Talk:Honour/Archive 1

message: Someone should move the quotes to wikiquote, I would but I don't know how.
Important point:  Not just the "British", but Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and almost all people who learn English elsewhere in the world use the "ou" spellings.  They are standard in International English, not the American ones.
I know it means changing a lot of articles.  But that's the fact of the matter, "ou" is the standard.
Now, honour without u is honor, kind of like Bush without u is still an attack on Iraq.  So maybe this is really two different concepts, one in the USA without u, and one with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.218 (talk • contribs).
----
I had the wording "Attempts were made to preserve the integrity of an honor over time..." and this was changed to say "Holders of honors attempted to preserve...". I realize the wording was in the passive voice, but I used it here for a reason: it wasn't just the honor holder who made this attempt. If an honor escheated back to the king (due to lack of heirs or treason on the part of the holder or whatever) the king oftentimes gave out the honor as a unit to someone else. Or he might retain it as part of the royal demesne, but continue to administer it as a unit. If someone can find a good, simple active voice way to say this, but all means do so. Loren Rosen 04:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: True or false:
If the Talk:George Washington page ever gets extremely large, it can be time to move the "Honors" part to separate pages:
#List of honors of George Washington
#List of honors of Thomas Jefferson
#List of honors of Benjamin Franklin
#List of honors of Andrew Jackson
#List of honors of James Madison
#List of honors of James Monroe
#List of honors of Alexander Hamilton
#List of honors of John Q. Adams
#List of honors of Henry Clay
#List of honors of James Polk
#List of honors of Robert Lee
#List of honors of Abraham Lincoln
#List of honors of Theodore Roosevelt
#List of honors of Franklin Roosevelt
#List of honors of Woodrow Wilson
66.32.79.137 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false: 

message: I have remmoved the following words from the introductory sentence:
:(most variants of English, including Australian English, British English, Canadian English and New Zealand English) or honor (American English)
If consensus is to use the international spelling in this article, then just use the international spelling. A list of all the different variants of English unnecessarily clutters the article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
:It's still silly! How can the first section be called "Honour, sex, and violence"? dab 20:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than refer to the spelling honour as British English, albeit true, it might be appropriate to refer to this spelling as Commonwealth English. The term International English is quite debated, but may be appropriate seeing as this spelling has been chosen as the most international here. In fact the article International English has a good discussion of what truly is international in this language. Gareth Hughes 00:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A silly way to begin an article 

message: *Strongest object conceivable. - reverted changes violet/riga (t) 23:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: It seems that some people do not honour the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English
:If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)
:...
:If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.
This cuts both ways. I would object to color being moved to "colour" for the same reasons. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: English is also one of the two official languages (alongside French) of the Council of Europe, and is one of the official languages of the United Nations.  British spellings are normally used in those contexts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What about term 'honors' in education? This should be covered as well, at the very least as the see also or disambiguation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The clarification that has been added is, at best, inaccurate.  Gifted students and honor students are two wholly different things.  There may be considerable overlap, but they are not synonomous, and a redirect to the "Gifted Education" page for "honor student" is a disservice to users.  There is more discussion connecting honors and gifted in this post than there is on the "Gifted Education" page.  It may be best to create a brief page dealing with "Honors Education" or possibly insert the relevant information into an appropriate article.--143.88.201.212 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about education? 

message: Someone proposes merging "Changes in Honour" into the section of this article that talks about cultures of honour and cultures of law.
I would not approve of this merger if it means any replacement of the current text.  The current text speaking about these matters is referenced to Montesquieu and Steven Pinker, and relatively neutral; the "changes" text is strongly Eurocentric, and speaks of the cultural benefits brought to European nobility by the concept of honour.  The "changes" text would be more at home in chivalry anyways, which is already linked from here.  The anthropological explanation involving security to person and property in the absence of a neutral third party devoted to law enforcement should definitely remain.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Changes in Honour]] 

message: someone would be willing to contrast Cheneydo with Bushido in the article focused on how those outside the law (above, below - whatever) manage their affairs; otherwise do not merge. --Metarhyme 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: merge if

message: Hi there, I notice that in this article there is a lot of activity about spelling that could be better channeled into the subject itself. You may be interested in this proposal to put an end to the problem. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling proposal 

message: The article at the present time is titled Honour and is unlikely to change, given the above vote. Is there a consensus then to change all instances of Honor within the article (except for the American English definition) to Honour? I don't mind if either is the standard, however, one of them should be within the article. čĥàñľōŕď 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MoS, these changes should be reverted. PizzaMargherita 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See my consensus in the Honorificabilitudinitatibus section below. Zchris87v 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardisation

message: Article seems to make the claim that most honour killings are directed at females. From what I have heard it is the other way round but those against woman gain more press. Though it is possible that the vast majority of male deaths falls into a different subclass of murder. Any way citation is needed.
:True. There are similarly many honour killings of males as of females. It does not garner any press attention (no doubt for populistic reasons, but whatever) but is a fact of life in most Near Eastern countries. Just a while ago a young boy was killed in Iraque on his own doorstep for being homosexual, without doubt an honour killing in the strictest sense. I could give some more German sources on the question, but I doubt it would help much. I'll look into it some more. --TheOtherStephan 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the article now contradicts itself on that issue.  It says honour killings are "primarily against women," then goes on to state that the numbers are about equal.  Twin Bird 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honour killing

message: is that British usage?  Am. Engl. "values".
As for one not tolerating insults in old Japan, see the "Hagakure".  Taibaka, 26-5-06.
Re. an international standard in English, there is no international body that determines which spelling or usage is standard.  There is British English, American English, and a number of regional Englishes.  The British Empire dominated more areas, more colonies, and therefore British usage is the norm.  right.  This attitude is reflected when a Brit "corrects" an American's pronunciation of a common word.  27-5-06
::It is grossly illogical to conclude that the British usage is more correct because the British Empire "dominated more areas." 69.28.40.34 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re."old Eastern worths"

message: I've seen this pop up several times around the page, and just want to point out that it's patently false.  More countries spell it "honour," but the English-speaking population of the US is about equal to that of those countries combined.  Even in India, the only English-speaking nation larger than the US, most people don't speak it very well.  Twin Bird 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and think that the standard in spelling should be held to the that of the original author.  In this case, the spelling was originally "honor," back to which I am now changing it.  67.185.99.246 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Honour is more common..." 

message: I've tagged the article as possible original research. It mostly seems to me to consist of a hotchpotch of miscelaneous informtion, including some very contentious material, with almost no referencing. Come to think of it, I'm going to add a cleanup tag too. mgekelly 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: I just removed this section, as it doesn't belong in this article. It should probably have its own article or be merged into some other article. In the former case a disambiguation should be created. The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented the former solution. If anyone disagrees, comment here. The way, the truth, and the light 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudal honours 

message: Is anyone in favour of merging this with pride? I think they're dissimilar enough to warrant separate articles. Larklight (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to make any sense... I'm going to remove the tag, as nobody has written anything on either of the talk pages in favour of a merge. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This anonymous edit removed a paragraph, which I was just going to replace, but I notice it was entirely uncited, so I'm just posting here, in case someone wants to do some kind of follow-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it partially, since the article is tagged with .--Joshua Issac (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: Why is Lost, Aberdeenshire in the See Also section? Did I miss something? --PokeYourHeadOff (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost, Aberdeenshire? 

message: I think a section on the role of honour in culture (medieval, Japanese etc.) might be interesting. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In culture 

message: I used to think the Japanese were obsessed with honor during her imperial days. Lucas Duke (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Empire of Japan|Honor and the Glory of Japan]] 

message: I assume Honour came into English post-1066 and from the French (rather than latin, hence the spelling), yet this isn't stated in the article at all. It also makes the English spelling seem inferior due to the Latin spelling being stated as the only root of the word. --Kurtle (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Norman Invasion? 

message: It is not true that the word was first used in the sense of lands which gave honour: the word derives from "Latin honōr-em repute, esteem, official dignity, honorary gift, ornament, grace, beauty." (OED). On the stated origin of "on my honour", I am rather dubious since it is not supported by the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives first examples in late 15th C. and those seem to be in modern meaning.
Can I ask whoever added this to check their sources and the OED and consider revision, or alternatively to give fuller sources.
Aardwolf (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning the statement about "on my honour"

message: Does anyone else think that the "Karate Kid, Part II" paragraph really, really, lacks enough relevance to be in this article?
121.217.103.248 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I'm going to delete it. Many films, ideas and parts of life have the idea of Honour in them. Karate Kid is such a vague and stupid reference. Why would anyone looking up Honour want to know about a film in which the idea of honour is featured? I've seen far more suitable In Film/Trivia parts deleted on Wikipedia. --82.27.9.75 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: If the article itself were of higher quality and substance, the Karate Kid reference would work in a section on films about honor.  Long way to go before that, though; and since this article isn't exactly my sort of piece, someone else will have to get it there.Dismalscholar (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Film"?  

message: The main picture for honor is the American politicians Hamilton and Burr dueling, yet you use the spelling honour...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this article is written in British English. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd Talk 00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only because it was militantly subverted some time ago to be that way. Jersey John (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not an appropriate picture for the article, anyway.  It would serve for an article or section "Matter of Honor", linked to "Duel", but honor itself would be better illustrated by something like a little girl laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, an image would would show three meanings of the concept of honor at once.[User:Dismalscholar|Dismalscholar]] (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic Picture 

message: Well change it back to its original form! To check majority preference - do a Google search of honor and honour and you will see a very clear preference of more than 10 to 1 for honor!
:The consensus is to keep the current spelling. Google search did not return 10 times as many results for honor than honour (so no 10:1 ratio), but it did return just under 3 times as much. However, the article will use honour unless there is enough consensus to change the spelling. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the box says, "Further debates on the matter serve little toward improving the encyclopaedia." --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: To clarify: from a linguistic standpoint, neither American English nor British English has any actual "properness" per se. Both are considered dialects of the English language, and neither is better or more proper than the other, as there is no way to quantifiably determine what is "proper" and what is not. British English has some spellings that are closer to those of the etymological sources of the words, while American English has changed less in its pronunciation over the past 400 years than has British English. It is impossible to scientifically determine which one is more "accurate", as languages are by their nature fluid. This article uses honour for the reasons given in the box at the top of this Talk Page, and certainly not because of any perception of British English as being superior to American. As the Manual of Style states, "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial." Some articles are written in American English, and others in British English, for the sake of consistency within each individual article, which will better serve the reader than a confusion of spellings. –The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that persons using British English were incredibly militant about their orthography and went up in arms when they thought that others were "trampling" it.  That is why in 2003 someone changed most of the instances from "Honor" to "Honour" (and no American English user reverted it - presumably because they don't care as much) and then later when there was the original vote about whether to change back to "Honor," most users of British English went up in arms and voted against, since they assumed the original article had been in British English despite the case being the opposite.  I pointed out the technical breach and yet since it was considered "unstable" to change it back to respect the original owner's contributions, it was decided to "Let it stand."  The lesson here is that if you want articles' primary listings in American English, you need to be proactive like the Brits.  Although I don't recommend sinking to the level of preemptively changing orthography in stable articles whereever you see it.  Shiggity (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is incorrect actually. Wikipedia is hosted in Florida, USA. The creator of Wikipedia is American. We use the version of English that the article had --Rockstonetalk to me! 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: American pronunciation compared to British? Which part of Britain? - Plus American English, appart from the pronunciation of Rs, is actually quite different than when the dialects/accents went their different ways as far as Im aware; especially due to being infuenced by many other accents such as Irish & Germanic ones. I'm pretty sure 17th/18th century Britons didn't have whiney accents (bar Liverpool of course ;))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.9.75 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: That would be in violation with WP:TITLE policy, which prohibits slashed titles. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have all the edit warring on Dokdo/Takeshima, Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, Changbai/Baekdu Mountains, Sea of Japan naming dispute, Macedonia, et cetera. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not your battlefield, and you shouldn't WP:ATTACK your British friends like that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More than likely in response to "some" of the UK vitriol? Which is much more widespread. The UK vitriol, and I do admit this is anecdotal, seems to be weighted more on the imflammatory side and less on the reactionary side, whereas the US vitriol is more often reactionary (to the UK vitriol) than it is inflammatory. In other words, if we were in kindergarten, it would be "you started it!" Jersey John (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Commonwealth, not UK. Of all the nations that natively speak English, there is only one that uses United States English dialect and spelling (and I specifically write native so we don't go off the whole "what about the Philippines" tangent). You're claiming that it's only people from the UK that are arguing for "UK English", however the UK is not the only nation to use Commonwealth English. I can't speak on behalf of all Australians, but as one, I use the Commonwealth English dialect and spelling of English words, and prefer it that way, as do many others from Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe (if we're going for non-native official, add India to that list). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Alright everyone, the talkpage template above makes it very clear that further argument over this trivial issue does no benefit towards the Wikipedia project. Any further bickering is borderline WP:FORUM, and will be dealt as such. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honor  

message: Found on a redirect talked and moved here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree.  I think it is of rather high importance that this article be revised, lest it tarnish an idea which is already almost forgotten in the philosophical sense. Medevilenemy 01:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 comment from [[Talk:Honor]] 

message: I came here from Family honor to check how the essential word was dealt with.  I found the lead sentence inadequate and a subsequent sentence meaningless, so I went looking into the History to discover why.  
What I found was that back in 2066 the article had a perfectly good introductory sentence. It said: 
Honour or honor (see spelling differences) comprises the reputation, self-perception, or moral identity of an individual or of a group. 
So in October of 2006, Esperant thunders into the article,  discovers that there is a definition by Doctor Samuel Johnson  that is quoted a little further down, and (presumable with all the best intentions) simply deletes the lead sentence,  taking the article back to 1755 as if no further thought had been given to the subject.  One can only presume that Esperant thought Dr Johnson was a current editor of the OED.  
Someone eventually wrote a new introductory sentence, but not nearly as good as the original.  
:Honor is the evaluation of a person's social status as judged by that individual's community.  
This definition is inadequate on three counts.
# It is not just the "individual".  It can be any number of individuals corporately, including a whole nation.  "The honour of the regiment" is the typical example that comes to mind. 
# It is not just about social status.  People with very little social status can perceive themselves and be perceived as having "honour".  
# It is not just the way the community views the person/group that gives honour.  It is also a matter of self/internal perception.  
So I have just rewritten the first sentence to be much closer to the way it was back before the inappropriate deletion.  
Amandajm (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sometimes I despair of Wikipedia!

message: "From the point of moral relativism, honour is perceived as arising from universal concerns for material circumstance and status, rather than fundamental differences in principle between those who hold different honour codes."
I don't follow this; perhaps the original author of this sentence can help.  Should the grammatical subject be no honour, but /differences between different individuals' or societies' perceptions of what constitutes honour/?  This would explain the "rather..." clause, which otherwise doesn't make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.154.207 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled sentence? 

message: Just keep the proper spelling, please. 149.172.237.0 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honour 

message: Why do we use the British spelling honour and not the American spelling honour.  I would presume many more Americans use wikipedia than non-Americans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwood89 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh the irony. Pär Larsson (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: First, I wounld't be so sure that "many more" American than non-America use Wikipedia, I 'd like to see the stats. Second, in the whole English language world more places (including Canada) use "Honour" instead of "Honor". In any case for the sake of standardisation, if you are to change it to "Honor", Wikipedia ought to change to others such "Neighbor" instead of "Neighbour" etc. Comment added by Sea Hobbit (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Because it has been like that for a long time (although it was Honor originally), and "general consensus is that it should remain that way". --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, but why was it changed in 2003? --Tocino 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone decided to violate the rules and no one stopped them. (logs: honor, honour) --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The population of the UK, Canada and Australia together still isn't nearly as high as the US' alone. As an outsider from neither of these countries I too think that it would be more appropriate to use the American spelling. There was no point in changing it to "honour" in the first place. Clearly a violation of the rules. Also, "honor" would be closer to the Latin word it originated from. 83.187.175.181 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you from Vienna, Austria? WikiWinters (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority Spelling 

message: In the section "Cultures of honour and cultures of law", the article mentions a concept, "habitus", written about by a French author that is worth reading but offers no link to even an article stub.  I believe this article would be improved by even a brief definition stub article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.223.122 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "habitus" would benefit from linked article 

message: The spelling "honour" belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language pattern, which honors a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and, in a different way than in the land-abundant nations, to the materialistic. 
The democratic nations have a higher concept of honor which is not undermined by the oligarchic nations concept of honor, which is flexed with indicated spelling which is stylistic in the local pattern of Received English and therefore gives loan to European English and the European ideas of government, which do not give sufficient bodily form to the anti-oligarchic principle. -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this mean in normal English?  Doug Weller (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is typical of the total nonsense that Stevertigo has been spouting for years,until he was banned from Wikipedia. He starts off with a statement which makes sense, but is factually wrong, namely that somewhere there is a government which "regulates" English, and then he wanders off into total gobbldeygook, which means nothing at all. If it is possible to make any sense of it at all, he seems to be expressing the political point of view that the united States government is a better form of government than that in other English speaking countries, and that therefore the United States form of English must be superior, and that Wikipedia should therefore prefer the United States form of English. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: About time he was banned then. Doug Weller (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article to indicate Common -nglish spelling, because honor is not "honour" 

message: Thou shalt honour thy mother and father.
Thou shalt honour thy father and mother.
KJV bible of 10 commandments
124.106.129.113 (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In KJV bible of 10 commandments. 

message: I think we should have a part about honour in different cultures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.71.208 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a separate article named Honor culture where honor culture in different regions and countries can be described. AadaamS (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  honour in different cultures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Honour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131003064153/http://www.cambridgeindia.org/showbookdetails.asp?ISBN=9780521652391&category_id=63 to http://www.cambridgeindia.org/showbookdetails.asp?ISBN=9780521652391&category_id=63
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:His Holiness which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress