Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/His Holiness

This is debate over how the title "His Holiness" should be treated in the Benedict XVI article.

The following discussion comes from the Archives:

Archive 6

The honorific is found in more official correspondence adn official documents of the Vatican. As such, it would be logical to include them. The Pope, like the Queen, or the President, his correctly refered to by title. Whether or not people ACTUALLY do so is another question.

Dave

I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.

This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is his proper title, this has been discussed before. It isnt a point of view, its a title that he holds.Rangeley 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep "His Holiness" in the article. I'm not a Christian, and I don't personally think he's holy, but that is Benedict XVI's legitimate title. The same with using "Her Majesty" for Queen Elizabeth II, even if she isn't my queen. The same with using "The Right Honorable" for British MPs, and so on and so on. Kairos 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point that we should be consistent in our usage. I don't agree that honorifics are a necessary part of a title for the purpose of identifying the personal and positional attributes of an office holder. Certain positions may entail a great many possible honorifics making the situation even more annoying. I think that if the absence of the honorific caused ambiguity, it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted, in all cases, including "The Right Honorable" and so forth. Whig 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most pages regarding Americans simply use their name. Perhaps this is causing the confusion -- is it more common for Europeans to honor a persons title? I just checked GW Bush and it doesn't say "President Geor..." it just says his name. Same with Antonin Scalia, it doesn't say "Justice Antoni..." even though that's his title. However, all UK titles are there, from Sir Elton John to Her Magesty Queen Whoeverisqueen. My preference is that pages just use names -- to me, "His Holiness" is POV just as putting Führer Adolf Hitler would seem to be POV. It's certainly easier just to omit all titles rather than pick and choose, no? Quasipalm 03:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness" is a style (manner of address), not a title. In articles for royalty, Wikipedia does seem to fairly consistantly begin them with the style as part of the first reference. And yes, the pope is a monarch. Jonathunder 03:30, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Which seems consistently *wrong* to me, unless and in case a style and/or honorific is necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. Whig 11:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

President is NOT an example of style; it is an actual title. Pope, Bishop, Cardinal, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Baron, ect. are all offices; there's no way you could not include them in the article, and oftentimes it is only possible to identify people via these titles - Elizabeth isn't exactly a rare name, for instance. Queen Elizabeth is more distinctive though. In reality styles should probably not be appended before people's names because they are inherently PoV; for instance, Lucian Pulvermacher (aka Pope Pius XIII) is a modern-day antipope. In theory, he too should have the His Holiness title before his name, and it would be PoV to NOT give him that title if the "real" pope has it because we are essentially stating that Benedict XVI is the real pope and Pius XIII is not. I don't think anyone really wants to see that, but it what needs to be done if we have decided it is Wikipedia pollicy, as it certainly is not encylopedic. Titanium Dragon 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not in any sense POV *not* to call Pulvermacher "His Holiness". As established on the talk page for that article, he's not the Pope, and for Wikipedia to style him as if he was is to endorse his minority POV. Similarly, to deny Benedict XVI his official style is for Wikipedia to take a minority position that he's not a legitimate Pope.

Indeed, we **are** stating that Benedict XVI is legitimate and Pulvermacher is not. To do otherwise would be against the NPOV policy, which requires that the majority, dominant and accepted POV is acknowledged as such. That is an essential component of the actual policy: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. Slac speak up! 01:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive 7

There's an important distinction here. QE2 may or may not really be "majestic", but even if you don't think she is, it's a little white-lie formality to use the term. OTOH, for followers of religions that do not consider the pope "holy", it is an act of sacrilige to address him by that term. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

The style is not something only Roman Catholic Christians use. (I am not Catholic.) To use a style is not to express an opinion on whether a reigning prince really is serene, or whether an office holder is excellent or honorable, or whether a monarchical cleric is holy. It is simply giving the traditional form of address. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Archive 8

There's an important distinction here. QE2 may or may not really be "majestic", but even if you don't think she is, it's a little white-lie formality to use the term. OTOH, for followers of religions that do not consider the pope "holy", it is an act of sacrilige to address him by that term. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

The style is not something only Roman Catholic Christians use. (I am not Catholic.) To use a style is not to express an opinion on whether a reigning prince really is serene, or whether an office holder is excellent or honorable, or whether a monarchical cleric is holy. It is simply giving the traditional form of address. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

The terms "Your Grace" has been used before, but I was not sure how. Plus, if this is getting a problem, I will email the Vatican (again) to see if this issue can be settled. I will go back into the archives and find the link I gave out to support my stance on using His Holiness. Zscout370 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not for many centuries. Your Holiness has been the standard form of style for many centuries. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So is that the test for adding honorifics now? Being used for centuries? I think that's a poor excuse. --Quasipalm 08:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/His_Holiness. Since this topic has been discussed in the archives, I consolidated all the comments from each Archive page into one spot. Johntex 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I posted my suggestion for a compromise - formally addressed as "His Holiness" - This avoids both sticking it in front of the name, or calling it (wrongly) a title, or restraining its usage to Catholics (as Jonathan said - In fact, as Catholic, I would say that any politician or diplomat is more likely to address the Holy Father with "Your Holiness" or the Bishop with "Your Excellency". Str1977 22:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "formally address as His Holiness" seems accurate to me. It indicates the "style" (née title) without endorsing the claim it makes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Read this - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Here you will see it is correct (or at least it's consistent with the Style Guide) to use the honorific title His Holiness in the first reference to the pope in this article. As for followers of other religions considering it sacrilegious to use the style - well they don't have to, but like it or not His Holiness is the Pope's honorific title. Therefore I'm amending the article accordingly. Arcturus 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Were you around on the JPII article? If so, perhaps you'd realize that the manual of style was in fact edited by jguk in order to promote his view that "his holiness" should be included before the name of the Pope. I have changed that section back to its original form, which included such as "Saint", "Sir", "Sri", and "Reverend" - actually, those were the examples given. "His Holiness" and "The Right Honorable" are VERY different from those. Titanium Dragon 22:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is rather usual to call the pope the "Holy Father". Luis rib 21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But his formal style is His Holiness, just as monarchs are His/Her Majesty, many presidents are His Excellency, etc. It is standard. As to Lulu's comment on some religious seeing the title as a "sacrilige" (sic), so what? Many people disagree with religious titles of other leaders, but that is irrelevant. In writing an article we are not supposed to reflect the prejudices of others, but produce facts. Roman Catholicism technically doesn't accept the validity of Anglican orders, and pre-Vatican II used to refer to the "co-called Archbishop of Canterbury", or put Archbishop of Canterbury in inverted commas. But frankly it doesn't matter what Roman Catholicism thinks, we (rightly) refer to Anglican clerics by their titles and styles. Different branches of Islam and Judiasm dispute the validity of individual office holders' titles. We rightly don't. We treat every religious office holder according to their official title and style. The only exception is fringe individuals who declare themselves to be something they patiently obviously are not - like the Montana priest who was 'elected' Roman Catholic pope is a phone conclave of his friends and was installed in a hotel ballroom surrounded by 28 people. He isn't called His Holiness Pope Pius XIII as you could fill the number of people who believe he is the real pope into a small minibus. So whether some people are offended by it or not, we rightly call the pope "His Holiness", his standard title. Whether some people are offended or not we call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc etc etc. If we allowed the POV of outsiders from an organisation to veto how we refer to a head of an organisation wikipedia would become unusuable with people screaming 'I'm offended' everytime an article was written.

WRONG. We do NOT descriminate. This is POV, and you aren't seeing you're biased. What if I considered Catholics to be a "fringe group"? Maybe I do. I'm an atheist after all, and I see most religious people as being at least a little "off". Why should we be honoring the leader of such a bizzare "fringe group" which engages in a weekly mock cannibalistic ceremony with the style that group gave him?

I agree. I only see two options:

1) no honoristics, period.

2) all honoristics. including those for people who aren't popular, like say Hitler.

To say person A gets a honoristic title and person B does not is POV. To remove the POV, it's far easier to say no honoristics, period.

I also agree with the person who said this is probably a misunderstanding between European and American custom. I bet everyone complaining about the "His Holiness" line is an American (as am I) that finds the title in a reference setting off-putting. Europeans probably see it as a polite gesture, devoid of true meaning -- while formalities surrounding Kings, Queens, and other leaders are generally very unpopular and ignored state-side, probably due to a lack of history surrounding a ruling class. --Quasipalm 22:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now do you see why this is biased? Who defines "fringe"? There IS no neutral way to define it. All religions are cults.

Pius XIII is just as entitled to be called "His Holiness" in Wikipedia as Benedict XVI is. Even if ONE PERSON, yourself, called you by that style, in theory we would have to include it if you were important enough to merit an article. We would also say WHY you have said style - you gave it to yourself. It is important enough to warrant inclusion, but it is NOT NPOV to include it at the beginning of an article, unless you want to include it for everyone who has a style, no matter how small a number of people call them by it. If they're important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, then such details are relevant.

You are showing your bias in this matter. Pope Pius XIII is not the head of the Catholic Church; he is the head of the true Catholic Church (tCC) and claims to be the head of the Catholic Church. He is induitably the head of the tCC, and as such deserves the style as much as the head of the Catholic Church. Or do you think the prince of Monaco is not worthy of a style either because he is the leader of such a small country? Titanium Dragon 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put simply - it is for Catholics and no-one else to decide how popes are styled. It is for Anglicans and no-one else to decide how Anglican clergy are styled. It is for states and no-one else to decide how heads of states are styled. We simply reflect that. Choosing to ignore their choice would be POV and we can't do that. FearÉIREANN 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can style the Pope however you want in your personal life; you can call him "His holiness, heir to the throne of Peter Pope Benedict XVI". However, this is Wikipedia - we are supposed to be neutral. It isn't neutral to call the pope "his holiness" in the beginning of the article, it is neutral to state that he is officially styled "his holiness". Do you think we should call Hitler a hero, because the Neo-Nazis claim him as their own? After all, he IS their hero, and they can style him as such. If a neo-Nazi came along and changed the "Adolf Hitler" entry to "Hero Adolf Hitler", would you complain and revert it? Titanium Dragon 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for information:

There is no common usage honorific called "hero" in regard to Hitler. In his case the honorific is identical to his title "Fuehrer", possibly with an article or an possesive pronoun.

Str1977 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question of the correct name has nothing to do with beeing POV or not, "His Holiness" is simply not part of his religious name. Have a look at the vatican homepage. The manual of styles is irrelevant here because "His Holiness" is not considered part of the name but Sir or Sri are. In the Encyclopedia Britannica for instance you will find no "His Holiness" before "John Paul II" in the corresponding article but the entry for Peter Ustinov is under "Ustinov, Sir Peter". --Tarleton 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about "names" we are talking about "styles" which is something totally different. Wikipedia policy is to use styles in articles. His Holiness, Sir, The Right Honourable, His Excellency etc are all styles and their usage is clearly laid out in wikipedia rules. Any attempt to remove a style in any article will be instantly reverted, a long standing policy. BTW I opposed the use of styles at the start of articles but was outvoted. The decision has been taken and is clear. If you disagree with it you can debate the issue elsewhere. But here as elsewhere the agreed democratically taken decisions on the use of names, ordinals, styles etc are and will continue to be enforced by wikipedians until policy is changed. So constantly complaining about the use of the style here is pointless. It is the agreed format which we all have to follow, which is why, as you may have noticed, every attempt to remove His Holiness has been reverted and will continue to be reverted into the future automatically. FearÉIREANN

Voted? Where was this matter voted on?! And how would that even happen on Wikipedia? Are you sure that claim isn't just, ummm, a lie? In any case, it is clearly wrong to start the Pope Benedict XVI article with the style and not do so for the Dalai Lama (which clearly deliniates the limited scope of usage of the style). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:20, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Here is the issue. The reason "his holiness" was added to the list of examples was because someone much like yourself (jguk) actually unilaterally ALTERED, without discussion, that particular policy. It was POV pushing at its finest, and was done in very bad faith. The decision was not made, it was pushed onto the community by a single individual without discussion. His holiness should NOT be there, and it is NOT NPOV. If after discussion in the style article it is eventually decided it IS actually official wikipedia policy and not just POV pushing, the first thing I'm going to do is go and alter the "Lucian Pulvermacher" article and change it to look a great deal more like this one, because that is the neutral thing to do. I'm going to change it to "His holiness Pope Pius XIII (born Lucian Pulvermacher)", ect. because if it is official wikipedia policy to have such honorifics, we must do so neutrally. The Dalai Lama does not (unless someone added it very recently) have "His Holiness" before him, despite the fact that it is his official style.

It was not a democratic decision, and you should not call it such. Titanium Dragon 22:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Get a load of this. Here you see that the Vatican does indeed use the title/style His Holiness (albeit in this example for John Paul II). If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for Wikipedia. I notice Tony Blair is referred to as The Right Honourable. Many people would say he is a long way from being honourable. However, that is his (honorific) title, and that's how he's described in Wikipedia. Those of you against His Holiness - are you suggesting we trawl though Wikipedia to remove all such styles? Someone noted above that the manual of style was edited to include reference to The Pope - so what! The style Guide is free to be edited; it evolves. I believe it is correct to include the example of The Pope. As for the argument that introduces the concept of POV - what rubbish! Read what NPOV/POV is all about; putting both sides of an argument in an article. It's not about these types of issue, but it's been hijacked by contributors who think it is. Anyone care to revert to His Holiness - I've already had my three reversions, I think. Arcturus 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it is not good enough for CNN, which is a far more reputable (not to mention neutral) source. This style pushing was a unilateral decision by jguk ages ago. And yes, I would suggest we trawl through Wikipedia and remove all the inappropriate styles, because it would be a great deal easier than trawling through and ADDING all the inappropriate ones to all the articles that do not have them. I would even volunteer to do so. You apparently do not know what NPOV means. It means you are saying it from a neutral point of view. CNN and other similar media outlets call the Pope just that - Pope Benedict XVI. They do NOT call him His holiness Pope Benedict XVI. It is netural to call him that. It is not neutral to call him "His holiness". It is neutral to call Sir Connery exactly that. It is neutral to call Reverend Sharpton that. It is neutral to call President Clinton that. But it is not neutral to call the Pope "His holiness". It is neutral to call him "Pope Benedict XVI". Titanium Dragon 22:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And yes, the style is used in the Dalai Lama, and no, I did not just add it either. It reads, verbatum "The Dalai Lama belongs to the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. The current and 14th Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso. Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lamas were the most powerful political leaders in Tibet, controlling a large portion of the country from their capital at Lhasa. The Dalai Lama is also the most respected and venerated Tibetan Buddhist religious leader; in English, his followers and many others use "His Holiness" (or HH) as a prefix in his title. The Dalai Lamas, however, never had authority over every region of Tibet nor over the other sects of Tibetan Buddhism." Zscout370 23:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And from the article of the current Daili Lama: "Tibetan Buddhists normally refer to him as Yeshe Norbu, the "Wish-fulfilling Gem", or just Kundun, "the Presence". In the West he is often called "His Holiness the Dalai Lama", which is the style that the Dalai Lama uses on his official website, www.dalailama.com." Zscout370 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But look at the Tenzin Gyatso article; he is the Dalai Lama, and thus should have "His holiness" stuck on before his name assuming this is the correct policy. However, I do not think it is, and people will invariably complain that it is wrong to append "his holiness" to the start of his article, Pope Pius XIII's article, ect. It would be far more neutral to simply state it is their official style and not put it in the front. CNN does it, most encylopedias do it that way. Why can't we? It makes sense. Sir, Sri, Reverend, and Saint are all very different from "his holiness"; "Saint" cannot even be something a living person can be. Titanium Dragon 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem not to grasp the facts, it is wikipedia policy to use styles. I disagreed but was outvoted. Until the community decides otherwise it is standard to use styles here and and in hundreds of articles. All attempts to remove the agreed format wlll be reverted on sight. A continuous refusal by a few individuals to decide that they will override the decision of the community will be treated as vandalism. I don't care how the pope is referred to. But like other users I will continue to apply agreed rules until those rules are changed. And so will other users. If people continue to vandalise the article to push their POV in breach of the agreed rules then a request will be made to have the page protected and those who vandalise the page blocked from access to wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 23:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Pretty much with the latest messages from Arcturus, Jtdirl and myself, we just proved our case on why the style must be included in the article. Any more questions? Zscout370 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• So, let me get this straight: I should report you guys for changing Wikipedia policy without discussion, and constantly vandalising articles by adding styles to them despite the best efforts of fellow Wikipedia members to stop you? Because, you do realize you have not read a word I've said about it. 'It was changed by jguk to support his POV'. It was done without discussion. Don't label people vandals when you yourself could be seen as such. Titanium Dragon 23:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, rereading your post you're mentioning a vote. Where and when was aforementioned vote? I don't see it on the article that everyone is referencing regarding the Pope's style. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CNN - who are they, the fount of all knowledge? So CNN are more reputable than The Vatican in these matters - I think not. Thanks for reminding me that the Dali Lama also has the style His Holiness. I'll edit his article. Arcturus 23:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, espcially given what they did to Galileo Galilei and how it took them a century to accept evolution. I would not exactly term them a neutral or highly reputable source. Titanium Dragon 23:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But they are when it comes to deciding what to call The Pope. Arcturus 23:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What Arcturus is trying to pin-point is that on issues dealing with the Vatican, we want it to get it straight from the horse's mouth (in this case, the Vatican). The CNN, though it is a good news organization, cannot be right about the Vatican 100 percent of the time. Only the Vatican can (damn, I think I just thought up of a song. Reality, please hit me again.) Zscout370 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's the point though. The Vatican is not a neutral source. CNN is a reputable news agency, and as such it is in their best interests to remain as neutral as possible regarding such things. BBC agrees with CNN, as do Fox, ABC, CBS,... these are far more neutral sources than the Vatican on the appropriate way to refer to the Pope in a neutral manner. ALL of them refer to him as Pope Benedict XVI (or simply Pope Benedict). Not one of them called him "His holiness Pope Benedict XVI", because that is not neutral. Titanium Dragon 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts: Yes, it is more common (or rather more commonly known, US Diplomats can play the game too) to use such honorifics, especially in Britain. The CNN (repubtable?) link does not prove anything, since it's just a news article, not a encyclopedia entry. (And Dragon, your last post is just plain silly, no more on that!) I don't care how the style book came into existence, its content should be applied (especially since the alleged unilateral decision was "ages ago") That Dragon has problems in recognising "fringe" groups is his problem. Even if that pseudopope calls himself "His Holiness", noone else does. That's different with Pope Benedict. And if "Reverend" is ok., than "Holiness" is too. Reverend is a style too (though used more ferequently) like the "Right Honorouble" Tony Blair or the "Right Reverend" Rowan Williams or "His Holiness" Benedict XVI Str1977 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We, the American people, have honorifics that we use. We always refer to leaders by their position of power (President, Governor, Senator). We send our citizens overseas as ambassadors, and they get an honorific or two. Zscout370 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, all Americans, I meant no disrespect. It seems to me there a tendency to merge titles and honorifics in US usage, as in "Mr President" or "Reverend Sharpton". Str1977 23:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reverend, however, can also be a positional title, which is why news sources use it. Father is also used as such. Pope is a positional title. If you say Al Sharpton, most people will know who you are talking about; the same goes for John Paul II. But we call them by those names because they describe their position. People often simply refer to the Dalai Lama by his actual position rather than his name. Titanium Dragon 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is an encyclopedia reference you want, look here, or maybe Encylcopaedia Britannica, or possibly the Columbia Encylcopaedia. Titanium Dragon 23:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that if you do a look-see for some other titles, though, such as Sir, you'll get something like this. I'm fairly certain that the examples they gave were given specifically because they are what they are: recognized by encylopedias. Actually, reverend does not seem to be, but Saint, Sir, and Sri are showing up, though I'm not so sure about Sri, as it may be the Lanka kind. Titanium Dragon 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allright, Dragon, I accept your examples as valid, that a encyclopedia might or might nor include honorifics. Whether wikipedia should or should not is another matter. I say stick to the style book (no matter how it came about) or change the style book. I actually don't have a preference except for insisting that including this honorific is definetely not POV. But it might be considered superfluous.

Str1977 23:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I proposed in the original debate that the style be included in the text, in the form officially styled [style] in the text. But that was outvoted and it was decided to use the style at the start rather than contextualise it in the text. I think that was the wrong option (and predicted edit wars like this would result where people didn't understand what a style is and interpreted it as a POV, when in fact it is unambiguously NPOV. But we agreed on a policy and so all articles on people with styles should have them placed at the start. Where they are not there because the people writing the article don't know of the policy we all add them in as standard. FearÉIREANN 00:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The basic fact here is that "His Holiness" is no different from other styles/honorifics that we include in the opening of articles. Further, it is not a style that is recognized only by Catholics. There is perhaps an argument to be made that styles/honorifics should not be at the beginning of any article, but this is not the place to do that. john k 23:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Str is right, we do merge titles and honorifics together, like Mr. President. I believe that we just call Pope Benedict XVI, President Bush, Rev. Sharpton those names since we are id'ing in two words their name and their job. However, what I think some meant by styles and honorifics is "How do we address this person." Some leaders have a website where they state how the leader should be styled/addressed in this situation and how to do it in that situation. Plus, Str, I am not offended at all :). Zscout370 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John is correct. If you disagree with starting an article as HH debate it in the relevant place. But right now that is wikipedia policy. You cannot make up your own unique policy here. HH has to stay in, according to the agreed format on wikipedia, until wikipedia decides otherwise. FearÉIREANN 23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, because this seems to be causing some infighting, why don't we discuss ithere? Thing is, the manual of style states we should include honorifics before the names. However, if you look at the honorific entry, you will notice something - it doesn't say the sort of thing like "his holiness"; it is "sir", "father", ect. Style (manner of address) is something entirely different. Someone (jguk) four months ago entered a few styles (including "His holiness") into the list of example honorifics on the Wikipedia policy page, despite the fact that it is not an honorific but rather a style. He did this in order to support his PoV that we should put "his holiness" before the Pope's name in the John Paul II entry. If we want to include styles in all Wikipedia entries, perhaps we should discuss it, but as it stands the policy states that honorifics are what needs to be put in before the name; it says nothing about requiring styles to be there. Let us discuss this there and come to an agreement rather than have an edit war on this page. Resolving this issue would make our lives a whole lot easier. Titanium Dragon 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My view, which I have held consistently, is that we should merely report what happens in real life, without comment. If something happens or is used in real life, we report it. That way we avoid accusations of bias.

So I apply this NPOV principle to the issue of whether we should use styles. And the conclusion is that we should use them as they are used in real-life. IE We should use them, but not over-use them.

It can't be overstressed that the only reason we use them is because they are used in the real world. It is this that dispenses of all POV arguments - we make no comment on whether styles should be used, we just report that they are used. The only statement our usage of them makes is the demonstrably correct assertion that they are used in real life. By having this as the deciding criterion in article after article, we easily avoid accusations of bias.

Conversely, a ban on reporting certain pieces of information from being reported, or a ban on linguistic styles that are commonly used in real life by many people, would itself be POV. That is, if we have a policy of going against what real life usage is, we are then necessarily making a statement that real life usage is wrong. (Incidentally, over-using styles in a way which is unrealistic in real life should also be avoided, because such over-use would also be POV.)

However, this shouldn't really be a big deal. We mention a biographical subject's formal name and style at the start of an article - it's wholly unreasonable to suggest that we should edit or alter that name or style to suit some WPians political beliefs. Styles and honorifics are well-established and have been around since time immemorial - they exist in real life - what's the problem with using them? jguk 08:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, lest people be confused with this, and in particular be confused by Titanium Dragon's constant misrepresentation of the facts.

• Wikipedia does not use styles in article names.
• Wikipedia policy is to use a style at the start of an article. So papal biographical pages start with His Holiness, pages on monarchs start with His/Majesty, pages on other royalty start with the relevant styles, pages on senior clergyman use their appropriate official styles, etc.
• Where an article is written that does not include a style, wikipedia editors, along with correcting spellings, following the agreed use of British English or American English, removing copyright material and other things, automatically insert the relevant style in an article.
• Those articles on popes, royalty, office-holders etc that don't include the relevant styles right now don't because the editors haven't spotted the error or have not gotten around to adding it in now. But all such articles will have styles added as a matter of routine.
• Jguk, contrary to TitaniumD's claims, did not unilaterally impose an unwanted style on the article. He did as everyone else does and filled in one into an article that was not following the agreed format. That is normal practice.
• There is no point complaining here about the policy. It is a set policy. It can be debated elsewhere, but nothing here will change the policy.
• All attempts to remove the 'His Holiness' style will be reverted on sight as soon as it is spotted, unless and until the community policy non styles changes. In reverting editors are simply putting back the agreed format which cannot be unilaterally removed by people in one article out of thousands possessing styles. Styles either are used everywhere or nowhere. The wikipedia policy is to apply it everywhere and that policy is followed everywhere.

FearÉIREANN 11:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Brother Jtdirl. Zscout370 12:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl has asked me to contribute here, but he has pretty much said everything that can be said, so I can do little more than echo his sentiment. Styles at the beginning of articles are not POV, and it's WP policy to include them. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can see no reason why an article on the pope should not conform to the normal standards of Wikipedia articles such as the one on Prince Charles, which has "Charles, Prince of Wales" (without His Royal Highness) as the title, and then has "His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" (emphasis mine) at the beginning of the article. Concerning Lulu's remarks that to refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Her Majesty" while not really thinking she was majestic would be just a little white lie, whereas to people of other religions who did not consider the pope to be holy, using the title "His Holiness" would be a sacrilege, I'd like to point out something. The Catholic Church does not recognize as valid a second marriage while the first spouse is alive. Some Protestants agree. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine anyone seriously expecting the articles on Anne Boleyn or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to be edited to reflect the belief that since Henry's wife was alive at the time of the wedding, Anne was not really his wife, and since Camilla's husband is still alive, she's not really the Duchess of Cornwall. I have never met a Catholic, no matter how devout and orthodox, who hesitated to say that Anne Boleyn was the second wife of Henry VIII. That was what she was officially, whether or not you agreed with it, and Pope Benedict, in the same way, is officially "His Holiness". With due respect to people who have given more attention to this article than I have, I would request that we either leave Pope Benedict with his official title (His Holiness), or go back and re-edit all the articles about members of royal families in various countries, about the Right Honourable Tony Blair, and many others. Ann Heneghan 21:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the issue. If you look back at the page which the rules are set out on, and you look back in the history, you shall find that one person changed it. Originally, only honorifics were included in the section, and the top of that section agrees with that. However, jguk changed the list of examples and added several styles to the list because he wanted to include "his holiness" in the JPII article. I am well aware that many people have said styles were debated on, blah blah blah, but the article on the guidelines specifically says honorifics. There is a huge distinction between the two. Right now, there is debate going on (and a survey will be going up soon) regarding styles and whether or not they should be put at the beginning of articles or put somewhere in the text. I would suggest voting there. If we DO include styles, we have to include them for everyone with them, such as the beloved leader of North Korea and the antipope Lucian Pulvermacher. Titanium Dragon 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you look back at the page which the rules are set out on, and you look back in the history, you shall find that one person changed it. What did you expect? Some kind of group edit? Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current Discussion

The first link of the first paragraph makes little sense. Holiness links to the word discussion. Later there is a link to His Holiness, the title. I am not going to edit this, since it has been a hotly discussed topic, but I wanted to point it out. NoSeptember 13:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please someone in the know about the discussions (elsewhere) about styles have a look into the first paragraph. Unless the policy is changed now, there should be "His Holiness" (without links) in the beginning. Str1977 16:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there should be, unless titles are removed from the beginning of other articles on kings, princes, prime ministers, etc. Whether or not everyone thinks the pope is holy is of no more (or less) relevance than whether or not everyone thinks that Tony Blair is honourable, Queen Elizabeth II is majestic, and Prince Rainier was serene. Either the pope should be left with his official title at the beginning of the article, or all Wikipeda articles about people with titles should be changed. Ann Heneghan 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was the consensus before the page was protected: include the title "His Holiness" without a link at the top, link the phrase in the middle of the paragraph. NoSeptember 16:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean there was a consensus at the end?? All I can remember was this huge edit war on JPII page when he died, JPII & B16 page when B16 was elected. Don't know, things kinda got blury after a while seeing exactly the same arguements given over and over again in more than one page.... ;-) KTC 17:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess the page locking probably made people stop worrying about reverts/vandalism and just worry about the issues at hand. I also think many people are not watching this page now as there were before. Zscout370 (talk) 17:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You mean there was a consensus at the end??" LOL Yes, by consensus I mean a paper thin majority. :) NoSeptember 17:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This subject is currently being voted upon at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. Whig 09:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, before the vote is completed, how should the style be in the article? Zscout370 (talk) 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if an existing policy exists to use prefixed-style, then it should be kept until and unless changed. It could be footnoted to the survey if that is seen to aid the editors in being made aware of the survey and to encourage participation. Whig 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For this page, it mostly has been agreed to start it with "His Holiness Benedict XVI." Those who changed it see their edits reversed in a short amount of time. Zscout370 (talk) 23:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar from the Manual of Style Survey

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is back to his own tricks. He proceeded to doctor in style again, this time to add in a reference to say in effect that a vote is taking place to take out the style. Wikipedians are not supposed to add in footnotes to articles outlining their private gripe. It is nothing short of vandalism to do that. I've reverted it. (People on that page seem to spend most of their time having to undo Lulu's vandalism there.) And to add insult, he described his edit with the line That Jguk certainly is quite a vandal (time for an RFC?))

Lulu's behaviour shows complete contempt for those of us trying to find a consensus here. What sanction should be taken? FearÉIREANN 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(Whig said for this message to appear here). Zscout370 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Zscout370 and Jtdirl are among those trying to impose their stylistic preferences by dishonest means--contrary to the general consensus, and before the vote on usage has been completed. Jguk is clearly the worst of these, but the above two are close second and third (not necessarily in order). The footnote I restored, of course, was written by the Wikipedian conducting the vote, Whig. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:19, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Lulu: The style has been debated before this poll was taken. It was agreed to (and check the archives) that the style should remain. Though I voted for the consensus to keep the style, that is something the group has wanted to do. I have not edited this page today, but it has been reverted a few times to have the style included. As mentioned above, Whig said the style can stay until the vote has been completed. Until that vote is complete (which I did vote on anyways and my voting perferences is not POV pushing), the style should remain. Zscout370 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I did check the archive, and can find no evidence whatsoever that consensus was reached on this usage. What I can find evidence of is Jguk unilaterally changing the Wikipedia style guide to duplicitously force the usage in the JP2 page (before the death of JP2). User:Whig, of course, was the person who added the footnote to make readers aware of the usage vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:31, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Jguk did revert my edit to footnote to the survey. His reasoning was sound enough, however. I don't think we need to add footnotes to every page that uses styles while the survey is ongoing. Whig 02:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I do encourage everyone who is interested in whether the style is NPOV to prefix in this case, in all cases, or in no cases, to participate in the survey. Whig 02:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'll let Whig decide whether to restore his (useful) footnote. But it is pretty darn clear that most of the "Alternative 1 only" voters are motivated solely by a desire for the style next to the pope, and could not care less about what styles are or are not used for anyone else in the world. At the least this includes Zscout370, Jtdirl, and Jguk. Essentially the vote has turned into a forum for evangelizing Catholicism. It will be very sad if Wikipedia loses its commitment to NPOV because of these few Catholic advocates. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

I really wish the debate could be less personalized. There are clear differences of opinion, and ultimately I do hope that the Wikipedia community will choose to participate in the survey in large enough numbers to overcome any small number who might be voting on the basis of a single biographical entry. The present consensus of the survey is to use prefixed style in all cases where a formal style is known. I don't agree personally but if this is the ultimate decision then it should only be ensured that it is enforced in all serious cases to maintain NPOV. There's still more than a week and a half to run on the survey, however, so no conclusions should be drawn now. Whig 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If the style policy changes, then I will go along with it with no problems. I am not Catholic (but I want to be), but I have no problems if I used the title or not. However, I do want to clear things up, but not about this sidebar. This is what I got about Titles of Articles: "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome." I know the Article title is not disputed, but I wanted that to be clear for everyone. We do not want His Holiness to be part of the Article Title. This is the Honorifics that is being debated over: "If the person has any honorifics, these should be used in the initial reference, and elsewhere in the article where appropriate, but not included in the entry title." And honorific is clearly defined as: "An honorific is a term used to convey esteem or respect. "Honorific" may refer broadly to the style of language or particular words used, or, as in this article, to specific words used to convey honor to one perceived as a social superior.

(Please sign comment above with ~~~~)

The question being addressed in the survey is not about whether we use the honorific title (like Pope) but whether we prefix the formal style of address (like His Holiness) to the biographical entry, not just for this particular biographical entry, but for all others (like using Dear Leader for Kim Jong-il as well). Whig 03:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics are usually placed immediately before or after the name of the subject. They may also be used to denote occupation, such as "Doctor", "Father" (for a priest), or "Professor". Some honorifics can act as complete replacements for a name, as in "sir" or "ma'am". Subordinates will often use honorifics as punctuation before asking a superior a question or after responding to an order, "Yes, sir"." Though I would be happy to move the His Holiness to the Pope article (which will get mich pressure off of me), I know there is going to be an edit war over it. I just pray this ends soon. Zscout370 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, forgive my ignorance folks. I got tired trying to follow the logic of this debate across 4 pages. Could someone please try to NPOV sum up both sides of this debate?

BTW, what led me to the debate & survey is not the Pope's article. It was the Terri Schiavo article, and the effort to legitimaize the use of Formal Style over Journalistic Style in certain cases. The MoS allows for this at this time, although it does so be being vauge. In that case, the majority lent towards one of two forms of Formal Style over Journalistic. Interesting, the article is currently in Informal Style (my personal preference, but not position nor my edit). No one has challenged this choice since the edit.--ghost 03:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to fairly summarize as best I can. Since I have a POV on the issue, others may wish to comment. The advocates of prefixed style believe that it is just a formalism and not an expression of any particular endorsement by the Wikipedia when we use them to prefix the biographical entries. Jguk and others have expressed that using the prefixed style at the outset is simpler, less verbose, and communicates to readers information which they should reasonably be informed of. Thus, His Holiness does not imply that we think Benedict XVI is holy, only that this is his formal style of address. On the other hand, it seems that presently we do not use prefixed styles universally throughout the Wikipedia. In some cases this may be simple oversight, and can be corrected as we discover them. One possibility would be for a NPOV convention to be established for exceptions to the prefixed style rule. Another position is that we should not use prefixed styles of address at the beginning of biographical articles in any cases, as they may be perceived as POV even if they are not intended to be, and either exceptions cannot be carved out in a NPOV way or would be offensive when prefixed in certain cases if we cannot make exceptions. Whig 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer of my POV. I do believe that it is impractical and potentially offensive to use prefixed styles in all cases, and I do not believe it is easy to carve out a NPOV rule for exceptions, and no proposal has been made yet which does so. Therefore, I think the styles should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph but not used to prefix the biographical entry. Whig 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)