Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Proper Form in the Titling of Roman Catholic Cardinals

While the form currently prescribed in the guidelines makes reference to occasionally using the appropriate Roman Catholic convention for naming members of the Cardinalate; it recommends that it not be used in the actual titling of Articles. Furthermore, when the appropriate form is employed within the text of an article: the current prescription is to always use a redirect or piped link. However, to my mind, it seems much more accurate for the convention to be the reverse: the Article Title should follow the naming convention established universally by the Church (i.e., [First], ["Cardinal"] [Last]; as in "Donald, Cardinal Wuerl"), and redirects/piping applied to the use of the informal style (e.g. "Cardinal Wuerl," "Donald Wuerl," etc). This is not so much a matter of style as it is of accuracy –– determining the nature of the title is not the province of the reference guide, it belongs to the organization which grants the title. I suggest we discuss this. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the progress of discussion on this matter is stagnant, as is the Talk Page in general (see recent RfC regarding Placement of New Sections in Dormant Policy Discussions), I am requesting comment on the above described question of naming/titling. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: It appears that you are correct as it concerns previous discussion on the titling of Saints, Bishops, etc., however not with members of the Cardinalate, who have a particularly unique naming convention. In highlighting this difference, I would add that Cardinals are termed "Princes of the Church," and therefore hold an office of temporal sovereignty. Thus, the Style of a Cardinal is more than a mere honorific. Adequate consensus has not been obtained on this unique issue. -- UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm oppose, not impressed by any part of the so-called rebuttal (rather circumstantial compared to the argumentation of my original oppose). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your original opposition is grounded upon (using your exact phrases) the fact that you are "sure many objections to this have been provided" and your "confidence" that consensus hasn't change. You make these rather firm statements, and cite the pages for both Perennial Proposals and WP:CCC, although none of these links seem to confirm your alleged certainty. What's more, your parenthetical note is neither collegial in tone nor logical in meaning. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, oppose, for the reasons I've given and being unimpressed by the retorts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being that your reasons are not supported by any locatable fact, I am unconcerned by your opposition. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer to the question of Eastern bishops who are also cardinals is that the name/title under which they are primarily known is that of their own rite. In this sense, it is akin to peers who have lesser peerages - they are referred to by the senior title. I would also suggest that John Smith (Cardinal) is not appropriate here - Cardinal is the normally used title, akin to Pope Innocent, the Aga Khan, etc. Bishop (and Archbishop) in the West are more flexible, and probably need a separate discussion. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strongly support this change. Cardinal is not a mere honorific (the honorific is "His Eminence"), but a proper title, akin to titles of nobility. And since Cardinals are titular princes of a sovereign state and associated with the governance of that state, it would be proper even if it were not the proper terminology of the religious community at issue (and we aren't about to rename the Aga Khan or the Dalai Lama to their given names). Nor is it subject to NPOV concerns, as is often the case with "Saint". This seems rather obvious to me. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original policy appeared to be "John Cardinal Smith" and was changed c.2006 when there was no consensus on the talk page - it seems that an active user simply imposed his preference when no consensus had emerged. It was wholly improper, and given the improper imposition of the present policy, there can be no status quo preference here. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – not sure what you guys want. Re. "The original policy ... was changed c.2006 when there was no consensus" seems like an unfounded invention to me. Could someone give some examples of where current guidance works, or doesn't work, or some recently concluded WP:RMs that show the direction of what would be better? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either "Cardinal John Smith" or "John Cardinal Smith" would be acceptable, we should chose one. The parallel to titles of nobility is tight, as Cardinals are termed "Princes of the Church" and are electors of the Pope, the ruler of a sovereign country. Moreover, Cardinals are typically referred to as such - it would be odd to see Cardinal Mindszenty referred to simply as "Josef Mindszenty" outside the pages of WP. To note the preamble to this guideline: "In those religions which have hierarchies, the higher the level within that hierarchy, the greater the likelihood that the person's first name may have ceased to be used publicly, being replaced by a title." It is odd that Cardinals, the second-highest rank of Clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, would not have their title so used. Finally, there should be some deference to the use of titles within institutions, which in this case clearly militates for the use of the title. I am not sure what the argument for the present policy is. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not going anywhere if you ask me: the reasoning starts from a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NCRAN, WP:NCP, and, last but not least, of policies like WP:AT and WP:CONSENSUS. No, the clergy naming conventions, including cardinals, should preferably be kept in line with these and other related guidelines and policies.
Also, not a single example of an article title where the current guidance would have caused problems has been given. Generally, before a naming convention is changed broad consensuses established by outcomes of WP:RMs should be demonstrable: none of that seems to be the case in the above argumentation. So, not ready for a guideline change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly obvious that the policies you cite dictate the result you desire, and it's a poor argument as well as a little condescending. However, I take your point that this is not the proper forum to change the policy. Neither is an RM, which would simply look to this policy as it currently stands. I will make a proposal in the village pump, where I gather policy changes should be addressed. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Saint' in article text

FYI
 – The discussion on this topic has now been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#'Saint', 'St.' or 'St' in article text. Keeping the discussion here open in case something still needs to be said about article titles, while discussions about how to mention in article text should go to the new discussion venue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been extending 'St.' to 'Saint' in the text in several long editing runs. The guideline states in its lead that this application would apply not only to titles but "on how to refer to them in the article body". Although I've made a few mistakes in titles and in text, it seems pretty clear that in the text, when 'St.' refers to the individual (and not, of course, to a church, artwork, or other proper name) that it should be extended to 'Saint'. The abbreviation 'St.' doesn't even appear on the Saint page itself except for one proper name. Most pages that I've edited per this guideline are inconsistent, and include both 'Saint' and 'St.' when referring to individuals (often in the same sentence), and I've been editing out those inconsistencies by using 'Saint' per this guideline (have stopped for the time being after an objection on my talk page). Consistency combined with the MOS:SAINTS guideline seems to suggest that 'Saint' is preferable in text to 'St.' when referring to a person, especially when Wikipedia usage is now so mixed that both forms are not only used on the same page but in paragraphs and even in the same sentences. A clarity discussion seems the next step. Randy Kryn 10:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, pretty quiet here – we had more participation on your talkpage. Maybe there's somewhere else more appropriate to discuss this? Mojoworker (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is the wrong guideline for that topic (in other words, I would remove ", as well as on how to refer to them in the article body" from the opening paragraph of this guideline: that's not the type of guidance editors would be looking for in a naming conventions guideline which normally should only about article titles) – Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations might be where your question is answered (or its talk page if you can't find an answer to your question in the guideline text). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Beheading of St John the Baptist article – is it named properly with the abbreviation or should Saint be spelled out? Mojoworker (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main article (about the person) is at John the Baptist. Thus I'd rather (for articles that write generically about an event according to sacred and historical documents):
This is not about individual artefacts, thus I'd keep The Beheading of St John the Baptist (Caravaggio) and St. Paul (oratorio) (Paulus (oratorio) might work for this one too – compare Lobgesang, not Hymn of Praise), or names of feasts (e.g. Saint John's Eve, although for that one St John's Eve might be appropriate too) – i.e., for these, the article title is rather to be chosen depending on how the names of these artefacts and feasts are usually written, per the WP:COMMONNAME principle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also for list articles I'd use the name of the person according to the article title of the biographical article, thus (e.g.):
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, when there's no ambiguity, the qualifier ("Saint ...", "... the Apostle", etc.) is dropped altogether (for brevity, per the conciseness criterion at WP:AT) e.g.:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting seems appropriate, as 'Saint' isn't always needed as a qualifier. I still think leaving the guideline language to include referring to an individual subject in the article body is also appropriate for 'Saint', as the descriptor in text would thus be uniform across the site. As I said, many pages had/have mixed usage not only within the page, but even in paragraphs and sentences. The choices, aside from not using any form where appropriate, would be 'Saint', 'St.' or 'St' without the period, and mixing them randomly by an editor's preference keeps the status quo but doesn't help site (or even sentence) uniformity. Deciding it here rather than at abbreviations may need a larger group of editors (RfC?) yet with the language on this page as it is now, which includes the body text, this is the place to discuss it and per the page, 'Saint' seems the way to go. Randy Kryn 11:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I still think leaving the guideline language to include referring to an individual subject in the article body is also appropriate for 'Saint' (etc)" – No. This a naming conventions guideline. Guidance about how to mention in article text should go from this guideline: there are enough MOS pages that can, or already do, cover this. Last thing we need is article title guidance competing with MOS guidance: that is rather a cause of mess in mainspace (and probably already was) than a solution to it. If you want to continue discussing how saints are to be mentioned in article text, I'd close this thread with a referral to a MOS talk page where to post your suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but which MOS talk page? Abbreviations doesn't really fit, as the discussion is whether or not to use the abbreviated forms in page text. Please delete the guideline language about in-text use on this page per your comments, as the language as presented now reads-out as both definitive and clear. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BIO perhaps (the "first mention" vs "subsequent use" distinction in that guidance might be useful)? Although for launching the topic WT:MOS would probably do, certainly when still undecided which MOS page would be most appropriate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will go with WT:MOS for most editor input. Thanks. Maybe this section can be closed. Randy Kryn 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this change, and interpreting the existing text to cover article text too. Over-prescriptive. Appart from consistency within body text, I see no big issue here, and we should avoid instruction creep. I can see people itching to break WP:COMMONNAME here, & we shouldn't encourage it. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean me, no, not interested in changing common names, and have mentioned I made a few mistakes in my edit runs on this subject. The issue is page/paragraph/sentence and site-wide consistency when referring to individuals. Randy Kryn 12:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "St" and "St." might apply when meeting the critera of WP:COMMONNAME. Otherwise it is merely an archaic practice dating to printing press-era space limitation abbrevation conventions, none of which should limit the readability on Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native names

Should saints’ native names be used or anglicised versions i.e. would an article be called Juan de Ortega or John of Ortega? Many thanks, Vesuvio14 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably whichever is more common in English-language independent reliable sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Eastern Orthodox bishops Suggestion

The general convention for listing an Eastern Orthodox bishop by his given name and surname is Given (Surname). This convention can be seen in the following examples from several Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States as well as the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch:

Xenophore; talk 05:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Afterwriting, @Veverve, @Heroeswithmetaphors, @Xenophore, I agree with the above; the MOS was changed in 2010 to contradict this, but:
  1. Kallistos (Ware) article is a bad example at this point, since it's been moved several times back-and-forth.
  2. Category:Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church clearly follows the pattern of Given (Surname). Either consensus changes and we move scores of pages, or we need to update the MOS to be descriptive of the current consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Romanian Orthodox Church the convention is rarely respected even in academic literature. This is particularly true for those clergymen who also played major political roles. The practice is to use Miron Cristea or Visarion Puiu. On the other hand the current Patriarch is usually referred to as Patriarch Daniel.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; looking at other EO churches it seems that the convention of Given Surname is also common. So there are three conventions that are in equal usage and should be equally acceptable by a descriptive MOS:
  1. Given Surname
  2. Given of Place
  3. Given (Surname)
Kallistos Ware may be an outlier due to his status as a native-born, Englishman convert heading a Greek church in the diaspora, so again I would say that his article name should be decided by editors locally, and not held up by MOS as a prescriptive example. Elizium23 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Note that we don't use the monastic name of European nobles who entered the orders in their late life, we simply use the most common name in academic literature. Similarly, for samurai who changed name several times during their lifetime we simple use the most common occurrence. I see no reason to impose a norm in this particular case. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. My own view is that each Orthodox bishop's article name should be decided upon on what is most appropriate in each case. In many instances, especially for bishops in Western countries (such as Kallistos Ware), it will be (in my view) usually more appropriate for the article name to be "Given Surname" if that is how the bishop is usually known in these countries. Personally I cannot see much point or benefit in having articles named "Given (Surname)", at least not for those bishops who are normally known by both their given and family names. In this case the principle of "common name" seems by far the more appropriate. Afterwriting (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for ordinary clergy, priests and bishops

I'm surprised to find a lack of some particular guidance here.

This naming convention does not seem to say what disambiguation term should be used to distinguish a member of clergy from people with other roles – e.g., from an actor, artist, politician or musician. My understanding is that "(clergyman)" is typical – e.g., rather than "(minister)" or "(preacher)" or "(member of clergy)" or "(cleric)". Is that correct? If so, this should be stated here explicitly.

Presumably, the analogous disambiguation term for a woman would be "(clergywoman)". However, there appear to be no article titles on Wikipedia that currently use that disambiguation term. I don't know whether that is because some other form is typically preferred in such cases or not.

What about "(priest)"? Is it better to use that or "(clergyman)"?

Moreover, Wikipedia tends to prefer to use generally applicable tags rather than more specific ones – e.g., "(politician)" rather than "(mayor)" and "(musician)" rather than "(drummer)", per WP:NCPDAB. Does that imply that a bishop should be referred to simply as "(clergyman)" if that is sufficiently unambiguous?

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)&oldid=1250070809"