be bolded, even if not in the title of the entry, in the same way that a maiden name or a foreign alternative form or family title would be. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) You keep asserting these things, but have provided us with no proof! It’s all very well to say that a religious superior can “pull the plug on your respirator”, but a different thing entirely to prove it to us, which you have not yet done. The Catholic Church asserting this right and the law accepting it are two entirely separate things. And even if it were true, that still does not mean that the postnominals are part of their names, legally or otherwise. — Necrothesp (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC) What kind of proof would be possible in this format? This is not a legal codebook. And, even just assuming that I am correct in this matter, I disagree with your conclusion. They are certainly not honorifics, which is what the MOS speaks about. Why not consider them the equivalent of family titles, such as Junior or Senior? Can you suggest a better equivalent? Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I have removed “honorific suffixes” to clarify the guidance. DrKiernan (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Was there any kind of editorial consensus for that or did you do that on your own? Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC) The former. For example, there are 4 editors in this talk page section that agree on the point. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

“Rabbi” is an academic title indicating that the recipient has successfully completed the requirements of a multi-year program in an institution of higher Jewish education. As such, I had always thought that the first sentence of WP:CREDENTIAL,

Academic and professional titles (such as “Doctor” or “Professor”) should not be used before (or after) the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person’s name.

was a clear indication that the title “Rabbi” should not be included before the name in the initial sentence or other uses of a person’s name. However, I have recently been getting opposition to this from another editor, who insists, at least in the Elazar Shach article, that the title Rabbi “is part of his name.” Is my understanding incorrect? Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Any guidance would be most appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC) There is no specific guideline here, since Rabbi is essentially a religious title as opposed to a strictly academic one (rabbis are generally spoken of as being “ordained”, just as Christian clergy are). We have never really determined whether religious titles of any denomination should be included inline or not. It is a discussion we probably need to have, but as yet there is no real guidance. — Necrothesp (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC) If WP:CREDENTIAL doesn’t apply, then would WP:HONORIFIC? Some combination? Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC) My reading of the directives there seem to indicate that it is a case by case basis on whether to use the title Rabbi. Since we have Mother Teresa as an article name, it is clear that a usage of Rabbi could in theory by common enough to conform to the indications there. Whether or not a specific usage is, I think would have to be decided on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that lots and lots of people have their whole careers tied to their ethnicity. This is particularly true of many actors. It would seem much better to reword the phrasing on mentioning ethnicity in the lead. This is epsecially true because many actors who are clearly know as African-American only have one paragraph articles. The current situation has lead to a situation where people aggresively defend categorization and attack those who try to follow the rule that categorization should follow mention in the article, while at the same time other people agressively fight mention of ethnicity in the opening paragraph. This leads to people like me who seek to have some semblance of connection between the article and the categories it is placed in getting attacked by people from both sides. I can’t remove and article from Category:African-American actors without being accused of being a vandal because it is a commonly known fact that Ellen Bethea is African-American, but I can’t mention in the lead that Ellen Bethea is African-American because “mentioning ethnicity in the lead is discoraged”. What should I do, especially when those who are hung up on a stringent reading of the guidelines do not care one iota about categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Related searches to Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family

Information related to the topic Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family

Here are the search results of the thread Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family from Bing. You can read more if you want.

---

You have just come across an article on the topic Martha Borg Wiki, Age, Husband, Weight Loss Diet, Wikipedia, Family. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.

Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING