Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Manual of Style | Biography | Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 17 May 2005 (→There's no deadline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Survey Result

The Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles is concluded, and the results have been counted.

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address.

The prevailing alternative was prescriptive, and states:

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed.

The question presented for ratification is only as to whether this convention has a consensus. If this ratification is unsuccessful, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) will not provide a guide as to whether, how and where formal styles of address should be provided in biographical entries, until and unless a subsequent consensus on some convention can be reached.

This ratification question shall be open for participation through May 28, 2005 (UTC). If the number of those who Accept the ratification shall exceed the number of those who Reject it by a ratio of 3:1, the ratification shall be considered to have passed consensus and shall be incorporated as part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies).

All responses must be signed by valid users (Please use: ~~~~) to be counted.

ACCEPT Ratification

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. — ACCEPTED by those voting under this heading:

  1. I accept this as a compromise consensus, with the understanding that the Wikipedia is often inconsistent, and if all pages do not conform to this convention, it will not violate NPOV because the manner of address is to be described in a neutral way, without being employed directly or endorsed by the Wikipedia. Whig 03:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept the compromise (although it isn't my preference). I think it is the best alternative likely to receive wide support Trödel|talk 04:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC) (In light of the precedent this sets i.e. a 53% imputed "consensus" and failure to seek true compromise and consensus - I have changed my vote - see below.)[reply]
    But the vote is on the proposal, not on the actions of certain editors. Does this mean that, if you vote against me on any issue, I just implement the proposal prematurely and get you to change your vote? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No but it does call into question the neutrality of the vote organizer and his methods. I need to re-evaluate why I am voting for it and if the compromise is really a compromise or a manipulation of the vote. Trödel|talk 12:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 04:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. RSpeer 05:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jonathunder This seems like a reasonable compromise. 05:52, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  5. JRM · Talk 07:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC). Consensus in the traditional Wikipedia sense is not possible between mutually exclusive options. We'll be arguing forever. Go with the option least objected to by all, for now. If some genius comes up with a new idea they think is much better, then let them hold another vote. Nothing's written in stone.
    Struck out after James F. pointed out to me that this ratification is on whether the proposal has consensus, not whether it's a good compromise. That's trickier. I wholeheartedly approve of this as an interim compromise, but I don't believe we can call it consensus. I'm also afraid that would give people an excuse to beat others with the infamous "you are going against consensus" stick forevermore, and I wouldn't want that. Not saying yes or no until this clears up. JRM · Talk 11:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
  6. JoJan 07:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A compromise, and the best that can be hoped for. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The original poll slipped my notice, but this is the option I would have voted as first choice anyhow. older≠wiser 13:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  9. violet/riga (t) 16:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Flyers13 16:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REJECT Ratification

The formal style of address should always be provided in the introductory paragraph of the article, but only after the name is provided, and not otherwise prefixed. — REJECTED by those voting under this heading:

  1. No consensus; keep status quo. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 04:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. 53% is not consensus. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:56, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. It seems to me that if you insist on using a Concordet voting method, and a cyclical ambiguity results, there's no consensus. --Carnildo 05:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Attempts by Lulu and by the supposedly neutral co-ordinator of this election, Whig, to force implementation of the scheme on pages before it is even ratified runs against every principle of decision-making on Wikipedia. This isn't a democratic decision. It is simply an attempt to force through what they have already shown tonight they are going to do anyway. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\(talk) 07:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As per EvilMonkey - plus I resent having to keep voting when it is crystal clear what WPians views are from the detailed comments on the original vote page, jguk 07:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No consensus for change (the status quo apparently being styles for everyone except Americans). (And Whig should be blocked for disruption for what he's doing supposedly on the basis of this survey.) Proteus (Talk) 10:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not even remotely consensus to change (note: the proposal is acceptable to me, but the method of attempting to resolve the conflict (ha!) is very much not). James F. (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 53% is by no stretch of the imagination "consensus". If there is no consensus, the decision cannot be ratified. -- Arwel 12:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. reject, especially on the grounds that we are seeking to be accurate, and accuracy requires (imho) the correct title and name conventions to be applied to every individual on the basis of what they are correctly termed. --Vamp:Willow 16:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Reject On the Wikipedia, 53% is not a consensus, and never will be. Can you imagine promoting a user to administrator on the basis of 53% approval? Bratschetalk random 21:34, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Reject, no consensus, and the polling method may have been too convoluted in the first place. Also, this option was my last choice. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As strong a rejection as possible. This entire process has been a gigantic Clusterfuck. 53% is not consensus. We don't promote Administrators at 53%, we don't delete articles at 53%, and we certainly don't change policy at 53%. I'm disturbed anyone could consider "ratifying" this decision. Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Reject. 53% is not consensus. Dbiv 22:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reject. After reviewing the discussion and the way it is being interpretted - that a 53% vote is a repudiation of the existing policy and that it should be overturned. This is very troubling and seeks to divide us rather than to encourage us to work towards a compromise supported by a true consensus - Trödel|talk 01:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Reject. I strongly oppose this. 53% is no consensus.Rangeley 04:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    James F. changed[1] the wording of the headings above. You are not being asked whether a policy change has been accepted as consensus. No consensus was reached in the survey, and nobody has claimed otherwise. You are being asked only whether to accept or reject the prevailing convention, as stated above. A rejection of this convention will not "undo" the survey. The survey is closed. Whig 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Whig, that is exactly what this ratification is about (it is a ratification of whether your voting process ended up with a result that is suitable to base a policy decision one. The key criterion is, as ever on Wikipedia, consensus. I fear that you fail to understand this, however. James F. (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, James. This is not a referendum on the survey. That would be redundant and unhelpful, though you may wish it to be one, and many of those voting to reject the convention so far have tried to make it so. This vote is to ratify or reject the prevailing convention. If a consensus does not approve the convention, the convention will not be ratified. That is all. Whig 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The strong-arming and bad-mouthing on this issue is really starting to get to me.--MikeJ9919 14:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Reject. 53% is not consensus. A different method of counting would bring a different result. (If I haven't miscounted, there were 28 first preferences for Alternative 1, and only 22 for Alternative 3.) Alternative 1 would very likely have had even more first preferences if the wording had been clearer. The comments made by voters indicated that some people with identical preferences voted differently. Ann Heneghan 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Reject. I object to the entire premise of this page. john k 18:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reject. Until now I thought complaints about the voting method to be over-suspicious. It turns out they were right. Hence I reject the alleged outcome. Str1977 22:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Reject. This entire process has generated significantly more heat than light. Gentgeen 23:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Reject. I concur with many of the reasons given above by others. patsw 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

  1. Zocky 18:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC) I can't agree with any of the sides. It's simply too early for this vote. If people don't get time to reflect on the results and especially comments from the strawpoll, everybody's just going to vote along their primary preference anyway, so there's no chance of achieving consensus on the issue. Zocky 18:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 2005 May 15 (UTC). Unfortunately, I find Zocky's comment convincing. Looking at the reject votes, not a single one comments on the topic being voted on, but only on the prior survey results. And it will certainly be more than 25% of the confirmation votes that "reject" something not actually here at issue. I think we need to wait a while.
  3. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC). Same here. Plus, I want to give my test survey/poll at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI out.[reply]
    I don't think this convention is likely to win consensus. I personally accept it as a compromise, because it will conform with NPOV and keep styles in prominent display, satisfying at least part of the concern that the styles-advocates have that styles might be otherwise omitted from biographical articles. Frankly, if it does not pass, I won't mind either, as there have been persuasive arguments against the guidance to put styles in the introductory paragraph of biographical entries, and someone else may come up with a better convention. I think that explicit abstentions serve no real purpose, however. They don't affect whether or not consensus is achieved and serve principally as comments which could as easily go under the discussion heading below. Whig 05:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Discussion which is not intended to express a vote to ACCEPT or REJECT the ratification of this convention should go here.

In reply to Trodel, the convention is not presently enforced, however prefixed styles are not to be used, and if the convention is not approved then it does not mean that it is strictly improper for pages to refer to style in accordance with the convention, as the editors of any particular page think appropriate.

In other words, no convention means each page decides for itself how to refer to styles, so long as prefixed styles are not used. Whig 04:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo ante is overturned already. The convention being approved or rejected is as to how styles may be referred to, but prefixed styles should not be used. Whig 04:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The prior policy was clearly rejected, even though no specific alternative has been ratified by sufficient margin. Articles should refrain from using the clearly rejected prefixed style, which not only does not reflect consensus, but does not even reach simple majority opinion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:59, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

In reply to Carnildo, the method used was Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping and the cyclical ambiguity is therefore properly resolved and explained. The only option which might have been preferred to the convention put up for ratification here is still "No prefixed styles". Voting against this convention does not mean prefixed styles go back in. It means that some other convention or no convention should exist as to how styles ought to be mentioned in biographical pages.

In reply to Jtdirl, the convention which prevailed is non-binding at present, but it is a compromise which keeps the styles in prominent display. If this convention is rejected, styles may be given lower precedence, as there will be no guidance on keeping them in the introductory paragraph, or even in the biographical article itself. I do not think this is what Jtdirl wants, but a desire to obstruct consensus seems to be guiding a number of people, and I think it serves the community poorly if we cannot find a way to constructively work together. Whig 07:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the ratification vote appears to have been constructed as a choice between (1) heads I win and (2) tails you lose. However fine the original intentions, this whole process has become a bad joke and needs to be ignored in its present form and rethought from scratch when things have cooled down a bit. Vilcxjo 15:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the entire "survey" was invalid from the start. An essential part of a vote such as this in Wikipedia is deciding what the question is and what the options are, and in this case Whig just wrote both himself, which introduced an ridiculous inbuilt bias. For example, he (some might say deliberately) put people off the option he most disliked (the first) by putting "Dear Leader" in the blurb at the top, when anyone who knows anything about styles knows that "Dear Leader" isn't a style. Also, if a vote finishes without consensus, there is no consensus. You can't have a second vote to decide that there was in fact consensus. That's just absurd. Proteus (Talk) 10:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The survey was properly proposed and discussed for a week in Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (biographies) after long-running attempts to resolve the differences of opinion by discussion had failed. This ratification vote is not to ask whether a consensus existed for Alternative 3. Clearly, while a majority favored this option, a 7% margin of victory over Alternative 1 did not constitute a consensus for the prescriptive language it would incorporate into the MoS (bio). Rather, the question here is whether, given the outcome of the survey, a consensus can be formed for this language.
If this ratification fails, there will be no guidance on whether, where and how styles may be referred to in biographical articles, a result functionally equivalent to Alternative 4 (which was, incidentally, cyclically preferred to Alternative 3, albeit by less than a majority of those participating in the survey). The prefixed use of styles is defeated in any case, because a majority clearly felt that they were not NPOV, and it does not require a consensus to overturn violations of NPOV. Whig 03:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a run-off or a new survey instead of a ratification. Take the top 2 options, and make a regular vote on them. This whole thing was difficult to understand. The options should have been more clear and concise (description and examples - perhaps the leaders of the G8 - for each, for instance), and it should have been a simpler voting system.

Just so people know the facts -

on category deletions as everywhere, a vote deemed to be 'no consensus' produces the automatic default 'no change'.

A vote of 55% in favour was ruled as being 'no consensus', leading to the default option. The same rule applies here. The default 'no change' option here means to keep using styles at the beginning of articles. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\(talk) 23:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

This whole ratify that which was not reached with consensus appears to be far more of a "if at first you don't succeed, ballot, ballot again". These appear to be attempts to win by attrition (and not for the first time - see LGBT sub-categories). There may be a case for formalising where requests for 'votes' that affect more than a single article or cluster of articles should be notified in order that a far larger number of editors are made aware of them before they close than would seem to be happening at the present time. --Vamp:Willow 09:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a compromise

I would like to point out that I agree that this seems like a compromise proposal - and I would support it as a compromise; however, note that you are voting to Ratify the survey result specifically (from above):

The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. NPOV trumps consensus, regardless of the outcome of any ratification. Biographical entries in the Wikipedia should not begin with a prefixed style of formal address. (emphasis in the original)

A majority vote does not defeat an existing wikipedia policy - that is why this should be voted down. After a sufficient cooling off period, a new policy change could be presented without the negative precedent that this one states. Trödel|talk 01:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A majority opposed the status quo ante as POV. A consensus is not necessary, nor is ratification necessary, to overturn violations of NPOV. You are not being asked to ratify the language above, you are being asked to accept or reject the prescriptive language of the prevailing Alternative 3. Whig 04:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again: by your counting method, a slight majority preferred option 3 to option 1. That does not mean that "a majority opposed the status quo ante as POV." Most of the people who preferred option 3 did not say that they did so because they believed option 1 was POV, and there is no reason to assume that this is what was meant. And, again, of course a consensus is necessary to determine whether or not something is NPOV. It is not as though consensus is the means used in everything except determining if something is POV or not. john k 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal

The current vote is to determine whether the results of a previous vote will be "ratified" as policy. I've never heard of it being done in such a manner, and I know that many people were distinctly uncomfortable with the voting system used, a voting system foreign to almost all of us. The default on Wikipedia is that, absent consensus, and consensus is always defined as at least 70%, we revert to the status quo. The wording above, however, suggests that if this controversial proposal does not pass, if it is not ratified, then Wikipedia will have no policy on styles at all. This is not how the process works. Absence of consensus on changing policy does not equate to a vote of no confidence in the policy. Let us say a government wanted to change the speed limits on a highway, then set to 70 mph. Now, parliamentary consensus is 51% (obviously). Let us say 32% favored 75 mph, 28% favored 80 mph, 20% favored 65 mph, and a final 20% favored 55 mph. There is no consensus. Seeing that, would the government abolish speed limits? Of course it would not, that would be silly.

(as an aside, cf the balloting of the UK House of Commons on Lords reform with ballots for 20%, 40% etc elected -- Vamp:Willow 09:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The ratification process here is admittedly unusual, but it is generally agreed that no consensus emerged from the styles survey. The example of speed limits above is not on-point, because the NPOV rule is equivalent to a constitutional provision of the Wikipedia, and it is not required to have a consensus to enforce the constitution when it is violated. Since a majority determined that the status quo ante violated NPOV, it was found "unconstitutional" by this analogy. A vocal minority may wish to complain, and block consensus on a resolution that would pass constitutional muster, but that does not give them the right to claim that the unconstitutional provision should be retained. Whig 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is dishonest to go about the wikipedia claiming that a policy change has occurred. I would regard such an act as deliberate disruption bordering on vandalism. That said, it would be my hope that those who have made such a shambles of this process are prepared to act in good faith, and do things the wiki way: a publicly-announced vote, conducted either on the basis of straight-approval voting or first-past the post, with the policy proposals written in committee, and a 70-75% threshold set for consensus. The entire process up to this point has been educational, yes, but cannot possibly be regarded as the producer of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have honestly reported precisely what transpired, that a majority overturned the status quo ante. I have claimed no consensus. Please do not accuse me of dishonesty or vandalism. Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Whig 05:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look, son, I grow tired having policy quoted self-righteously in my face. I will refer to your vote over at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI, in which you said "This issue has already been resolved in the Manual of Styles (biography) survey on prefixed styles." Now, what exactly did you mean by that? Also, this business about majorities is unimportant--Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It takes 70% at least to establish consensus. 53% cannot overturn everything. As you said above, "no consensus emerged." That means that the policy is left unchanged until a consensus for a different policy, not the absence thereof, emerges. Mackensen (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note, after I made this point, Whig removed the word "consensus" from both the ACCEPT and REJECT headings (see [2]). It is incredibly bad form to change the wording after people have already voted. On the other hand, JamesF added that wording (see [3]), so removing it was probably a good call. However, if this vote isn't about consensus, then it's pointless. Mackensen (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that changing the wording of a vote in progress is incredibly bad form. I reverted to the original wording. Whig 06:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's good of you. Please address my other points. Mackensen (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've already addressed the main part above (see under your first paragraph). With regard to the Talk:Pope Benedict XVI poll, the question being asked there is whether the prefixed style should be used. This issue is resolved by the survey, a majority having found the status quo ante to violate NPOV. Whig 06:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but wikipedia doesn't work that way. First of all, 53% doesn't decide much of anything around here, least of all a policy change. Even if it did, for the sake of the argument, the old policy wouldn't be abolished until a new one, decided by consensus, was raised up in its place. The result would not be to nullify policy and declare that no policy existed. Mackensen (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can go back and forth all day 'til the cows come home, I suppose. I'm not claiming a new policy. I'm saying the old style guide violated the absolute, unalterable policy of NPOV as determined by a majority of those participating. On another note, I can see you may have been confused by my vote comment in the B16 poll, because my vote was edited to appear as if I had left a separate comment, when it was a single statement, in which I clearly explained that the survey result was a majority and did not claim it as consensus. Whig 06:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the meaning of the vote, I massively clarified its wording so that people would be aware of its intent. Such a change was very much in keeping with both policy and accepted (nay, encouraged) behaviour, and I'm mildly annoyed that Mackensen would fall into the trap of latching on to it as 'bad form'. Whig, on the other hand, I'm not terribly surprised at, sadly.
James F. (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your "clarification" was purely inaccurate, and intended to convert the ratification of the convention into a referendum on the survey. This is not a referendum on the survey, that would be redundant and unhelpful, though a bloc of people who are voting against the convention may wish it to be. Whig 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that James -- when I first saw the change, I thought that Whig was sneaking consensus out of the wording in response to my comment. I agree absolutely with what you've said above, and please don't take the "bad form" remark too harshly. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone unilaterally changes the wording of a vote in progress in a manner which you agree with, that's ok? Whig 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my other comments above you wouldn't need to ask that question. James changed the wording to something which actually made sense. The proposal as currently worded, which is heading down to defeat anyway, is a dead letter. Even if it were "ratified" it would mean aboslutely nothing. Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"NPOV trumps consensus"

Ah, this supposed principle is being trotted out in the most offensive manner possible, just as I envisioned when I objected to its inclusion in the first place. The vote we had was not about POV at all - it was about what the naming convention should be. Whig has no evidence whatsoever that a majority of people who do not think styles should be prefixing names at the beginning of articles feel this way because they think that styles are POV. He is making that up out of thin air. Only a few people (Whig himself, Lulu, Titanium Dragon, perhaps a couple of others) specifically mentioned POV as a reason why they opposed the use of styles. This is one of the most incredibly bogus arguments I have ever seen. Even if a majority had thought that styles were POV, that wouldn't allow a wholesale change of policy. The only way in which POV can trump consensus is if there is a consensus that something is POV. If the question in dispute is whether something is POV or not, we have moved to a system where a slight majority can do whatever it wants simply by agreeing that whatever they don't like is POV (or, in this case, somebody whose position was supported by a majority can do whatever he likes by pretending that a slight majority agrees that the opposing position is POV). This is incredibly poor behavior. john k 07:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into this discussion beyond pointing out that it wasn't just a few people who found it POV. Many of those who did tried using other arguments, like redundancy in hope of finding common ground for the removal of styles. But that said, I'm amazed by your remarkable statement that a consensus that something is POV is needed for it to be POV. Please consider what would that mean for articles in general. Surely you meant it the other way around - a consensus that something is NPOV for it to be NPOV. Zocky 19:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zocky, firstly, I know there were a fair number of people who thought styles were POV. There is no evidence that a majority felt this way, which claim is the basis for Whig's actions here. If even a small percentage of those who preferred not to use styles did so for reasons other than thinking prefixing styles are POV, then there fails to be a majority who believes that the current convention is POV As to my "remarkable statement," perhaps I should try to clarify. What Whig is claiming here is that because (supposedly) a majority of people voting thought that prefixing styles was POV, that means that the current convention is overturned, even in spite of a lack of consensus to overturn it, because "NPOV trumps consensus." But this is nonsense. In order to know if something is NPOV or not, there has to already be a consensus. Simply because there was a nearly evenly split vote about whether to prefix styles, Whig is claiming that the current convention was rejected as being POV, and thus, even in the absence of a consensus to change policy, everything needs to be changed. This is clearly nonsense, and self-serving nonsense at that. Obviously, in the context of a dispute over whether a particular article is POV, a lack of consensus means that the POV marker stays up. But that doesn't mean that any material which the group alleging POV finds objectionable can simply be removed in the absence of a consensus that it is POV. john k 20:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize my main point - Whig is full of shit being deeply disingenuous when he says that the vote had anything to do with whether styles were POV. This may have been a reason that some people voted as they did, but there is no evidence that a majority thinks that styles are POV. There are plenty of other reasons one might not want styles in articles (awkwardness or redundancy, for instance). john k 07:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the introduction to the survey itself:
The question presented is whether the status quo represents a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article.
The majority found that the status quo ante did not represent a neutral point of view (NPOV), however no consensus was found that it should be changed to any particular convention.
I believe that I have represented the matter accurately. Please abstain from personal attacks. Whig 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. Whatever the preamble said, the vote was for a series of preferences about what the convention for styles were. Voting for other preferences cannot be said to constitute a vote that the status quo was POV. For that to be determined, there would have had to be a vote on that specific question. What you are saying is that, no matter what they actually thought about whether styles are POV or not, the vote of anyone who preferred not using styles is to be taken to mean that they think that styles are POV. Can't you see that that's problematic? Especially since there were five different choices, and the status quo was not even a specifically available choice, I have no idea how you have determined that a majority thinks that using styles is POV. You have picked this claim virtually out of thin air. john k 23:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The most important statement I think here is "The only way in which POV can trump consensus is if there is a consensus that something is POV." In which case it doesn't need to trump consensus, because consensus already agrees. I must admit, I'm quite baffled as the point that Whig is trying to make here. Does he imagine a consensus agreeing that something is POV and still insisting on putting it in articles? That's rather bizarre, to say the least. Proteus (Talk) 08:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strange interpretation of policy, that a consensus is necessary to establish a NPOV violation. Please read the actual article on NPOV. A majority is more than sufficient. Whig 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. John Kenney should read and absorb Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
    Better now? I don't see why I get chided for one rather mild curse word, and Whig doesn't get chided for developing an entirely insane interpretation of wikipedia policy and then trying to force it through with no discussion. 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    Well, because he wasn't attacking anyone. But let's let that drop. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The use of titles is probably NPoV in the majority of cases; there are times, however, when it becomes the focus of edit wars, resentment, and worse. If Wikipedia policy is (along with most reference works) not to use titles but only to mention them in the text, then when there's no problem, the articles won't be harmed, and when there is a problem, editors will be able to defuse it by pointing to the MoS. It's possible that those editors who are so against this idea have had no experience of difficult cases and edit-warring (though their tone and style suggest otherwise), but those of us who have experienced conflict know that it can solve many problems to have a policy that settles the PoV question clearly and universally.
    Perhaps true. Let me note, however, a couple of points. 1) Firstly, the question is not about "using" styles. None of us support saying "Her Majesty decided to do such and such" in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for instance. The question is whether styles should be prefixed to the name at the beginning of the article. 2) Personally, I'd prefer not to mention styles at all than to have to add awkward sentences in the first paragraph that describe the style. This is very much the worst of all worlds. 3) This is really rather beside the point. Right now, Whig is saying that an established consensus should be overturned because a slight majority preferred doing it another way (another way which a very large minority strongly opposed), and is resting this on the erroneous supposition that the slight majority have registered their belief that the current policy is POV. This is getting things wrong on two levels, and until this procedural issue is dealt with, I don't see what value can be had in going over the merits of what we should do about styles. Whig has to quit insisting that his view has already been ratified before any useful discussion can be had. john k 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using the terms "use" and "mntion" is a slightly technical way, as they're commonly used in philosophy. If a title is prefixed to a name in an ordinary sentence, e.g., "Her Majesty Queen Jane XII of Milton Keynes is..." then that's using it; when the name is referred to, e.g., "Jane XII is styled 'Her Majesty Queen Jane XII of Milton Keynes'", then that's mentioning it (like saying that five is a number but "five" is a four-letter word). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The idea, incidentally, that we should go along with what newspapers say is bizarre and unworkable. Which newspapers? The ones in countries hostile to a person whose titles are at issue, or the ones in countries that aren't? Should we call someone "Dear Leader", or "The Divine and Gracious", or "The Living God" because newspapers in his country call him that, or refuse because U.S. or European newspapers don't? You can't evade responsibility for being NPoV by transferring it to journalists, because the choice of journalists will itself be PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with this. john k 15:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is technically known as "Some Third Party's Point Of View", or STPPOV. Or, at least, it is by me and a few others. :-) James F. (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Whig and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

FYI, please note that comments are now invited on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. In both instances, the request is to ask them to calm down, leave this issue alone for a while and contribute constuctively elsewhere on WP. Incidentally, I have offered to do the same if they both agree. Kind regards, jguk 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline

This whole thing is becoming ridiculous and it's causing more bad blood by the hour. Proponents of styles have invested a lot of research and grunt work into collection and addition of factual data, so they're not going to give up just because other people say so. OTOH, opponents believe that use of styles is unencyclopedic and in many cases POV, and they feel they're entitled to demand corrections. They're not going to give up just because other people say so either.

This poll is dead as the dodo, which means that the whole two weeks of arguing were for nothing. We can't agree whether we should use styles. We can't even agree whether we need consensus to remove styles or to add them in the first place. We're descending into edit warring, calling RFCs and quoting people's arrival times. Disgraceful.

But it's not all that bad really. It's not like it has to be done by next friday. There's no deadline. So, this dead poll should be scrapped before it annoys more people. Then we should debate the underlying issues, making the effort to be polite. I propose the following guideline for the debate page (feel free to copy-edit):

This is a debate about a controversial issue. To avoid wikistress, a serious and non-involved tone is preferred. If in doubt, err on the side of pomposity. On this page, expressing unqualified opinions about whether wikipedia should use honorific styles in biographies is explicitly frowned upon.

The hope is to set some rules for the ensuing debate, so that we don't descend into the shouting again, but rather work business-like to establish a clear set of principles upon which we can hope to produce a proposal which will be acceptable to everybody. In conducting that debate, we should think not only about our first choices, but also about what to do if there is no consensus for the option we prefer.

Then, we should establish the following temporary policy (feel free to copy-edit):

There is an ongoing dispute about the use of honorific styles in biographies. Until the dispute is settled, styles should not be added to articles that don't already have them. They should also not be removed, unless in cases of severe NPOV issues (eg. a dispute over the applicability of the style to the person). The latter should be discussed on the appropriate article talk page before any removal. Further discussion of this policy on article talk pages is discouraged. All such discussion should be directed to Wikipedia:Wherever we want it.

Unless consensus can be reached through debate, a new poll shall be called not before 5 June 2005 and not after 10 June 2005. If not otherwise agreed, the poll shall be conducted with simple support/oppose votes, requiring 75% of all non-abstaining votes needed to pass as consensus, and lasting 14 days.

If there is still no consensus, a second poll shall be held not after 25 June 2005 to establish whether the guideline to use styles is acceptable as policy. If it receives more than 75% of the votes, it shall pass as policy. If it receives less then 50% support, it shall be overturned and the convention on styles reverted to "no policy", i.e. "discuss and decide for individual biographies". Otherwise, the debate and polls will be archived and pronounced moot.

If there's support for this idea, I'll scrap the poll and set up a page for the new debate. Ideas on starting points for the debate would be useful. Zocky 01:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to thank Zocky for his thoughtful proposal, and I am very inclined to accede to his suggestions. My only additional thought is that if a new poll is conducted it should be by approval voting, and we should encourage diverse options. No getting locked into a specific wording and such. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but since voting method seemed to be controversial in this one, I think we should default to the default, and decide on a different voting method only if we have a good reason. Zocky 01:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Approval voting has been fairly common on policy debates. I can't remember where the page is, but that's how the Danzig/Gdansk business was finally settled. And it would still require 75%, people could simply vote for more than one option. None of this condorcet business, which I still fail to grasp. Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles/Ratification&oldid=13813072"