Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Archive 4

message: No. 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. For instance:
:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, formally addressed as Her Majesty...
:Pope Benedict XVI, formally addressed as His Holiness...
:Kim Jong-il, formally addressed by the North Korean people as Dear Leader...
* First choice Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
* First choice FWIW --Habap 19:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative 3 

message: No, but we should follow a different convention than that prescribed in Alternative 3. Please specify the convention you prefer and explain why you think it is preferable.
* Second choice, style described later in body of article, where relevant, but not in initial introductory sentence. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:05, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
:I don't think that Alternative 3 *requires* that the style be used in the initial introductory sentence, but I think it is preferable to do so in most cases. Whig 04:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified Alternative 3 to provide that the style should be provided in the opening paragraph, rather than leaving an implication that it must be referred to in the introductory sentence. Whig 14:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative 4 

message: Whig 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision History 

message: Please go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles to express your preference(s).
Announcement has been posted to Wikipedia:Current surveys and due to the potential impact on a large number of biographical articles, 
also to Wikipedia:Announcements.
Whig 08:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal survey has been posted 

message: there is nothing written on this page about images. i feel the policy should be that the main image should be a portrait, and images that are of the person in action or with other people - those images should be secondary. is such a policy written down? can you help me locate it? Kingturtle 01:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: After the initial mention of an ordinary name, the person may be referred to by surname only. But what about pseudonyms, particularly where the pseudonym is in the nature of a phrase? Would it be ok to refer to Meat Loaf simply as Loaf (thankfully the article doesn't)? The articles on Taj Mahal (musician) and Elton John subsequently refer to them by just the first part of the pseudonym, which sits ok with me. Articles on Little Richard and Howlin' Wolf refer to them just by the second part of their pseudonyms, and that is consistent with common usage. I suggest the guideline to be follow common usage for shortening pseudonyms, which may be just the first part (eg Taj) or just the second part (eg Wolf) or sometimes neither (eg Meat Loaf). Nurg 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsequent uses of pseudonyms

message: A survey was conducted on the use and/or mention of styles within articles.  The voting mechanism used ranked options with Condorcet tallying.  The weak winner of the vote was to mention the use of styles after the initial title and name of a person in a biographical entry.  The prior MoS recommendation to prefix styles was explicitly a minority position.
However, the "winning" alternative did not win with a WP "consensus" level of 75-80% support, but only with around 55%.  A followup survey involving an up-or-down vote on the winning alternative will be conducted, but has not occurred yet. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
:A ratification vote on the prevailing prescribed convention has been posted. Whig 06:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of styles survey result 

message: I have moved this comment from the project page. Whig 03:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, the proposed interim policy seeks to broaden the scope of the question that we have been discussing (regarding prefixed styles) into one that tries to incorporate all prefixed honorifics (perhaps even requiring redefinition of what an "honorific" is in order to exclude neutral titles of office like Queen, Pope, President, etc. Furthermore, the interim policy suggested explicitly has "no deadline" and is therefore hardly "interim" as no consensus is as yet apparently emerging on final status or even how we'll ever get there. Whig 03:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I've read the proposal. I've expressed my reservations numerous times, and have done so again above. I know it's your baby, and I respect the sincere effort you've put forward, but I don't see it as getting us to any resolution of the NPOV dispute. For one thing, you've expanded the scope of the question, for another, you propose a series of surveys, when a survey has already been completed, and if your surveys don't obtain a consensus for any alternative, you want us to just throw our hands up. This is a NPOV dispute. The reliance on consensus, so important to the Wikipedia in most other respects, does not pertain. A majority already disfavored the use of prefixed styles, but a steadfast minority refuses and will presumably continue to refuse to respect the NPOV rule, claiming variously that something isn't POV unless a consensus finds it so, and that they had some prior consensus (of which no evidence has ever been adduced) to put the prefixed styles in the MoS (bio) originally. I don't think more surveys will help, but please, if you continue to want to work to obtain consensus, I approve of your effort. If we don't have some progress that leads to resolution within some definite time frame (I don't care if it's a week, a month, or longer), and all we have is to leave prefixed styles in place or engage in page-by-page edit wars, then it will be appropriate to make RfAr when the current ratification vote expires. Whig 07:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorific prefixes

message: Can it be removed?  The discussion seemed to run out of steam in mid May with no seeming consensus. Hiding 5 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)
:Maybe we could try again to get consensus. Does anyone know of any other style guide or reference on writing that supports use of "his holines", for example, in expository work? Maurreen 5 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
::Not explicitly.  They only mention if it is used, to capitalise.  Her Majesty, is to be used sparingly, if at all, according to The Times, who defer to Who's Who style, whatever that may be. Hiding 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
:::I'd like to suggest changing the section back to an earlier version, which apparently brought little disagreement. It is the version from [18:01, 24 Nov 2004]. Here is what I mean:
:::Honorific prefixes
:::Honorific prefixes should be used in the article text where appropriate, but not included in the entry title. For example:
:::Sir Elton John 
:::Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu; Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa 
:::St John the Apostle; St Francis of Assisi; St Stephen 
:::Reverend Al Sharpton 
:::Dato' Seri Mahathir bin Mohamad 
:::Exceptions to this rule include cases where titles or honorifics have been transformed into universally known names, as with Genghis Khan, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa. Even the articles on Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin follow the general rule above.
:::Comments? Maurreen 9 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
It seems a little bland, in that I can see people arguing over what's appropriate.  That said, people will argue whatever wording is used, and this seems the best starting position. I agree. Hiding 14:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it and removed the tag. Maurreen 20:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: :originally posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive I#Biography articles - reluctant subjects. Moved here for lasting relevance and further comment. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Two people who have Wikipedia biographies have recently appeared to censor some information out of the biographies. In both cases the individuals are active on the Internet and the information is essentially available on their own websites. One case is that of Romath, the pseudonym of a famous Usenet user. She does not want her real name posted. The other case is that of Chuck Munson, who does not want known his birthyear, the name of his blog, or his role in starting a couple of websites. Again, this is all information which is posted in the Internet, mostly by the subjects themselves. Both claim that harm will come to them if we publish the information while apparently believing that their own publication of it is without risk. My personal inclination is that people who have a high profile on the Internet and publish personal information should expect an encyclopedia biography to include that basic info. However, I don't see any guidance in the policies over whether biography subjects should have a veto over material in their biographies. On the other hand, we don't want to harm people. Any suggestions?  Thanks -Willmcw July 3, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
:I believe very similar to this has come up before (sorry, I can't recall when), and the conclusion reached then was that if the information is public enough to be verifiable, then we can't do any additional harm by repeating it here, and if it's not, then it shouldn't be in the article anyway. HTH. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
::As long as information is true (by which I mean verifiably true) and relevant and not illegal to reveal then it should be included. In the instances you've quoted, I'd have thought someone's real name or birthdate are always relevant to an article. A subject's blog, I would have thought, is always relevant for at least an external link. As far as what websites someone has started, it would depend on what they are noted for (ie it is a judgment call as to whether it's relevant). In all instances, I think it is irrelevant as to whether a subject wants something about him mentioned in article (after all, I imagine Gary Glitter would rather we didn't mention the paedophilia!). (There is a separate issue as to whether these people are notable enough for a WP article, but assuming they are, I think all the above holds true.) jguk 3 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
::Agree completely with jguk above, and suggest that if it isn't a guideline or Manual of Style entry, it should be. Hiding 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
*Yes, verifiable info should be included. And when this info is available elsewhere online, I don't see how WP articles telling the same could hurt these individuals. However, while for example, revealing J.K. Rowling's address may contain verifiable info, I'd be against posting that, simply for privacy reasons. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 10:42 (UTC)
:*The address isn't notable information.  It could, for instance if she lives at 10 Downing Street, or her own home was the major focus of some writing, or there is a permanent fan/cult encampment outside. SchmuckyTheCat 4 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
:::To summarise what I've read: There is a line between basic biographical information and private information. Verifiable name, place and date of birth, education, occupation (or relevant avocation), notable relevant achievements, city or province of residence: these are the basic stuff of biographies. Specific addresses, phone numbers, ID numbers, and such are private details (even if somehow verifiable) that should be omitted. Lovers,  spouses, children, and other personal details to be included if relevant. The opinions of subject are to be given respectful hearings, but do not override normal encyclopedic considerations.  And it would be helpful if this were better delineated in the policies. Thanks for everybody's contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 09:28 (UTC)
**Yep, that's pretty much it. - 131.211.210.15 5 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
*If we augment policy to handle this, we should also consider covering magic tricks.  See Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request for comment. Bovlb 2005-07-05 13:38:07 (UTC)
* Reference to earlier discussion: Wikipedia:Divulging personal details. Please do not edit that page. David Remahl 10:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reluctant subjects 

message: <HN>, (dates) as <consort name> was the <title> of <reigning monarch>.
So, it would be 
Mary of Teck (???? - 1953), as known as Queen Mary, was the queen consort and wife of King George V of the United Kingdom. 
Alix of Hesse and Rhine (dates), known as Tsaritsa Alexandra or Alexandra Fyodorovna was the empress consort and wife of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. 
Marie of Edinburgh (1875-1938), known as Queen Marie, was the queen consort and wife of Ferdinand I of Romania. 
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002), known as Queen Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, was the queen consort and wife of King George VI of the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth of Austria (dates), known as Empress Elisabeth (Austria), or Queen Elisabeth (Hungary and Bohemia), and nicknamed Sisi, was the empress-queen consort and wife of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary. 
It would be dead easy to do. It would use the name of the article (which is logical) and would allow enough flexibility to cover complicated cases. I think starting with the highest title and then jumping between them would be clumsy and wrong if a different name was on the page. The only other issue is styles. As of now, they are supposed to be in, hence the Grand Ducal Highness on Alix's page. I wouldn't shed a tear if the damned things were axed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a mutual solution to this, something like: As the pre-marital namers won the contest for article headings (for quite good reasons, although some valid arguments were presented in favor of consort name, which usually is the most known), then the most known name, practically always the married name, would be the one to start the introduction in the article itself. Were such compromise to be made, it should be clearly spelled in MoS (biographies) and in NC (names and titles) policy pages, in order to avoid disruptions by people who want to change one of those two to be same as the other. 217.140.193.123 07:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Maud von Wettin?  Are you serious?  That was not her name in any sense.  Wettin was a pseudo-name, a back-creation dynastic name.  It can only be considered a surname of royals if they actually used it as a surname, and the British royal family never did so.  She was "Maud, Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha," and styled "Princess Maud of Wales" before her marriage.  But her name certainly wasn't "von Wettin."  And I am highly dubious of these "historians" who you speak of generically without giving any examples.  Could you please give some example of somebody who names royal ladies as you claim everyone names then?  Obviously, Mary of Modena and Blanche of Castile are known as that.  But Maud is not known as "Maud of Wales."  She is known as "Maud" or "Queen Maud."  As to the absurdity of it, this is exactly how Britannica does its entries for Sisi and the Queen Mother.  They just give the first name, and then provide the birth name afterwards. john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She was born Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.  She ceased to be Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon at the time of her marriage to the Duke of York in 1920, just as any married woman loses her maiden name upon her marriage. This is why for married women, the standard way of giving their maiden name is "née Bowes-Lyon" or whatever.  Again, my example is exactly how Britannica does it, so I'm a bit confused as to how this is a joke entry, unless you consider Britannica to be laughable. john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: More broadly, you have yet to provide any evidence besides frantic assertion that your "correct historical form"  actually exists in anything beyond genealogical circles.  I have noted that Britannica does not follow it.  Historians, who will use the name that the person has at the time they are writing about them, certainly do not.  I feel that I can claim a certain degree of knowledge of what academics do and do not do, since I'm a graduate student in history, and I'm fairly certain that most historians are completely unaware of this supposed "standard historical naming" of royal consorts.  Obviously, some consorts are normally called things like "Catherine of Aragon" and "Anne Boleyn" and "Anne of Austria."  But many others are not normally called such things at all.  This is reflected in the way Britannica names its articles.  I have noted a great number of problems with the supposed "historical name" which you continue to ignore, and you have yet to provide any evidence that this is actually a general rule.  john k 00:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Born Hon. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, I think we mean, anyway. Deb 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think he was joking. (At least I hope so.) Deb 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being completely tongue-in-cheek too. :p FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: I'm sure this info is somewhere, but I can't find it - are there any guidelines for including a quotations section in Bio pages? There's a debate raging on Ann Coulter, seems to be somewhat inconsistent, she has quotes, so does Michael Moore and Paul Krugman, but e.g. Al Franken does not. Evidently excessive quotations should go on Wikiquotes, but how about 2-5 exemplary ones?
Thanks - bastel 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Quotations

message: A suggested solution to the thorny subject of the use of styles has been proposed. Please express your opinions on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution.
===Now put on MoS page===
Given the near unanimity on adopting this policy, and its current implementation, I have included an outline of the new policy as agreed on the page onto the MoS biographies page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles

message: Given the near unanimity on adopting this policy, and its current implementation, I have included an outline of the new policy as agreed on the page onto the MoS biographies page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now put on MoS page

message: I've wanted a template that would expand to the three lines frequently found at the end of a biography. This is prompted by having written a lot of bio stubs based off 1911 and Nuttall entries. I just want to save a bit of typing (or copy-pasting). Thus  at the end of Gabriello Chiabrera would expand to the obvious three lines. Its disadvantage is that it only works for one occupation (although you could add others the old-fashined way).
BTW "bio" is a mnemonic for the order of arguments: Born-Interred-Occupation :-)
This seems such an obvious addition that I wonder if it already exists and I just haven't found it? David Brooks 22:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boilerplate for categories 

message: I have not seen any consensus as to whether to start an article like Victoria of the United Kingdom as Queen Victoria or Victoria. There are the British monarch articles, which opt for the latter, but the Pope articles opt for the former (e.g. Pope Benedict XVI). Can anyone direct me to any agreement on the subject that I've missed?
:I don't know that this has ever been explicitly discussed.  As you know, I favor just the name (and ordinal). john k 21:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Queen Victoria" or "Victoria" 

message: Wikipedia project on Naming Conventions has published already ages ago some directives that affect contents of biographies. I made an epitome of such:
Royalty and nobility NPOV:
Pretensions of monarchy should not be endorsed in the article - rather, explain their claims and position in a balanced way. Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical titles at least when narrating about their reign.
Other names and titles of the person, if any, should appear in the first paragraph of the article so they can be searched for.
The introductory paragraph should not use any family names for royalty except where English speakers normally use them (rather, surname questions can be explained at a portion of the article, not to push/endorse their use if the use is uncertain or nonexistent). Nicknames go in the first line of the article or where appropriate. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames to the name of their Royal House. But don't automatically presume that a name of a Royal Family is the personal surname of its members. In many cases it is not.  For visual clarity, an article should begin with the form "{royal title} {name} {ordinal if appropriate} {full name (+ surname if used [but never for monarchs])}" with the full name unformatted and the rest in  bold (3 's). In practice, this means for example an article on Britain's Queen Elizabeth should begin "Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary)". Using this format displays the most important information clearly without an unattractive excess of formatting. Other information on royal titles should be listed where appropriate, usually in chronological order (except royal consorts whose most important position should begin the introduction).
Past Royal Consorts have articles under their pre-marital name or pre-marital title (due to specific convention), and therefore it is important to introduce them by their consort name (most important title) in the article.
Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should be clarified in the article itself, the full title in the introductory paragraph, and if there is a longer story, also by explaining it later NPOV. Place for honorary titles and the appropriate post-nominal letters (such as KBE, GCB) or explanation is in the article. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare.
Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet.
People in the Hispanic world often have a double surname (see Spanish names). The first one is received from the father, the second from the mother in Spanish tradition; Portuguese tradition puts them contrariwise. In the introductory paragraph, use the full name.
::Of course these ideas were accepted there, and as far as I understand should be followed. Also here. Quite useless to have guidelines on biography contents fragmented in several places, so these should be also here. Expecting your supprt. 217.140.193.123 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography guidelines for royalty and nobility 

message: What about styles. According to the current consensus styles should be put into a separate infobox, nevertheless especially in the case of British royals some users think they are important information having to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph (e.g. The Duchess of Cornwall (.....), styled HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (...) is a member of the British Royal family). I think with the introduction of the infobox this is not necessary anymore. If there is any relevant information it can be moved under the separate section "Titles and style". What do you think? Gugganij 17:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles in the introductory paragraph

message: As explained in French names, many French people have a number of given names, but only the first one is used for every purpose except official, formal documentation. The current policy is to list all the names, which is unnatural and somehow conveys misleading information to those who do not know about French customs (that is, they may believe that the person is called this way in practice, or that they have to copy all given names). As an example, the article on Jacques Chirac calls him Jacques René Chirac, whereas you'll hardly ever see such form being used in France (if only because when a document lists given many names, it may often do so as follows: Chirac (Jacques, René)).
I thus propose the following: Jacques Chirac (given names: Jacques, René). It's precise, does not lose information, and does not mislead non-French people.
David.Monniaux 15:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the case for the vast majority of countries. No one thinks Anthony Charles Lynton Blair uses all his first names just because his article starts with them. Proteus (Talk) 16:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen several occasions where Americans cited French people with two first names using both, which of course makes sense for Americans like George Walker Bush (because of the middle initial), but not for countries where middle initials are not used. David.Monniaux 16:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then correct them. It should be perfectly obvious that Jacques Chirac is known as "Jacques Chirac" and not "Jacques René Chirac", because that's what his article is called (just as it's obvious that the person whose article is called Tony Blair is known as "Tony Blair"). Proteus (Talk) 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French given names 

message: Icelanders refer to others by their first name. For example if you were to ask someone about Guðmundsson who played for Arsenal, you'd get surprised looks, "what Guðmundsson?".
If you however referred to Albert, who played for Arsenal you'd get "ah yes, Albert Guðmundsson".
I don't think it would add clarity nor neutrality to any article on Icelanders by referring to them by their last name, just as referring to the french by their full names would draw surprised looks from a french audience.
--Stalfur 12:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icelandic name convention 

message: I'm involved in a (civilised) disagreement at Bryan Adams.  My interlocutor wants to start the article: "Bryan Adams, O.C., O.B.C.", while I want to omit the letters (and certainly not have them bolded in any event).  Linked details of the awards are already given in the articles' summary, by the way.  I can find no guidance on this; is it out there somewhere in the googleplex-bytes of policies and guidelines, or is it left open? If the latter, should it be? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally they are included, but linked and not bolded (Bryan Adams, OC, OBC (born...). Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this done occasionally, but is it normal? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You just need to look at some British politicians to see that — Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson, Douglas-Home, Macmillan, for instance. Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If they're included, then they might as well be linked, and the explanation two or three lines below removed; it was mainly the duplication that worried me (though I'd prefer the explanation in the text to stay). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason why they both can't be there. Proteus (Talk) 16:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours, etc. 

message: We're having a bit of a go-round about how to characterize Alfred Hitchcock's nationality. Same issue would arise for Angela Lansbury. User:Cheechie Chung favors "British-American"; to me that suggests an American of British ancestry, not someone originally British. I would favor "British, later American" or something like "originally British, he became a naturalized American citizen". Another possiblity is "British-born American" (but to me that suggests someone born in Britain bu raised in the U.S.). Anyway, I was wondering if there is any clear prevailing practice on this sort of thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree "British-American" is confusing and suggests mixed parentage or upbringing. Angela Lansbury should probably be described as "British-born", and Hitchcock just as "British", with an explanation of his later status, as he was well into middle-age before he became a U.S. citizen. Stanley Kubrick is described as "American", not "American-British", even though he became a British citizen. JW 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that any attempt to come up with a single terminology to characterise a multitude of different circumstances is futile.  There are:
* people who lived virtually all their lives in country A but were always citizens of country B
* people who moved from country A to country B and took up citizenship of country B; of them:
** some did so relatively early in their lives and became associated in the public's mind with country B, but
** some did so quite late in their lives and remained associated in the public's mind with country A
* people who moved from country A to country B but remained citizens of country A
* people who moved from country A to country B, then later went back to country A
* people who were associated with countries A, B, C ..... 
* people who were citizens of country A, became residents of country B (and may or may not have become citizens of country B), but did most of the work for which they became famous in country C, or A, or ... 
* people who are known by their ethnicity (eg. Jewish) as well as their nationality/citizenship
* people with dual/multiple nationalities
* lots of other different cases, and
* all manner of combinations of the above.
So we have at least 4 different concepts: connection by birth, connection by citizenship, connection by ethnic background, connection by association.  In each biography, we need to come up with the words that accurately and unambiguously describe their particular circumstances, and this often needs more than a 2-word adjective.  The Stanley Kubrick example cited by Jeff is a good case: we all know he spent the majority of his adult life in London, but nobody ever calls him "American-British"; is Igor Stravinsky considered a "Russian-French-American" composer just because he was a citizen of each country in turn?; was John Huston an American-Irish film director?  Also, the terminology may well differ depending on your perspective: in order to make gazillions of $$, Rupert Murdoch was prepared to adopt US citizenship and drop Australian, but Australians still generally consider him an Australian, whereas in the US he's probably called an American.  Cheers JackofOz 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Murdoch is a good example of someone becoming a citizen of another country for economic reasons, and I suppose in many cases its more convenient to become a citizen of the country you live in. For a lot of people in the film business, like Hitch or Lansbury, that's particularly likely to be the U.S. But whether that makes them American or not is debatable. It seems strange to me to see a WP biography of a German actor who moved to the US in his 50s and became a US citizen at 60 and it says "such and such was an American actor". Was he? Or a Nazi scientist who went to the US after the war and became a US citizen; "Werner von Braun was an American scientist". No he wasn't! Are citizenship and nationality actually the same thing anyway? Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on citizenship, as this is something that can always be changed and often is. JW 11:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality