Talk:Style (form of address)

message: Should it be Dr. The Hon. John Smith or is it The Hon. Dr. John Smith?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.235.70 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter one. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Honourable and Dr.

message: Speaking as a former assistant compiler of Crockford's Clerical Directory I should say that "The (Most/Right/Very) Revd the Hon" is correct - not "The (Most/Right/Very) Revd and Hon". Turn to Crockford and look up FIENNES, The Very Revd the Hon Oliver William (p. 248) in my 2002/03 edition.
I think that "the" is correct before "Hon" - not "and". Google comes up with about 10,100 results for "reverend the honourable" but only about 116 results for "reverend and honourable". Examples of the former include, "[The] Reverend the Honourable Charles Courtenay (1816-1894) (son of 10th Earl of Devon)", "[The] Reverend the Honourable Andrew Elphinstone", "The Reverend the Honourable Winfield Stratford Twistleton Wykeham Fiennes Vicar at Milton Keynes 1880-1910", "The Reverend the Honourable George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman (1823-1895)", and even, "The Right Reverend, the Honourable Sir Paul Reeves" (the comma is unnecessary, if not in fact wrong). (See Police Taser Trial in Government's Ghettos (Maori Party press release, 31 August 2006)).--Oxonian2006 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Reverend the Honourable: not ''and''

message: Is there any source for the claim that "styles are used universally in republics worldwide"? I'm not disputing it - I know nothing about the subject. I'm just wondering where it came from. -- Vardion 11:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Universal" use for republics

message: Lots of duplicate linking going on here, particularly wrt religion where there are duplicate links for archbishop, Roman Catholic and Anglican amongst others. Is there a good reason for this deviation from wikistyle? Frelke 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki styles et al 

message: Reading this article, it seems to regard Honorific and Style as meaning (almost) the same thing.  That suggests that the small amount of material at the Honorific article would be more easily understood if it were here.  What do you think? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I proposed a sort of "reclassification" on Talk:Japanese honorifics#Where is this page going?. If that actually goes somewhere, it should clear up some of the confusion. Bigpeteb 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Honorific]] proposed

message: I was consulting this article looking for information, and came across a section which reads (to the uninformed) a bit like an argument between editors. I quote specifically:
However, the style Princess of Wales merely indicated that she was the former Princess of Wales as is obvious from the reason there is no definite article. If there had been a definite article it would mean that she WAS the Princess of Wales. In any event, there was NO definitite article purely for the fact that she was NO LONGER the Princess of Wales.
The language feels slightly unencyclopedic, more along the lines of something posted in a debate in a Talk Page. Several elements of this sentence would not be found a print publication, such as "as is obvious", "in any event", the use of CAPS to emphasize a point, and the repetition. 
I will edit it for a more neutral and objective tone. However, since I am clueless about the content itself, if any changes alter the meaning or essence of the sentence, it was purely unintentional. Mip | Talk 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic language 

message: The article mentions the following:
"It can be considered offensive, however, to refer to a tenured/tenure-track Professor as "Dr. Jones.""
I have never heard of anyone taking offense at that form of address.  I suspect that any professor who did take offense at being referred to as "Dr. Jones" rather than "Professor Jones" would be roundly and rightly ridiculed.  Unless some source can be found for this statement, I believe it should be removed.
: Few professors today might take offense at being styled doctor rather than professor but it is a fact that professor is a higher status than mere doctor.  There are many doctors out there, but relatively few professors.  Calling a professor doctor is to (unintentionally) ignore his higher status. -RobertBlacknut 03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Professor" is not a higher status, just a different status. There are plenty of professors who do not have doctoral degrees. When I was an undergraduate, "professor" was reserved for a professor who did not have a doctoral degree; those who had them were called "doctor." When I was in law school, "professor" was standard because the J.D. degree, while supposedly a "doctorate," is not considered the type of degree that entitles you to be called "doctor." All of this is an example of why I have my doubts that it is possible to write a coherent article about manners of address in the United States, where they are not formalized to the extent that they are in many other countries. 163.231.6.87 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that "professor" is a more specific style of address for a person who has attained that position, but i disagree with the wording of the sentence, in that i do not think it would be considered offensive to style an American professor "doctor". German academics might insist on their traditional and highly structuralized differentiation of address, but American academics wouldn't. I see it as similar to using the style "Lordship" rather than "Most Honourable" for a British Marquess: it assigns a style also in use by those of lower rank, but which is still equally appropriate. Fuzzzone 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the universities with which I am familiar in England it would be either ignorant or offensive to call an actual professor merely Dr. Indeed, not all professors are doctors, e.g. Paul Gifford was until 2004 just 'Mr Gifford' and Michael Crawford (historian) was until 1986 'Mr Crawford'. This is now rare. In British universities, except for some funny Americanisms that have crept in at a handful of places, we use the term professor only for the highest rank of what in other countries are all called professors of one sort or another. Simon Hornblower, Professor of Classics and Grote Professor of Ancient History, UCL, would properly take umbrage at being called 'Dr Hornblower'. The only arguable exceptions are for theologians. Some argue that Doctor of Divinity is a higher status than Professor and thus call the a professor who is also a DD 'Dr'. Professors who are also Canons are also arguably properly called 'Canon'. In practice since there are any number of doctors and canons and just a handful of professors we call them professors. When I was at school and applying to university we were told that a knighted professor is also called professor, though an ennobled one is called Lord.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Academic Styles 

message: The page contains this entry:
The Most Reverend (abbreviation The Most Rev., oral address Father) — The Leader of "The People of the Aten"
Is there any such group as "The People of the Aten"?  The worship of Aten ended with the Ancient Egyptians; it is conceivable that there is a New Age group that continues this tradition, but it seems more likely that someone added this line as a prank.
KJN, 2007-12-06  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.102.166 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification Needed 

message: Is this a cut-and-paste error or is the "dean of a faculty" really addressed by the same style as any other professor:
# ...
# The highly learned Sir/Madam (De hooggeleerde heer/vrouwe) - dean of a faculty (a professor)
# The highly learned Sir/Madam (De hooggeleerde heer/vrouwe) - a professor
# ...
If the later, why do we need the extra line?  Originalname37 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Titles for Dutch Academia 

message: The sections and headings in this need tidying up. For example, why are there sections on Republics etc., then a section on Commonwealth countries, and then individual sections further down for countries such as the Phillipines?
93.96.236.8 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections and headings

message: "His name is never used in his presence"? Where did that come from? 163.231.6.87 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  President of the United States 

message: Outside the Navy it is considered disrespectful to refer to an officer by their rank if:
* You are an Enlisted class
* You are a lesser-ranking Officer class
* You are a subordinate Officer class of the same rank
Officers and Enlisted personnel may also refer to a superior Officer as "Sir" or "Ma'am". Enlisted personnel are never referred to as "Sir" or "Ma'am"; this would often be corrected with the phrase: "Don't call me 'sir', I work for a living."
=== Within the Enlisted ranks ===
An Enlisted person should refer to a superior Enlisted person (one of higher rank or of the same rank but in a superior position) by their rank alone or by their rank and last name.
Private: "Good morning, Sergeant", or "Good morning, Sergeant Smith".
An Enlisted person may refer to an equal or lower-ranking Enlisted person by their rank alone, by their rank and last name, or simply by their last name.
Sergeant: "Good morning, Private", "Good morning, Private Jones", or "Good morning, Jones".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.32.194 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Non-Navy Military Address Etiquette 

message: An Enlisted person should refer to a superior Enlisted person (one of higher rank or of the same rank but in a superior position) by their rank alone or by their rank and last name.
Private: "Good morning, Sergeant", or "Good morning, Sergeant Smith".
An Enlisted person may refer to an equal or lower-ranking Enlisted person by their rank alone, by their rank and last name, or simply by their last name.
Sergeant: "Good morning, Private", "Good morning, Private Jones", or "Good morning, Jones".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.32.194 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Within the Enlisted ranks 

message: The section on New Zealand has just been edited to refer to "current and future former Prime Ministers", "the current and future former Governor General" and a few others. The phrase "future former" sounds very strange to me, and I don't know what it's supposed to mean. Would someone be so kind as to explain what's intended here, and might it be possible to reword the sentence? Alkari (?), 9 July 2011, 03:39 UTC
:As no one has indicated what "future former" means or why it was added, I've removed the phrase. If there is in fact an important distinction here that I'm missing, please feel free to correct me. Alkari (?), 23 July 2011, 02:35 UTC
The phrase "current and future former Prime Ministers is used due to the issue that the return of the Rt Hon title does not apply to the former office holders who already Have the Privy Council distinction and also to the Former Speaker Margaret Wilson whose want of not having the title prompted the Change to be especially worded to that effect. I'll add back the phrase because it is important to note this
Kaiserm (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand: "future former" 

message: I would like to suggest that the translations of non-English forms should follow, not precede.CecilWard (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations second. 

message: Now it says,
"4a Dowager Lady Smith - deceased Baron's ex-wife
4b Elizabeth, Lady Smith - deceased Baron's widow"
I don't think an ex would be called  a dowager. Anyone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.173.242 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-wife and widow 

message: Is there a steadfast rule or guideline as to whether we qualify someone as "former" if they no longer hold an office? Specifically, I am dealing with the title of "Mayor". If in an article we refer to someone who once was a mayor of a major city, do we refer to them as "former Mayor John Doe" or are they always know as "Mayor John Doe"? SueDonem (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of "former" as a qualifier 

message: I am not familiar with "Mo." for "Mother." I am very familiar with "Mtr." and see it frequently. I am an Episcopal priest and am on distribution lists for the diocese, larger church, etc. It may be that both are in use and Mtr. should be added? T Haynes (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican clergy women and titles 

message: Quote: "Commonwealth realms:
Commonwealth prime ministers are usually addressed just as Prime Minister, but the form of address Mr. Prime Minister is also often used in certain countries. "Mr. Prime Minister" remains a common form of address in international diplomacy, "Prime Minister" alone remains more common within domestic politics."
I think some examples of these countries need to be provided. I've lived in 3 commonwealth realms and i've never heard a Prime Minister called Mr. Prime Minister under any circumstances. This sounds like it's only an American occurrence/assumption. As far as i'm aware they're always just addressed as Prime Minister. The term seems unlikely also because writing Mr. with a full stop is an American form. We don't usually use full stops (periods) in that way. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Prime Minister? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Style (manner of address). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902083617/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz:80/honours/overview/hon.html to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/overview/hon.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902083628/http://www.dpmc.govt.nz:80/honours/overview/rthon.html to http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/overview/rthon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am from Russia and I am here because a wanted to know term to syntax part of sentence, addressing to someone. However, instead of linguistic related page I came here, to etiquette related page. So, I doubt, that this page is correctly linked to russian Wikipedia. With regards, -212.75.128.236 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to raise that on the page that you clicked the link from.  They would be in a better place to update the link. meamemg (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is pages linked correctly? 

message: It is clear that some contributors believe that there is currently a "Kingdom of England". That kingdom has not existed since 1707. While the titles and styles may have origins that could be traced back to that kingdom, this article is referring to people that exist now. The country headed currently by Queen Elizabeth II is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.217.182 (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United Kingdom 

message: This article has many instances of the archaic “he or she.” While it would be more accurate and inclusive to use “they,” I’m not sure if this applies to the use of honorifics unless they are used. While pronouns that differ from he and she are obviously used in English, honorifics differ on their usage. Of course their are likely many judges, doctors, and honorary people who identify as gender non-binary and may not use “his/her honor,” I’m not sure if one would use “their honor” and if an example of that would justify changing ALL the his/her honorifics to “their.”
Since it’s certainly possible that one could say “their honor” I move to do that for the sake of inclusivity, though I would love for someone else to weigh in before this entire page is altered. Dabblequeen (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  His/her 

message: These are literally just legally protected, preferred pronouns 67.246.67.187 (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred pronouns