Talk:Bernard Montgomery

message: : Bernard Montgomery was a hereditary Viscount of the peerage of the United Kingdom. As such and according to the manual of style and that peerage he is afforded the prefix of "The Right Honourable." Furthermore due to his rank as a Field Marshal he is accorded that style in front of his title as well. This means that he is styled "Field Marshal The Right Honourable The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein." Any other stylisation is improper and it does not matter if it clutters the infobox. Accuracy trumps aesthetics. RexAntica (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ranks and awards are already included further down the infobox (please compare with other military infoboxes). Also as you have been repeated told please do not edit war. Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peerages are not awards, they are titles, hence why his honorific prefix is a prefix to his title (that's what prefix means). In any event your honorific prefix ALWAYS goes before your title on first introduction, which in this case is the top of the infobox. Military rank is more variable, as it does not have to be used. However, I will reiterate that your honorific prefix, eg, The Right Honourable, ALWAYS appears at the top of an introduction. Every single article about any peer of the UK you find will be like this. The only time it is excepted is when the peer is a Duke or a Royal. And again, "cluttering the infobox" is no reason to sacrifice accuracy, aesthetics do not trump accuracy. RexAntica (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see MOS:HONORIFIC. Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises against the use of honorific prefixes such as "The Honourable", which is why few articles use them. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence of interest here is, "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name— in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity, including The Most Noble, The Most Honourable, The Right Honourable, and The Honourable;" One will note that this says "in front of a name" this does not refer to titles, but honorifics derived from titles. For example, it would be improper to style Bertrand Russell as "The Right Honourable Betrand Russell" as it is odd, but one would style the Prime Minister as "The Right Honourable Boris Johnson." In any event, "The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein" is not a name, but a title, and should therefore, according to the way viscountcies work is that he is styled as "The Right Honourable The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein." By the precedent set by just about every article on British nobility, for example the Earl of Stirling, the Viscount St Alban, and the Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, the honorific prefix of "the Right Honourable" should precede the title.RexAntica (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be but it does not detract from the point that we seek to keep military infoboxes simple and uncluttered with rank and awards further down the infobox. And we do that across hundreds of military biographies, many of which involve peers who are entitled to styles and honorifics. Dormskirk (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you'd like to sacrifice accuracy for aesthetics? Because that's what it sounds like to me. And again, a Viscountcy is not an award, it is a peerage title. It does not matter if other military biographies use honorifics incorrectly. I don't really care if we add Field Marshal, as the inclusion of ranks is and has always been controversial, but I believe we must add "The Right Honourable", even if it is less aesthetically pleasing.RexAntica (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if "The Right Honourable" should prefix Montgomery, but the argument that it shouldn't be in an infobox military person is out of order: wikiprojects do not "own" articles. The fact that Montgomery's article uses  does not mean that MILHIST conventions supersede or override general (non-military) MOS conventions for bios that should use honorifics. That is to say, if Montgomery hypothetically weren't a military person and would otherwise be styled as "The Right Honourable The Viscount of Alamein" with  or , then just because his article uses  shouldn't strip his article of the honorific normally afforded peers. Again, assuming that would otherwise normally be correct.  — sbb (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Peerage of the UK Earls, Viscounts, and Barons are afforded the honorific of "The Right Honourable." And I agree wholeheartedly,the honorific should be displayed, being a military person doesn't negate the right to the honorific. RexAntica (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefixes in the Infobox 

message: Surely his remarks on homosexuality should be qualified with the fact he was probably a repressed boy lover: https://www.greek-love.com/modern-europe/switzerland/monty-s-little-swiss-friend-1946-50 (86.150.124.93 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some way of including more information about Monty's unusually close friendships with boys, but it would need to be referenced to a reliable source, not a blog. The blog itself quotes Nigel Hamilton and Ronald Hyam, so perhaps you could find something there. Personally, I find it a bit strong to say he was 'probably' a repressed homosexual, as it seems to me that he may, as Lucien Trueb suggests in his account, just have enjoyed their uncritical hero worship and lost interest in them as they got older and more questioning. It's certainly possible that he was just a sad, lonely man who would really have liked to have a family. But, no one can really know for sure, and my opinion is irrelevant, it's what reliable sources say that's important as far as adding something to the article is concerned.--Shimbo (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on legalisation of homosexuality