text:
Seeing Red (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

"Seeing Red" is the 19th episode of season 6 of the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The episode aired on May 7, 2002, on UPN. In North America, this episode was somehow syndicated onto UPN affiliates a week early by accident. Although none of them broadcast the episode by mistake, the episode was leaked onto the internet more than a week before it was slated to air. The episode was also noted for its drastic and controversial content, being the only episode of the series to air at an alternate time on the Canadian family network YTV.

Plot
After their their reconciliation, Tara confirms Willow's suspicions that Buffy and Spike have had a sexual relationship, adding that Buffy feels ashamed of her sexual relationship with Spike. Willow is hurt that she was never told, but simply puts it aside when she remembers what Buffy is going through. Buffy breaks into the Trio's lair, but finds the place deserted and ensnared with traps. She escapes, managing to grab a few items before large saw blades tear apart the house. Anya sits with a young scorned woman who wants to wish vengeance on her cheating boyfriend, but Anya is distracted by her own relationship problems to notice the young woman's wish. Dawn visits Spike at his crypt, informing him that she knows he had sex with Anya and Buffy. She lectures him about hurting Buffy when he supposedly loves her.

Meanwhile, in a cave, the Trio kill a large Nezzla demon who is guarding the Orbs of Nezzla'khan. Warren and Andrew make Jonathan wrap himself in the dead Nezzla's skin to cross a barrier that can only be passed by one of the demons, and as he fetches the orbs the other two conspire against him. Warren tests the power of the orbs and is pleased when he can easily kill another demon.

Xander, aghast that Buffy slept with Spike, storms out of an argument with her. He leaves for The Bronze when the Trio enter. Now enhanced with power, Warren hits on a former schoolmate's girlfriend, and when the woman's boyfriend steps in Warren fights off the boyfriend and several others with ease. Xander tries to intervene but is tossed aside. Later, Buffy, badly injured from patrolling earlier, runs a bath for herself when Spike shows up uninvited and tries to convince her that she loves him. She protests as he forces himself on her, his attempt to make her feel love for him again. With her back injured, Buffy barely manages to stop his advance on her. Immediately horrified by his behavior, Spike attempts to apologize, but Buffy knows he only stopped because she made him. He flees before Xander finds his coat on the stairs, then finds Buffy on the floor in the bathroom with a large bruise on her leg. Xander is stopped from going after Spike when Willow and Tara arrive to tell Buffy they found plans indicating the Trio are planning to steal a large amount of money. After Xander warns her of Warren's new strength, Buffy rushes off to stop them.

Returning to his crypt, Spike pours himself a drink, but is haunted by his rape attempt. Spike boards his motorcycle at the city limits and leaves Sunnydale, vowing to return a changed being. Warren overturns an armored car loaded up with money from a big weekend at an amusement park. Buffy shows up and fights him, but quickly finds herself outmatched against Warren's strength; Warren taunts Buffy with his supposed mastery. Jonathan jumps on Buffy's back and quietly coaches her to smash the orbs on Warren's belt in order to defeat him. No longer strong, Warren uses a hidden jet pack to escape freely into the sky. Andrew attempts to follow suit with his own jet pack, only to knock himself out on the overhanging roof above him. As the cops haul Jonathan and Andrew off to jail, the jetpack-less Jonathan realizes that the two were about to betray him.

The next day, Buffy and Xander begin to discuss Buffy's relationship with Spike, and the two make amends and reaffirm their friendship. As the two hug, Xander spots Warren entering the backyard with a gun. Warren rants about his recent defeat, pulls out the gun, fires directly at Buffy as revenge, then shoots randomly over his shoulder as he runs away. Buffy and Xander topple to the ground as a bullet fires at the window to Willow's bedroom and strikes Tara in the back as she is facing Willow. As Tara collapses to her death, Willow cries out holding her as her eyes turn magically dark red, while outside, Xander tries to staunch the bleeding of Buffy's chest wound.

Writing
The episode continues the emphasis on the consequences of actions. Spike takes the time to explain to Dawn that what he and Anya did was wrong.

This is the first and only episode where Amber Benson (Tara) appears in the main title credits, and is also her death episode. Joss Whedon had long wanted to kill off a major character the first time they joined the main credits. Originally he indicated that he wanted Eric Balfour who played Jesse in "Welcome to the Hellmouth", and "The Harvest" to be added to the beginning credits to add the shock that a main cast character could die unexpectedly, but due to budget constraints he could not be added at the time. Whedon also saw Tara's death as necessary to further Willow's character; she had to deal with her dark powers, but nothing short of Tara's death would allow them to come out so forcefully.

Tara had become popular among fans, and Whedon and series writer David Fury decided that her death would elicit a strong response, something that Whedon felt sure was the correct course to take. He was unprepared, however, for how forcefully viewers reacted to Tara's death. Fans were so upset that some stopped watching. Because the death came at the end of an episode where Willow and Tara were portrayed in bed between sexual encounters, critics accused Whedon of implying that lesbian sex should be punishable by death, a familiar trope in film. Producers were inundated with mail from people—women especially—who expressed their anger, sadness, and frustration with the writing team. Series writer and producer Marti Noxon was unable to read some of the mail because it was so distressing, but she counted the response as a natural indication that television simply had few strong female role models, and no lesbian representation.

Benson defended Whedon in 2007, saying he "is 100 percent behind the LGBT community. I know this for a fact." Author Rhonda Wilcox writes that Tara's death is made more poignant by her earthy naturalness representing the "fragility of the physical". Roz Kaveney comments that Tara's murder is "one of the most upsetting moments of the show's seven seasons", and Nikki Stafford states that the episode in which Tara dies is possibly the most controversial of the series, causing divisions about whether it was necessary, or assertions that Tara was created only to be killed. In response to fans and critics who accused the writers of being motivated by homophobia, Stafford comments, "they seem to forget that it was those same writers who created such an amazing, gentle, and realistic portrait in the first place; that Tara is certainly not the first character to be killed off on the show; and Tara was a lot more than just 'the lesbian', and her character deserves better than that." Kaveney concurs with the opinion that the series avoided playing a cliché, "proving that it is possible for a queer character to die in popular culture without that death being the surrogate vengeance of the straight world".

In the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences panel discussion that took place between seasons six and seven, Alyson Hannigan revealed that getting the shot of Tara's blood spraying onto Willow's shirt was incredibly difficult. Because they only had two shirts, the wardrobe department kept washing the shirts but did not have time to dry them, so the shirt was wet in most of the takes. Hannigan joked that when they finally got the take she was not sure what she was doing acting-wise, she was just concerned with the appearance of the blood on the shirt remaining consistent. In a 2002 interview with the BBC, Benson stated that by the end of the filming of Tara's death scene, both she and Sarah Michelle Gellar were crying, as a close friend of theirs who had worked on the show had died just prior to filming.

In the DVD commentary, James Marsters said that filming the scene in which Spike attempts to rape Buffy was one of the hardest he ever had to do. He has since said that he will never do such a scene again. That scene has also generated controversy between fans and the writers, but Marsters and writer Jane Espenson said that the moment was necessary to set up a powerful motivation for Spike's quest to gain a soul. Marsters would later say in 2012 that he understood the idea to have come from "a female writer, [who] had a situation in her life where she was and her boyfriend were breaking up and she decided if she just made love to him one more time, that they wouldn't break up. She ended up trying to force herself on him and decided to write about that. The thing is, if you flip it and make it a man forcing himself on a woman, I believe it becomes a whole different thing... I'm not really sure it expressed what the author was intending and on that score it was not successful."

In her essay on sex and violence in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Gwyn Symonds calls the scene itself "technically and emotionally intricate" in that, unlike most depictions of attempted rape, it "encourages a complex audience engagement with both... the perpetrator and the victim." The action was "very carefully choreographed" according to James Marsters, with the camera alternating between close-ups of Buffy and Spike separately to reinforce the audience's shifting empathy with both Buffy and Spike. Writer Rebecca Rand Kirshner agrees that the viewer "could feel how [Spike's] very innards were twisted into this perversion of what he wanted," and she found that experiencing the scene from his perspective was additionally disturbing.

Starring

 * Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy Summers
 * Nicholas Brendon as Xander Harris
 * Emma Caulfield as Anya Jenkins
 * Michelle Trachtenberg as Dawn Summers
 * Amber Benson as Tara Maclay (Benson's only appearance in the main cast credits)
 * James Marsters as Spike
 * Alyson Hannigan as Willow Rosenberg

Guest starring

 * Danny Strong as Jonathan Levinson
 * Adam Busch as Warren Mears
 * Tom Lenk as Andrew Wells
 * Amy Hathaway as Christine (Blonde)
 * Nichole Hiltz as Diana (Beautiful Woman)

Co-starring

 * James C. Leary as Clem
 * Garrett Brawith as Frank
 * Tim Hager as Administrator
 * Stephan Marks as Guard #1
 * Christopher James as Guard #2
 * Kate Orsini as Girl at Bronze

title: Seeing Red (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)


text: File:Drugagainstwar.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:Drugagainstwar.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch

Wikipedians listed by country of service and military branch:

See also
 * Category:Wikipedian military people

Australian Army
Wikipedians that are associated with any of the regiments of the Australian Army (Regular, Reserve, retired)

 * Lympathy – Signalman, Technician Telecommunications (ARA, retired 2007).
 * Kommando – Sapper, Royal Australian Engineers (Reserve, current)

[[australia|🇦🇺]] Royal Australian Navy
Wikipedians that are associated with any of the regiments of the Royal Australian Navy (Regular, Reserve, retired)

Royal Australian Air Force
Wikipedians that are associated with any of the regiments of the Royal Australian Air Force (Regular, Reserve, retired)

Canadian Army
Wikipedians that are associated with the Canadian Army (Regular, Reserve, retired) or the former Canadian Army (retired)

Royal Canadian Navy
Wikipedians that are associated with the Canadian Navy (Regular, Reserve, retired), or the former Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) (retired)
 * Jacky Tar – "Ready Aye Ready"

Royal Canadian Air Force
Wikipedians that are associated with the Royal Canadian Air Force (Regular, Reserve, retired) or the former Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) (retired)

 * Andrew647
 * TheGerm
 * Dreamafter – (Regular Forces, Air Force Colonel)

Finnish Army

 * Jayaguru-Shishya

Hellenic Air Force

 * Project2501a – Sergeant (NCO), Analyst/Programmer, 335SQ, 116 Combat Wing.

Islamic Republic of Iran Army
Wikipedians that are associated with the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Regular, Reserve, retired) or the former Islamic Republic of Iran Army (AJA) (retired)

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
Wikipedians that are associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Regular, Reserve, retired), or the former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (retired)

[[israel|🇮🇱]] Israel Defense Forces

 * Ynhockey – Samal Rishon / Staff Sergeant OR-6 (reserves), Military Police Corps

GOC Army Headquarters
Wikipedians that are associated with the GOC Army Headquarters (Regular, Reserve, retired) or the former GOC Army Headquarters (retired)
 * Cliftonian – Samal / Sergeant OR-5 (2012–14)

Norwegian Army

 * Profoss – Corporal, draftee, finished January 2004.

Pakistan Air Force
Wikipedians that are associated with the Pakistan Air Force (active, retired)
 * Acejet

[[united kingdom|🇬🇧]] Royal Navy
Wikipedians that are associated with the Royal Navy (active, marines, FAA, RFA, RFR, RFC, retired)

[[united kingdom|🇬🇧]] British Army
Wikipedians that are associated with the British Army (active, BFG, retired)
 * Mangrove22 – Retired captain
 * Walton One – Officer Cadet, Oxford University Officer Training Corps

Royal Air Force
Wikipedians that are associated with the Royal Air Force (active, retired)
 * Colds7ream – Officer Cadet, Birmingham University Air Squadron.

United States Army
Wikipedians that are associated with the Army (Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, Army National Guard, discharged, retired, USMA, Army ROTC)

 * AMAPO – Former – 42L, later 11B, 2nd ID, 4th ID, OIF Veteran
 * Bay2175 – Former – (SSG) 95B, Veteran medically retired
 * BrassTacks – Former – (SSG) Louisiana Army National Guard, Washington Artillery
 * Boneyard90 – Former – 12B, 82nd Airborne, 1990–1994.
 * Buaidh – Former – (SGT) 11B20, 1st Airmobile Cavalry Division, Vietnam War veteran
 * Bullmoosebell – Active Duty – 68W – Combat Medic in Task Force 1-15 IN - 3rd Infantry Division featured in the 2010 Iraq war documentary Baker Boys: Inside the Surge.
 * Cecropia – Former – MPC, AUS, 95B, 71H, 1967-1969
 * Cuprum17 – Former – Specialist Five, Senior Photo Lab Specialist, 84G20, 1st Military Intelligence Battalion (Air Reconnaissance Support), Republic of Vietnam, 1966-1968. Retired, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve, 2007
 * D. F. Schmidt – Army National Guard/Cadet – Army ROTC
 * Dale S. Satre – Active Duty – Military Intelligence
 * Derek Balsam – Former – (SGT) 29M, Veteran – Honorable discharge
 * DieWeibeRose – Former – 11H/11B California Army National Guard 1989-1992
 * f3rn4nd0 – U.S. Army Reserve – Iraq Veteran
 * HiB2Bornot2B – Former – 33W, 1999-2008
 * ikilled007 – Former – 11M, 2/5 Cav; 1989-1991, 18C, A Co 2/20th SFG, 1991-1997
 * James D McCollum – Active Duty – 92A, 2001-Present
 * joshuashearn – Active Duty – Armor Officer
 * JungleCat – Former – Honorable discharge. Active service: 1987-1990
 * Kant Kavar – Former – Honorable discharge. 35F, 2005-2009
 * MrThomas – Former – Graduated Basic Combat Training and then medically discharged in AIT
 * Nathanm mn – Army National Guard – (2LT), 34th ID, Minnesota Army National Guard
 * SMBriscoe – Cadet – Army ROTC
 * Mcornelius – Former – Indirect Fire Infantryman in the 101st Airborne Division, OIF veteran 2×
 * Mikeofv – Active Duty – 19D, OIF and OEF Veteran
 * Oldwildbill – Active Duty
 * Parsecboy – Former – 96B, medically discharged, OIF Veteran, served in the XVIII Airborne Corps
 * PaulinSaudi – Former – Retired Infantryman
 * PistolPete037 – Army National Guard – Active Duty, 14S, 2nd ID, 11th ACR, 2002-2006, OIF Veteran – North Carolina Army National Guard 15W, 30th HBCT, 2006-present
 * QueenofBattle – Former – Infantry officer; Operation Just Cause; later 40th ID, California Army National Guard; honorably discharged in 2003
 * Richard David Ramsey – Former – U.S. Army Reserve – retired
 * RFP15 – U.S. Army Reserve – (SGT), 92A, OIF II Veteran, 1995-present
 * Ron John – OIF OEF
 * Signaleer – Former – (SGT) 25M, OIF 06-08 Veteran, 2004-2010
 * Sovietmessiah – Active Duty – 31B
 * Spencer.Luke – Army National Guard – 68W, Wisconsin Army National Guard
 * Swatjester – Active Duty – 11B, Infantry and RSTA, OIF 1-2, OEF, 2004-2006 Hurricane Relief Duty, currently on board of directors Iraq War Veterans Organization
 * TucsonDavid – Former – Major
 * Vivin – Army National Guard – (SGT) 92A, Arizona Army National Guard

United States Marine Corps
Wikipedians that are associated with the Marine Corps (active, reserve, discharged, retired, ROTC, USNA)

 * bahamut0013 – Sergeant, served since 2003; deceased 2011
 * Fernando Rizo
 * Fox1
 * Gelston – 1/1
 * Kafziel
 * Kageskull
 * Kainaw
 * Kingofslackrs
 * Kenyon
 * Leobold1 – Former Active Duty Marine
 * Looper5920
 * Marine 69-71
 * Maurreen
 * Ntk53s
 * Ocatecir
 * Palm dogg
 * RekonDog
 * Robotam
 * Rob110178 – OIF Veteran
 * Searchme
 * Vsmith –
 * Fail_Deadly

United States Navy
Wikipedians that are associated with the Navy (active, reserve, discharged, retired, ROTC, USNA)

 * Alterego – Honorable discharge
 * av8r1974 – 9 years as a Naval Aviator
 * Barista – Former Seabee reservist
 * Chromancer – Former sailor with honorable discharge
 * Dillonallen – Reserve Engineering Duty Officer
 * EM1SS&CSE – Submariner, 3,211 day veteran
 * E2a2j – Active Duty Naval Aviator
 * Horologium Transferred to Fleet Reserve after 20 years and 26 days on active duty
 * Jaguitar – Six year CTI rider, Medically separated
 * Legotech – 6 years, Aviation Structural Mechanic
 * Mitsukai – Honorable discharge, 13-year veteran
 * PHDrillSergeant – Active duty sailor
 * Seth Hall – Veteran, Seabee
 * Tony619 – Active Duty
 * Who – Medically retired, CVN-74 & SSSU Norfolk
 * Big Roger – Retired Operations Specialist

United States Air Force
Wikipedians that are associated with the Air Force (active, reserve, guard, discharged/retired, ROTC, USAFA, CAP)

 * AroostookGeorge – Staff Sergeant, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, Programmer
 * Cadet Hastings – Cadet, Florida Wing of the Civil Air Patrol
 * Calltech – Former Captain (5 years active, H/D), USAFA; North American Aerospace Defense Command
 * ChardingLLNL – Former Staff Sergeant, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Programmer for DMSP telemetry analysis, honorably discharged 1981
 * Cobysev – Technical Sergeant, Cyber Support Operator, 2002-present
 * Code36 – Senior Airman, Nebraska Air National Guard, Security Forces member
 * Cuprum17 – Former Cadet, Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, 1964-66
 * Dainomite – Staff Sergeant, MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida
 * DesertCondor – Staff Sergeant, Eielson AFB, Alaska
 * DJREJECTED – Senior Airman, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
 * ELH50 – Staff Sergeant, Ramstein AB, Germany
 * Irishnightwish – Active Duty Staff Sergeant, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska
 * Linuxbeak – Senior Member, Rhode Island Wing of the Civil Air Patrol
 * MarshallStack – Former Airman First Class, Indiana Air National Guard, Civil Air Patrol
 * MichaelBlankley – Airman First Class, Ohio Air National Guard, KC-135 Crew Chief
 * Mjf3719 – Cadet, AFROTC Detachment 538, will be commissioned as a 33S1 (Comm Officer) at Buckley AFB, Colorado in May 2009
 * Nathanm mn – Former Technical Sergeant, CE, all over the world, honorably discharged 2006
 * NDCompuGeek – SAC BUFF old crow, RIF'ted in 1991
 * pd_THOR – Senior Airman, Scott AFB, Washington
 * Pmsyyz – Master Sergeant
 * QuasiAbstract – Senior Airman, California Air National Guard, Systems Control
 * QueenofBattle – Colorado Wing, CAP
 * RJASE1 – Active Duty Master Sergeant
 * Rlhardesty – Former Sergeant, USAFSS, honorably discharged 1977
 * Rob Rosenberger – Senior Master Sergeant, Reserves, retired October 2007; Computer Programmer (3C052), Computer Operator (3C071), Historian (3H091). Last duty assignment as Historian Superintendent, 22 AF, Dobbins ARB
 * T geier – Active Duty Staff Sergeant, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
 * Terryrayc – Former Staff Sergeant, Security Forces, F.E. Warren AirForce Base, honorably discharged 1995

United States Space Force
Wikipedians that are associated with the Space Force (active, reserve, discharged, retired)

United States Coast Guard
Wikipedians that are associated with the Coast Guard (active, reserve, discharged, retired, auxiliary, cadet)

 * Cuprum17 – Retired Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Reserve Machinery Technician
 * DieWeibeRose – Active Duty (BM) in the 14th CGD, 1983-1987
 * Eric J. Hebert, DVC-IC – Chief, Communication Services Division, Department of Information Technology U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (also discharged active duty QM2, 1983-1996)
 * GABaker – Auxiliarist, VFC in 5th District South
 * MarshallStack – Auxiliarist, VFC, FSO-SR, 8ER, 2001-2008
 * Pesco
 * QueenofBattle – U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, 8WR
 * Skapur
 * Wayne Spivak – U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary (2001-present)
 * David Spalding – U.S. Coast Guard Active Duty (1985-1998), Port Safety, Aviation, Intelligence


text:
Talk:China standard time

{{WikiProject Time|class=redirect|importance=NA

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.

—Yamara ✉  17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma of a uniform time zone
When the US was in the same time zone (when by the way?), was Califonia part of the US already? — Instantnood 21:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Time zones were implemented in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Before then, every location kept its own time. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

ROC Time
This article taken from a government document says the Republic of China has five time zones for its claimed territories, that is +5.5, +6, +7 + 8 and +8.5. — Instantnood 01:21, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should start an article on Chungyuan Standard Time, or Time zones of the Republic of China. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reason of being spurious
Can someone explain (in the article) why the critics who say advancing the time zone by 1 hour would "instead symbolize a reversion to Japanese colonialism" are criticized as being "spurious"? Thanks.—Gniw (Wing) 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "spurious". Even though Taiwan was on +8 during the Japanese occupation, that doesn't mean advancing Taiwan up to +9 (same as Japan) can't be interpreted as having some symbolic meaning in that direction, especially if advancing Taiwan out of +8 is interpreted as having symbolic meaning anyways. -- ran (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging this article to "Time zones of China"
I suggest merging this article to Time zones of China. - Alanmak 01:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed. go ahead.--Jiang 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what about the time zone articles for Taiwan, HK etc?--Huaiwei 08:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * " The "China" in the title of the article "Time zones of China" technically refers to the Greater China region, which includes mainland China. Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. The time zone articles for Hong Kong, Macao should definitely be merged to that article. I am fine with moving the information about the time zone of Taiwan to that article too. But some pan-green extremists on Taiwan would feel very offended when people associate "Taiwan" with "China." - Alanmak 03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Summary style should be adopted for the specific time standards in that article, each with its own main article. — Instantnood 10:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again I ask. Why?--Huaiwei 13:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There should be a separate article for each time standard. Would you consider to merge all articles on time standards of southeast Asian countries into time zones of Southeast Asia? — Instantnood 14:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should there be a separate article for each "time standard", whatever the later is? If you wan to create time zones of Southeast Asia, no one is going to stop you. But you have two issues to resolve: This article shares a common time zone, while Southeast Asia does not. So on what basis do you want to create that article? Second, while "Chinese Standard Time" shows up results on a google search, "time zones of Southeast Asia" gives zero results. Care to comment?--Huaiwei 14:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Check how many results are there for time zones of China. Singapore and Western Australia are in the same time zone as the different jurisdictions in the geographical region of China too. Merge them too? Australia has three time zones in winter and five during summer, why is there only one article? — Instantnood 15:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. This article would better serve as the main article for the section on the time standard in mainland China after 1949. — Instantnood 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why?--Huaiwei 10:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, should we be merging the articles into Chinese Standard Time or Time zones of China?--Huaiwei 14:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We should merge them into Time in China. And yes, I think we should merge them.  CharacterZero  |  Speak  17:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have merged it since no one had taken action for so long. -- Bovineone 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I’m all for it, following the Australian example… Also, the reason you wouldn’t include, say, Oz, or the Philippines is that, even tho they’re all on UTC +8, they have different standards bodies keeping track of things; there’s no coordinated “Southeast Asian” time (like ASEAN time) that they’re all on. —Wiki Wikardo 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, obviously i am dum, and completely failed to take into account the extremely polemic nature of the word China (which I interpret in everyday speech to be synonymous with the People’s Republic). The time zones of China article is absurdly nuts, and the section on PRC should be either here or at, like, an article called time zones of the People's Republic of China or something—or, really, maybe here, since time zones (plural) is somewhat inaccurate. Beijing Time? Hammer Time! 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, since it’s been hella long, I’ma take down the merge notice. Wiki Wikardo

Daylight savings time
The article ambiguously starts out by saying that they "currently do not observe daylight saving time." According to native Chinese resident I've talked with, that is incorrect. In fact there is a term for it, "xia shi zhi" which literally means "summer time regime" Can anyone authoritative clarify or correct the statement? -- Bovineone 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, apparently they have discontinued DST in 1991. I'll update the article for clarity. -- Bovineone 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Urumchee Time
OK, so I’ll let y’all fight it out/get to the bottom of this, but I inferred from a page that seems pretty recently updated that Ürümqi Time isn't only observed by the Uyghurs. Wiki Wikardo 19:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE MOVED per reasonable request, no objection. If someone opposes the move, I imagine we'll hear from them eventually. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move, November
Chinese Standard Time → China Standard Time — Google hits 283 (most are Wikipedia mirrors) vs. 30900, and "China Standard Time" is the form at least used in Windows OS. Yao Ziyuan 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Support per nom. Yao Ziyuan 11:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. It might be useful to rehash this if evidence from reliable sources (not Google hits) can be found. Dekimasu よ! 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC) China Standard Time → Beijing Time — The term is always "北京时间" (Beijing Time) in Chinese, the usage "China Standard Time" does not exist in Chinese, it is likely a misnomer use by people trying to imitate American time zone names. —Voidvector (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * oppose What matters is what it's commonly called in English, not Chinese. Evidence, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose because China Standard Time better conveys the idea that this is a political choice that spans a wide geographic area, in what would encompass several logical time zones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose this is not the Chinese Wikipedia, English usage is used. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Support per nom -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support China is a big country, like the United States, for example and would cover five time zones. While most of the population is in the next to eastern most time zone, Beijing Time, China Standard Time is not standard terminology. Google gives 17,200 hits for "China Standard Time" and 290,000 for "Beijing Time". Since China doesn't even have daylight savings time, I would categorize China Standard Time as clearly erroneous, and not even used by anyone. The official term is Beijing Time, and is officially used for the entire country. I can't believe that anyone opposes this move. Nobody requested that it be changed to "北京时间". 199.125.109.52 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Here is a Google test. Beijing Time (317,000) China Standard Time (17,400). And I had to narrow the search for "Beijing Time" with "GMT" because all the name pollution. --Voidvector (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not use raw googling; it is not a reliable test. For one thing, as here, it picks up Wikipedia and its echoes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is useful for showing the existence of that usage; in this case, it shows both are in use. The Wikipedia taint can be reduced, but even if so it is not a particularly useful method of comparing prevalence of usage.  Especially since quite often one search term is more ambiguous than another.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * And do observe that raw google results would support "New York Time" GMT almost as well, although it is certainly not the name of Eastern Time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eastern Standard Time gives almost four times as many results as New York Time. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:China standard time


text:
User talk:Yoshitar

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yoshitar


text:
Michael Holt (snooker player)

Michael Holt (born 7 August 1978) is an English professional snooker player from Nottingham. A former world Top 20 player, he won one ranking event – the 2020 Snooker Shoot Out – and two minor-ranking tournaments. He was runner-up at two ranking events – the 2016 Riga Masters and the 2019 Snooker Shoot Out. Holt also reached the semi-finals of the 2013 Shanghai Masters as well as five other quarter-finals.

2001–2010
Holt lost in the final qualifying round of the World Snooker Championship in 2001 and 2002. Holt almost qualified for the 2004 event – he was 9–5 ahead in his final qualifying match against Anthony Hamilton, before losing the next five frames to lose the match.

In the 2005 World Snooker Championship, he beat his friend Paul Hunter in the first round. In the second round he faced Steve Davis, losing 10–13 after having led 8–2. For the 2005 tournament he used eBay to auction the sponsorship space on his waistcoat to Cabaret, a Nottingham nightspot.

He qualified for the 2006 World Championship, and lost in the first round to eventual runner-up Peter Ebdon 10–8, earning Ebdon's applause as a result of his performance. He won the non-ranking German Open in 2006, and reached the final in 2005. His 5–3 victory over Ronnie O'Sullivan in the 2007 Malta Cup was his first in five attempts against O'Sullivan. He then lost to Mark King in the last 16 there. He lost to eventual champion John Higgins in the first round in 2007. The rest of 2007 was unspectacular, barring victory in the minor Dutch Open, which featured seven of the top 32 of the time, including wins over Nigel Bond and Barry Pinches. He missed out on the 2008 World Championship after losing to Michael Judge, causing him to drop out of the top 32 after four seasons there, after a season in which he failed to reach the last 16 of a ranking event.

Holt's results improved in 2008–09. He reached the last 16 of the 2008 Grand Prix, defeating Jimmy White and Michael Judge to qualify and scored a 5–1 defeat of Mark Allen at the venue, before losing 2–5 to Ding Junhui. In the subsequent Bahrain Championship Holt scored a 5–0 victory over David Morris in which his Irish opponent scored just 10 points, the lowest total in a best-of-nine world ranking match since 1992. He then beat Jamie Cope to reach the last sixteen and commented that he was in the best form of his career. He then lost 4–5 to Robert Milkins in the last 16, having led 3–0. He defeated Mark Davis and Dominic Dale to reach the 2009 World Championship, guaranteeing his return to the top 32. He summarised the change in his game by commenting "This year, people have had to beat me. I haven't given matches away."

Holt qualified for three of the six ranking tournaments in the 2009–10 season, but lost in the first round in each.

2010–11 season
The 2010–11 season saw the introduction of Players Tour Championship (PTC) events. At the Prague Classic, Holt won six matches to reach the first final of the career which included victories over Stephen Maguire, Mark Selby and Shaun Murphy. He faced John Higgins who he had failed to beat in 13 previous meetings, but produced a superb performance to win 4–2. Holt dedicated the title to his father who had suffered a stroke two months previously. The result ensured he would qualify for the PTC Finals as he finished 13th on the Order of Merit and he saw off Marco Fu 4–1 and Barry Pinches 4–3 to match his best result in a full ranking event. In the quarter-finals he lost 4–2 against Martin Gould. Despite his late season surge in form he ended it ranked world number 45, the lowest he had been in ten years.

2011–12 season
Holt reached the second round of ranking events three times during the 2011–12 season, but lost on each occasion. He saved his best performances for the minor-ranking PTC events for the second season in a row most notably at the 10th event where he won the title by beating Dominic Dale 4–2 in the final. Holt said afterwards that the shorter matches suit him as there is not enough time for him to lose his head and stated that if he could maintain a consistent temperament he could achieve more success in the game. He was also a losing quarter-finalist in three other events to finish fourth on the Order of Merit and qualify for the Finals again where he was beaten 4–1 by Stephen Lee.

2012–13 season
Holt qualified for four of the first six ranking events in the 2012–13 season, but could not advance beyond the first round in any of them. At the German Masters he beat Mark Williams 5–1 and Kurt Maflin 5–3 to reach the quarter-finals where he lost 5–2 to Ali Carter.

2013–14 season
At the 2013 Shanghai Masters, Holt reached the semi-finals of a ranking event for the first time in his 17-year career. He began the event by outplaying Judd Trump in a 5–1 win with breaks of 115 and 97. His second round match against Martin Gould went to the colours in the deciding frame with Gould missing the final blue, before Holt potted the blue and pink to triumph 5–4. He then swept past world number 100 Kyren Wilson 5–1 to face home favourite Xiao Guodong in the semi-finals. Holt was beaten 6–3 by Xiao in a high-quality encounter. His form continued into the following week's Zhangjiagang Open by winning six games to reach his third minor-ranking final where he lost 4–1 to Ju Reti. At the German Masters, Holt played Trump in the quarter-finals, with Trump exacting some revenge from his defeat earlier in the season by whitewashing Holt 5–0. Holt qualified for the World Championship, losing 10–4 to Mark Allen in the first round, but his successful season saw him finish it as the world number 22, the highest he had been in eight years.

2014–15 season
Holt began the 2014–15 season by advancing to the final of the Yixing Open, but he was beaten 4–2 by Ding Junhui. He eliminated Rory McLeod and Sam Baird at the Wuxi Classic, before losing 5–1 to Neil Robertson in the last 16. A second last 16 ranking event appearance followed at the Shanghai Masters after Holt overcame Ricky Walden 5–2, but he was ousted by reigning world champion Mark Selby 5–2. Holt made a 138 break during his 6–1 victory over Zak Surety in the opening round of the UK Championship, before losing 6–3 to Dechawat Poomjaeng. He lost his first six ranking matches in 2015, but qualified for the PTC Grand Final by finishing sixth on the Asian Order of Merit. There, Holt defeated Jimmy Robertson 4–2 and held on against Stephen Maguire to win 4–3 having been 3–0 up. In his only quarter-final in a ranking event this season, Holt was knocked out 4–1 by Joe Perry.

2015–16 season
The 2015–16 season was a solid but unspectacular year for Holt as he qualified for every ranking event he entered, but was unable to make a single quarter-final appearance. However, he did have a number of significant wins during the campaign. He reached the semi-finals of the minor-ranking Paul Hunter Classic by beating Judd Trump 4–1, but lost 4–2 to Ali Carter. Holt played Ronnie O'Sullivan in the opening round of the World Grand Prix and he made breaks of 88 and 119 in going 3–0 up. O'Sullivan responded to make it 3–3, before a 76 from Holt saw him advance to the second round, where he was knocked out 4–2 by Liang Wenbo. In the first round of the World Championship he scored his first win at the Crucible for 11 years by beating 2010 winner Neil Robertson 10–6. In the second round Holt lost 13–8 to Mark Williams, but hoped the defeat would be a turning point in his career and that next year he would arrive at the tournament as a ranking event winner.

2016–17 season
Holt almost delivered on this statement straight away as he reached the final of the Riga Masters, the first ranking event of the 2016–17 season. He got past reigning world champion Mark Selby 4–1 and then beat Ian Burns and Stuart Bingham both 4–3 and Anthony McGill 4–0. His semi-final with Mark Williams was decided on the final brown in a deciding frame. In his first ranking event final, he took a slender 2–1 lead over Neil Robertson, but was defeated 2–5. Holt beat Ronnie O'Sullivan for the second time in a row when he knocked him out 5–2 in the second round of the Shanghai Masters. He had a chance to force a deciding frame in the quarter-finals against Ding Junhui but a missed black off the spot saw him lose 3–5. Another win over O'Sullivan came in the third round of the International Championship, before narrowly losing 5–6 to Stuart Bingham in the quarter-finals. Holt lost in the second round of the UK Championship, German Masters and China Open. He was one win away from qualifying for the World Championship when his tie with Peter Ebdon went to a final-frame decider. Holt went in-off on the final blue and Ebdon potted the final three balls to win 10–9.

2019–20 season
In February 2020, Holt won the Snooker Shoot Out for his first ranking tournament win.

Personal life
Holt stated during the 2016 World Championship that he regrets leaving school early. He got married in June 2017 and now has a son, born in March 2018. Holt supports his local football club Nottingham Forest. Holt has said that he finds it difficult to re-focus after playing a poor shot, leading to dips in form that may last for two to three frames.

title: Michael Holt (snooker player)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 3, 2005

mIRC isn't a featured article. Zerbey 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zerbey's right. I can't find any record of its candidacy or promotion anywhere. →Iñgōlemo←  talk 00:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

 * I'm now reverting. It appears that the person who changed this template may have been ignorant or malicious.   →Iñgōlemo←   talk 00:07, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Saajid Badat

Father's statement
After the sentencing hearing, Mohammed Badat's father's lawyer (Imran Khan), read a statement from Mohammed. I've only heard it in full once, but it seemed thoughful and quite quotable. If someone can find an online version of it, I'd appreciate a link. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saajid Badat


text:
Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/His Holiness

This is debate over how the title "His Holiness" should be treated in the Benedict XVI article.

The following discussion comes from the Archives:

Archive 6

 * The honorific is found in more official correspondence adn official documents of the Vatican. As such, it would be logical to include them. The Pope, like the Queen, or the President, his correctly refered to by title.  Whether or not people ACTUALLY do so is another question.

Dave

I re-added the style His Holiness (see article), which is used for current (as opposed to non-current) popes. This is analogous to using "His/Her Royal Highness", "Sir", "Duke", "President", etc.

 * This is poor style for an encyclopedia. We do not say Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth -- we give the title of her office as Queen without honorifics. By the same token, the title of Benedict's office should be given without the honorific His Holiness. Whig 20:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I had to check myself and I was wrong, we *do* say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II although whether this is well-advised, I still say it is not. In any case, we should be consistent and I will let the editors make the appropriate judgments for both (all) of these cases. Whig 20:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is his proper title, this has been discussed before. It isnt a point of view, its a title that he holds.Rangeley 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep "His Holiness" in the article. I'm not a Christian, and I don't personally think he's holy, but that is Benedict XVI's legitimate title. The same with using "Her Majesty" for Queen Elizabeth II, even if she isn't my queen. The same with using "The Right Honorable" for British MPs, and so on and so on. Kairos 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with the point that we should be consistent in our usage. I don't agree that honorifics are a necessary part of a title for the purpose of identifying the personal and positional attributes of an office holder. Certain positions may entail a great many possible honorifics making the situation even more annoying. I think that if the absence of the honorific caused ambiguity, it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted, in all cases, including "The Right Honorable" and so forth. Whig 00:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Most pages regarding Americans simply use their name. Perhaps this is causing the confusion -- is it more common for Europeans to honor a persons title?  I just checked GW Bush and it doesn't say "President Geor..." it just says his name.  Same with Antonin Scalia, it doesn't say "Justice Antoni..." even though that's his title.  However, all UK titles are there, from Sir Elton John to Her Magesty Queen Whoeverisqueen.   My preference is that pages just use names -- to me, "His Holiness" is POV just as putting Führer Adolf Hitler would seem to be POV.  It's certainly easier just to omit all titles rather than pick and choose, no? Quasipalm 03:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness" is a style (manner of address), not a title. In articles for royalty, Wikipedia does seem to fairly consistantly begin them with the style as part of the first reference. And yes, the pope is a monarch. Jonathunder 03:30, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

 * Which seems consistently *wrong* to me, unless and in case a style and/or honorific is necessary for the purpose of disambiguation. Whig 11:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

President is NOT an example of style; it is an actual title. Pope, Bishop, Cardinal, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Baron, ect. are all offices; there's no way you could not include them in the article, and oftentimes it is only possible to identify people via these titles - Elizabeth isn't exactly a rare name, for instance. Queen Elizabeth is more distinctive though. In reality styles should probably not be appended before people's names because they are inherently PoV; for instance, Lucian Pulvermacher (aka Pope Pius XIII) is a modern-day antipope. In theory, he too should have the His Holiness title before his name, and it would be PoV to NOT give him that title if the "real" pope has it because we are essentially stating that Benedict XVI is the real pope and Pius XIII is not. I don't think anyone really wants to see that, but it what needs to be done if we have decided it is Wikipedia pollicy, as it certainly is not encylopedic. Titanium Dragon 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not in any sense POV *not* to call Pulvermacher "His Holiness". As established on the talk page for that article,  he's not the Pope, and for Wikipedia to style him as if he was is to endorse his minority POV.  Similarly, to deny Benedict XVI his official style is for Wikipedia to take a minority position that he's not a legitimate Pope.

 * Indeed, we **are** stating that Benedict XVI is legitimate and Pulvermacher is not. To do otherwise would be against the NPOV policy, which requires that the majority, dominant and accepted POV is acknowledged as such.  That is an essential component of the actual policy: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. Slac  speak up!  01:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archive 7
There's an important distinction here. QE2 may or may not really be "majestic", but even if you don't think she is, it's a little white-lie formality to use the term. OTOH, for followers of religions that do not consider the pope "holy", it is an act of sacrilige to address him by that term. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

 * The style is not something only Roman Catholic Christians use. (I am not Catholic.) To use a style is not to express an opinion on whether a reigning prince really is serene, or whether an office holder is excellent or honorable, or whether a monarchical cleric is holy. It is simply giving the traditional form of address. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Archive 8
There's an important distinction here. QE2 may or may not really be "majestic", but even if you don't think she is, it's a little white-lie formality to use the term. OTOH, for followers of religions that do not consider the pope "holy", it is an act of sacrilige to address him by that term. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

 * The style is not something only Roman Catholic Christians use. (I am not Catholic.) To use a style is not to express an opinion on whether a reigning prince really is serene, or whether an office holder is excellent or honorable, or whether a monarchical cleric is holy. It is simply giving the traditional form of address. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

 * The terms "Your Grace" has been used before, but I was not sure how. Plus, if this is getting a problem, I will email the Vatican (again) to see if this issue can be settled. I will go back into the archives and find the link I gave out to support my stance on using His Holiness. Zscout370 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Not for many centuries. Your Holiness has been the standard form of style for many centuries. Fear ÉIREANN  22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So is that the test for adding honorifics now? Being used for centuries?  I think that's a poor excuse. --Quasipalm 08:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/His_Holiness. Since this topic has been discussed in the archives, I consolidated all the comments from each Archive page into one spot. Johntex 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I posted my suggestion for a compromise - formally addressed as "His Holiness" - This avoids both sticking it in front of the name, or calling it (wrongly) a title, or restraining its usage to Catholics (as Jonathan said - In fact, as Catholic, I would say that any politician or diplomat is more likely to address the Holy Father with "Your Holiness" or the Bishop with "Your Excellency". Str1977 22:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The phrase "formally address as His Holiness" seems accurate to me. It indicates the "style" (née title) without endorsing the claim it makes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

 * Read this - Manual of Style (biographies). Here you will see it is correct (or at least it's consistent with the Style Guide) to use the honorific title His Holiness in the first reference to the pope in this article. As for followers of other religions considering it sacrilegious to use the style - well they don't have to, but like it or not His Holiness is the Pope's honorific title. Therefore I'm amending the article accordingly. Arcturus 21:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Were you around on the JPII article? If so, perhaps you'd realize that the manual of style was in fact edited by jguk in order to promote his view that "his holiness" should be included before the name of the Pope. I have changed that section back to its original form, which included such as "Saint", "Sir", "Sri", and "Reverend" - actually, those were the examples given. "His Holiness" and "The Right Honorable" are VERY different from those. Titanium Dragon 22:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is rather usual to call the pope the "Holy Father". Luis rib 21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But his formal style is His Holiness, just as monarchs are His/Her Majesty, many presidents are His Excellency, etc. It is standard. As to Lulu's comment on some religious seeing the title as a "sacrilige" (sic), so what? Many people disagree with religious titles of other leaders, but that is irrelevant. In writing an article we are not supposed to reflect the prejudices of others, but produce facts. Roman Catholicism technically doesn't accept the validity of Anglican orders, and pre-Vatican II used to refer to the "co-called Archbishop of Canterbury", or put Archbishop of Canterbury in inverted commas. But frankly it doesn't matter what Roman Catholicism thinks, we (rightly) refer to Anglican clerics by their titles and styles. Different branches of Islam and Judiasm dispute the validity of individual office holders' titles. We rightly don't. We treat every religious office holder according to their official title and style. The only exception is fringe individuals who declare themselves to be something they patiently obviously are not - like the Montana priest who was 'elected' Roman Catholic pope is a phone conclave of his friends and was installed in a hotel ballroom surrounded by 28 people. He isn't called His Holiness Pope Pius XIII as you could fill the number of people who believe he is the real pope into a small minibus. So whether some people are offended by it or not, we rightly call the pope "His Holiness", his standard title. Whether some people are offended or not we call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc etc etc. If we allowed the POV of outsiders from an organisation to veto how we refer to a head of an organisation wikipedia would become unusuable with people screaming 'I'm offended' everytime an article was written.

 * WRONG. We do NOT descriminate. This is POV, and you aren't seeing you're biased. What if I considered Catholics to be a "fringe group"? Maybe I do. I'm an atheist after all, and I see most religious people as being at least a little "off". Why should we be honoring the leader of such a bizzare "fringe group" which engages in a weekly mock cannibalistic ceremony with the style that group gave him?

 * I agree. I only see two options:
 * 1) no honoristics, period.
 * 2) all honoristics. including those for people who aren't popular, like say Hitler.
 * To say person A gets a honoristic title and person B does not is POV. To remove the POV, it's far easier to say no honoristics, period.
 * I also agree with the person who said this is probably a misunderstanding between European and American custom. I bet everyone complaining about the "His Holiness" line is an American (as am I) that finds the title in a reference setting off-putting.  Europeans probably see it as a polite gesture, devoid of true meaning -- while formalities surrounding Kings, Queens, and other leaders are generally very unpopular and ignored state-side, probably due to a lack of history surrounding a ruling class.  --Quasipalm 22:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Now do you see why this is biased? Who defines "fringe"? There IS no neutral way to define it. All religions are cults.

 * Pius XIII is just as entitled to be called "His Holiness" in Wikipedia as Benedict XVI is. Even if ONE PERSON, yourself, called you by that style, in theory we would have to include it if you were important enough to merit an article. We would also say WHY you have said style - you gave it to yourself. It is important enough to warrant inclusion, but it is NOT NPOV to include it at the beginning of an article, unless you want to include it for everyone who has a style, no matter how small a number of people call them by it. If they're important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, then such details are relevant.

 * You are showing your bias in this matter. Pope Pius XIII is not the head of the Catholic Church; he is the head of the true Catholic Church (tCC) and claims to be the head of the Catholic Church. He is induitably the head of the tCC, and as such deserves the style as much as the head of the Catholic Church. Or do you think the prince of Monaco is not worthy of a style either because he is the leader of such a small country? Titanium Dragon 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put simply - it is for Catholics and no-one else to decide how popes are styled. It is for Anglicans and no-one else to decide how Anglican clergy are styled. It is for states and no-one else to decide how heads of states are styled. We simply reflect that. Choosing to ignore their choice would be POV and we can't do that. Fear ÉIREANN 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You can style the Pope however you want in your personal life; you can call him "His holiness, heir to the throne of Peter Pope Benedict XVI". However, this is Wikipedia - we are supposed to be neutral. It isn't neutral to call the pope "his holiness" in the beginning of the article, it is neutral to state that he is officially styled "his holiness". Do you think we should call Hitler a hero, because the Neo-Nazis claim him as their own? After all, he IS their hero, and they can style him as such. If a neo-Nazi came along and changed the "Adolf Hitler" entry to "Hero Adolf Hitler", would you complain and revert it? Titanium Dragon 22:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just for information:
 * There is no common usage honorific called "hero" in regard to Hitler. In his case the honorific is identical to his title "Fuehrer", possibly with an article or an possesive pronoun.

Str1977 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question of the correct name has nothing to do with beeing POV or not, "His Holiness" is simply not part of his religious name. Have a look at the vatican homepage. The manual of styles is irrelevant here because "His Holiness" is not considered part of the name but Sir or Sri are. In the Encyclopedia Britannica for instance you will find no "His Holiness" before "John Paul II" in the corresponding article but the entry for Peter Ustinov is under "Ustinov, Sir Peter". --Tarleton 22:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * We are not talking about "names" we are talking about "styles" which is something totally different. Wikipedia policy is to use styles in articles. His Holiness, Sir, The Right Honourable, His Excellency etc are all styles and their usage is clearly laid out in wikipedia rules. Any attempt to remove a style in any article will be instantly reverted, a long standing policy. BTW I opposed the use of styles at the start of articles but was outvoted. The decision has been taken and is clear. If you disagree with it you can debate the issue elsewhere. But here as elsewhere the agreed democratically taken decisions on the use of names, ordinals, styles etc are and will continue to be enforced by wikipedians until policy is changed. So constantly complaining about the use of the style here is pointless. It is the agreed format which we all have to follow, which is why, as you may have noticed, every attempt to remove His Holiness has been reverted and will continue to be reverted into the future automatically. Fear ÉIREANN

 * Voted? Where was this matter voted on?! And how would that even happen on Wikipedia? Are you sure that claim isn't just, ummm, a lie? In any case, it is clearly wrong to start the Pope Benedict XVI article with the style and not do so for the Dalai Lama (which clearly deliniates the limited scope of usage of the style). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:20, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

 * Here is the issue. The reason "his holiness" was added to the list of examples was because someone much like yourself (jguk) actually unilaterally ALTERED, without discussion, that particular policy. It was POV pushing at its finest, and was done in very bad faith. The decision was not made, it was pushed onto the community by a single individual without discussion. His holiness should NOT be there, and it is NOT NPOV. If after discussion in the style article it is eventually decided it IS actually official wikipedia policy and not just POV pushing, the first thing I'm going to do is go and alter the "Lucian Pulvermacher" article and change it to look a great deal more like this one, because that is the neutral thing to do. I'm going to change it to "His holiness Pope Pius XIII (born Lucian Pulvermacher)", ect. because if it is official wikipedia policy to have such honorifics, we must do so neutrally. The Dalai Lama does not (unless someone added it very recently) have "His Holiness" before him, despite the fact that it is his official style.

 * It was not a democratic decision, and you should not call it such. Titanium Dragon 22:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Get a load of this. Here you see that the Vatican does indeed use the title/style His Holiness (albeit in this example for John Paul II). If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for Wikipedia. I notice Tony Blair is referred to as The Right Honourable. Many people would say he is a long way from being honourable. However, that is his (honorific) title, and that's how he's described in Wikipedia. Those of you against His Holiness - are you suggesting we trawl though Wikipedia to remove all such styles? Someone noted above that the manual of style was edited to include reference to The Pope - so what! The style Guide is free to be edited; it evolves. I believe it is correct to include the example of The Pope. As for the argument that introduces the concept of POV - what rubbish! Read what NPOV/POV is all about; putting both sides of an argument in an article. It's not about these types of issue, but it's been hijacked by contributors who think it is. Anyone care to revert to His Holiness - I've already had my three reversions, I think. Arcturus 22:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But it is not good enough for CNN, which is a far more reputable (not to mention neutral) source. This style pushing was a unilateral decision by jguk ages ago. And yes, I would suggest we trawl through Wikipedia and remove all the inappropriate styles, because it would be a great deal easier than trawling through and ADDING all the inappropriate ones to all the articles that do not have them. I would even volunteer to do so. You apparently do not know what NPOV means. It means you are saying it from a neutral point of view. CNN and other similar media outlets call the Pope just that - Pope Benedict XVI. They do NOT call him His holiness Pope Benedict XVI. It is netural to call him that. It is not neutral to call him "His holiness". It is neutral to call Sir Connery exactly that. It is neutral to call Reverend Sharpton that. It is neutral to call President Clinton that. But it is not neutral to call the Pope "His holiness". It is neutral to call him "Pope Benedict XVI". Titanium Dragon 22:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * And yes, the style is used in the Dalai Lama, and no, I did not just add it either. It reads, verbatum "The Dalai Lama belongs to the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism. The current and 14th Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso. Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lamas were the most powerful political leaders in Tibet, controlling a large portion of the country from their capital at Lhasa. The Dalai Lama is also the most respected and venerated Tibetan Buddhist religious leader; in English, his followers and many others use "His Holiness" (or HH) as a prefix in his title. The Dalai Lamas, however, never had authority over every region of Tibet nor over the other sects of Tibetan Buddhism." Zscout370 23:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And from the article of the current Daili Lama: "Tibetan Buddhists normally refer to him as Yeshe Norbu, the "Wish-fulfilling Gem", or just Kundun, "the Presence". In the West he is often called "His Holiness the Dalai Lama", which is the style that the Dalai Lama uses on his official website, www.dalailama.com." Zscout370 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But look at the Tenzin Gyatso article; he is the Dalai Lama, and thus should have "His holiness" stuck on before his name assuming this is the correct policy. However, I do not think it is, and people will invariably complain that it is wrong to append "his holiness" to the start of his article, Pope Pius XIII's article, ect. It would be far more neutral to simply state it is their official style and not put it in the front. CNN does it, most encylopedias do it that way. Why can't we? It makes sense. Sir, Sri, Reverend, and Saint are all very different from "his holiness"; "Saint" cannot even be something a living person can be. Titanium Dragon 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem not to grasp the facts, it is wikipedia policy to use styles. I disagreed but was outvoted. Until the community decides otherwise it is standard to use styles here and and in hundreds of articles. All attempts to remove the agreed format wlll be reverted on sight. A continuous refusal by a few individuals to decide that they will override the decision of the community will be treated as vandalism. I don't care how the pope is referred to. But like other users I will continue to apply agreed rules until those rules are changed. And so will other users. If people continue to vandalise the article to push their POV in breach of the agreed rules then a request will be made to have the page protected and those who vandalise the page blocked from access to wikipedia. Fear ÉIREANN 23:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Pretty much with the latest messages from Arcturus, Jtdirl and myself, we just proved our case on why the style must be included in the article. Any more questions? Zscout370 23:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight: I should report you guys for changing Wikipedia policy without discussion, and constantly vandalising articles by adding styles to them despite the best efforts of fellow Wikipedia members to stop you? Because, you do realize you have not read a word I've said about it. 'It was changed by jguk to support his POV'. It was done without discussion. Don't label people vandals when you yourself could be seen as such. Titanium Dragon 23:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, rereading your post you're mentioning a vote. Where and when was aforementioned vote? I don't see it on the article that everyone is referencing regarding the Pope's style. Titanium Dragon 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CNN - who are they, the fount of all knowledge? So CNN are more reputable than The Vatican in these matters - I think not. Thanks for reminding me that the Dali Lama also has the style His Holiness. I'll edit his article. Arcturus 23:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, espcially given what they did to Galileo Galilei and how it took them a century to accept evolution. I would not exactly term them a neutral or highly reputable source. Titanium Dragon 23:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But they are when it comes to deciding what to call The Pope. Arcturus 23:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What Arcturus is trying to pin-point is that on issues dealing with the Vatican, we want it to get it straight from the horse's mouth (in this case, the Vatican). The CNN, though it is a good news organization, cannot be right about the Vatican 100 percent of the time. Only the Vatican can (damn, I think I just thought up of a song. Reality, please hit me again.) Zscout370 23:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the point though. The Vatican is not a neutral source. CNN is a reputable news agency, and as such it is in their best interests to remain as neutral as possible regarding such things. BBC agrees with CNN, as do Fox, ABC, CBS,... these are far more neutral sources than the Vatican on the appropriate way to refer to the Pope in a neutral manner. ALL of them refer to him as Pope Benedict XVI (or simply Pope Benedict). Not one of them called him "His holiness Pope Benedict XVI", because that is not neutral. Titanium Dragon 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts: Yes, it is more common (or rather more commonly known, US Diplomats can play the game too) to use such honorifics, especially in Britain. The CNN (repubtable?) link does not prove anything, since it's just a news article, not a encyclopedia entry. (And Dragon, your last post is just plain silly, no more on that!) I don't care how the style book came into existence, its content should be applied (especially since the alleged unilateral decision was "ages ago") That Dragon has problems in recognising "fringe" groups is his problem. Even if that pseudopope calls himself "His Holiness", noone else does. That's different with Pope Benedict. And if "Reverend" is ok., than "Holiness" is too. Reverend is a style too (though used more ferequently) like the "Right Honorouble" Tony Blair or the "Right Reverend" Rowan Williams or "His Holiness" Benedict XVI Str1977 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We, the American people, have honorifics that we use. We always refer to leaders by their position of power (President, Governor, Senator). We send our citizens overseas as ambassadors, and they get an honorific or two. Zscout370 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, all Americans, I meant no disrespect. It seems to me there a tendency to merge titles and honorifics in US usage, as in "Mr President" or "Reverend Sharpton". Str1977 23:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reverend, however, can also be a positional title, which is why news sources use it. Father is also used as such. Pope is a positional title. If you say Al Sharpton, most people will know who you are talking about; the same goes for John Paul II. But we call them by those names because they describe their position. People often simply refer to the Dalai Lama by his actual position rather than his name. Titanium Dragon 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is an encyclopedia reference you want, look here, or maybe Encylcopaedia Britannica, or possibly the Columbia Encylcopaedia. Titanium Dragon 23:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that if you do a look-see for some other titles, though, such as Sir, you'll get something like this. I'm fairly certain that the examples they gave were given specifically because they are what they are: recognized by encylopedias. Actually, reverend does not seem to be, but Saint, Sir, and Sri are showing up, though I'm not so sure about Sri, as it may be the Lanka kind. Titanium Dragon 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Allright, Dragon, I accept your examples as valid, that a encyclopedia might or might nor include honorifics. Whether wikipedia should or should not is another matter. I say stick to the style book (no matter how it came about) or change the style book. I actually don't have a preference except for insisting that including this honorific is definetely not POV. But it might be considered superfluous.
 * Str1977 23:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I proposed in the original debate that the style be included in the text, in the form officially styled [style] in the text. But that was outvoted and it was decided to use the style at the start rather than contextualise it in the text. I think that was the wrong option (and predicted edit wars like this would result where people didn't understand what a style is and interpreted it as a POV, when in fact it is unambiguously NPOV. But we agreed on a policy and so all articles on people with styles should have them placed at the start. Where they are not there because the people writing the article don't know of the policy we all add them in as standard. Fear ÉIREANN  00:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The basic fact here is that "His Holiness" is no different from other styles/honorifics that we include in the opening of articles. Further, it is not a style that is recognized only by Catholics. There is perhaps an argument to be made that styles/honorifics should not be at the beginning of any article, but this is not the place to do that. john k 23:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Str is right, we do merge titles and honorifics together, like Mr. President. I believe that we just call Pope Benedict XVI, President Bush, Rev. Sharpton those names since we are id'ing in two words their name and their job. However, what I think some meant by styles and honorifics is "How do we address this person." Some leaders have a website where they state how the leader should be styled/addressed in this situation and how to do it in that situation. Plus, Str, I am not offended at all :). Zscout370 23:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * John is correct. If you disagree with starting an article as HH debate it in the relevant place. But right now that is wikipedia policy. You cannot make up your own unique policy here. HH has to stay in, according to the agreed format on wikipedia, until wikipedia decides otherwise. Fear ÉIREANN  23:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, because this seems to be causing some infighting, why don't we discuss ithere? Thing is, the manual of style states we should include honorifics before the names. However, if you look at the honorific entry, you will notice something - it doesn't say the sort of thing like "his holiness"; it is "sir", "father", ect. Style (manner of address) is something entirely different. Someone (jguk) four months ago entered a few styles (including "His holiness") into the list of example honorifics on the Wikipedia policy page, despite the fact that it is not an honorific but rather a style. He did this in order to support his PoV that we should put "his holiness" before the Pope's name in the John Paul II entry. If we want to include styles in all Wikipedia entries, perhaps we should discuss it, but as it stands the policy states that honorifics are what needs to be put in before the name; it says nothing about requiring styles to be there. Let us discuss this there and come to an agreement rather than have an edit war on this page. Resolving this issue would make our lives a whole lot easier. Titanium Dragon 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My view, which I have held consistently, is that we should merely report what happens in real life, without comment. If something happens or is used in real life, we report it. That way we avoid accusations of bias.

 * So I apply this NPOV principle to the issue of whether we should use styles. And the conclusion is that we should use them as they are used in real-life. IE We should use them, but not over-use them.

 * It can't be overstressed that the only reason we use them is because they are used in the real world. It is this that dispenses of all POV arguments - we make no comment on whether styles should be used, we just report that they are used. The only statement our usage of them makes is the demonstrably correct assertion that they are used in real life. By having this as the deciding criterion in article after article, we easily avoid accusations of bias.

 * Conversely, a ban on reporting certain pieces of information from being reported, or a ban on linguistic styles that are commonly used in real life by many people, would itself be POV. That is, if we have a policy of going against what real life usage is, we are then necessarily making a statement that real life usage is wrong. (Incidentally, over-using styles in a way which is unrealistic in real life should also be avoided, because such over-use would also be POV.)

 * However, this shouldn't really be a big deal. We mention a biographical subject's formal name and style at the start of an article - it's wholly unreasonable to suggest that we should edit or alter that name or style to suit some WPians political beliefs. Styles and honorifics are well-established and have been around since time immemorial - they exist in real life - what's the problem with using them? jguk 08:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, lest people be confused with this, and in particular be confused by Titanium Dragon's constant misrepresentation of the facts.

 * Wikipedia does not use styles in article names.
 * Wikipedia policy is to use a style at the start of an article. So papal biographical pages start with His Holiness, pages on monarchs start with His/Majesty, pages on other royalty start with the relevant styles, pages on senior clergyman use their appropriate official styles, etc.
 * Where an article is written that does not include a style, wikipedia editors, along with correcting spellings, following the agreed use of British English or American English, removing copyright material and other things, automatically insert the relevant style in an article.
 * Those articles on popes, royalty, office-holders etc that don't include the relevant styles right now don't because the editors haven't spotted the error or have not gotten around to adding it in now. But all such articles will have styles added as a matter of routine.
 * Jguk, contrary to TitaniumD's claims, did not unilaterally impose an unwanted style on the article. He did as everyone else does and filled in one into an article that was not following the agreed format. That is normal practice.
 * There is no point complaining here about the policy. It is a set policy. It can be debated elsewhere, but nothing here will change the policy.
 * All attempts to remove the 'His Holiness' style will be reverted on sight as soon as it is spotted, unless and until the community policy non styles changes. In reverting editors are simply putting back the agreed format which cannot be unilaterally removed by people in one article out of thousands possessing styles. Styles either are used everywhere or nowhere. The wikipedia policy is to apply it everywhere and that policy is followed everywhere.

Fear ÉIREANN 11:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said, Brother Jtdirl. Zscout370 12:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Jtdirl has asked me to contribute here, but he has pretty much said everything that can be said, so I can do little more than echo his sentiment. Styles at the beginning of articles are not POV, and it's WP policy to include them. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can see no reason why an article on the pope should not conform to the normal standards of Wikipedia articles such as the one on Prince Charles, which has "Charles, Prince of Wales" (without His Royal Highness) as the title, and then has "His Royal Highness Prince Charles, Prince of Wales" (emphasis mine) at the beginning of the article. Concerning Lulu's remarks that to refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Her Majesty" while not really thinking she was majestic would be just a little white lie, whereas to people of other religions who did not consider the pope to be holy, using the title "His Holiness" would be a sacrilege, I'd like to point out something.  The Catholic Church does not recognize as valid a second marriage while the first spouse is alive.  Some Protestants agree.  Nevertheless, I cannot imagine anyone seriously expecting the articles on Anne Boleyn or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall to be edited to reflect the belief that since Henry's wife was alive at the time of the wedding, Anne was not really his wife, and since Camilla's husband is still alive, she's not really the Duchess of Cornwall.  I have never met a Catholic, no matter how devout and orthodox, who hesitated to say that Anne Boleyn was the second wife of Henry VIII.  That was what she was officially, whether or not you agreed with it, and Pope Benedict, in the same way, is officially "His Holiness".  With due respect to people who have given more attention to this article than I have, I would request that we either leave Pope Benedict with his official title (His Holiness), or go back and re-edit all the articles about members of royal families in various countries, about the Right Honourable Tony Blair, and many others.  Ann Heneghan 21:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is the issue. If you look back at the page which the rules are set out on, and you look back in the history, you shall find that one person changed it. Originally, only honorifics were included in the section, and the top of that section agrees with that. However, jguk changed the list of examples and added several styles to the list because he wanted to include "his holiness" in the JPII article. I am well aware that many people have said styles were debated on, blah blah blah, but the article on the guidelines specifically says honorifics. There is a huge distinction between the two. Right now, there is debate going on (and a survey will be going up soon) regarding styles and whether or not they should be put at the beginning of articles or put somewhere in the text. I would suggest voting there. If we DO include styles, we have to include them for everyone with them, such as the beloved leader of North Korea and the antipope Lucian Pulvermacher. Titanium Dragon 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you look back at the page which the rules are set out on, and you look back in the history, you shall find that one person changed it. What did you expect? Some kind of group edit? Proteus (Talk) 21:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current Discussion
The first link of the first paragraph makes little sense. Holiness links to the word discussion. Later there is a link to His Holiness, the title. I am not going to edit this, since it has been a hotly discussed topic, but I wanted to point it out. NoSeptember 13:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please someone in the know about the discussions (elsewhere) about styles have a look into the first paragraph. Unless the policy is changed now, there should be "His Holiness" (without links) in the beginning. Str1977 16:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, there should be, unless titles are removed from the beginning of other articles on kings, princes, prime ministers, etc. Whether or not everyone thinks the pope is holy is of no more (or less) relevance than whether or not everyone thinks that Tony Blair is honourable, Queen Elizabeth II is majestic, and Prince Rainier was serene.  Either the pope should be left with his official title at the beginning of the article, or all Wikipeda articles about people with titles should be changed.  Ann Heneghan 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That was the consensus before the page was protected: include the title "His Holiness" without a link at the top, link the phrase in the middle of the paragraph. NoSeptember 16:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You mean there was a consensus at the end?? All I can remember was this huge edit war on JPII page when he died, JPII & B16 page when B16 was elected. Don't know, things kinda got blury after a while seeing exactly the same arguements given over and over again in more than one page.... ;-) KTC 17:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess the page locking probably made people stop worrying about reverts/vandalism and just worry about the issues at hand. I also think many people are not watching this page now as there were before. Zscout370 (talk) 17:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "You mean there was a consensus at the end??" LOL Yes, by consensus I mean a paper thin majority. :) NoSeptember 17:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This subject is currently being voted upon at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. Whig 09:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So, before the vote is completed, how should the style be in the article? Zscout370 (talk) 16:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that if an existing policy exists to use prefixed-style, then it should be kept until and unless changed. It could be footnoted to the survey if that is seen to aid the editors in being made aware of the survey and to encourage participation. Whig 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * For this page, it mostly has been agreed to start it with "His Holiness Benedict XVI." Those who changed it see their edits reversed in a short amount of time. Zscout370 (talk) 23:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar from the Manual of Style Survey
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is back to his own tricks. He proceeded to doctor in style again, this time to add in a reference to say in effect that a vote is taking place to take out the style. Wikipedians are not supposed to add in footnotes to articles outlining their private gripe. It is nothing short of vandalism to do that. I've reverted it. (People on that page seem to spend most of their time having to undo Lulu's vandalism there.) And to add insult, he described his edit with the line That Jguk certainly is quite a vandal (time for an RFC?))

Lulu's behaviour shows complete contempt for those of us trying to find a consensus here. What sanction should be taken? Fear ÉIREANN 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(Whig said for this message to appear here). Zscout370 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Zscout370 and Jtdirl are among those trying to impose their stylistic preferences by dishonest means--contrary to the general consensus, and before the vote on usage has been completed. Jguk is clearly the worst of these, but the above two are close second and third (not necessarily in order).  The footnote I restored, of course, was written by the Wikipedian conducting the vote, Whig. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:19, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
 * Lulu: The style has been debated before this poll was taken. It was agreed to (and check the archives) that the style should remain. Though I voted for the consensus to keep the style, that is something the group has wanted to do. I have not edited this page today, but it has been reverted a few times to have the style included. As mentioned above, Whig said the style can stay until the vote has been completed. Until that vote is complete (which I did vote on anyways and my voting perferences is not POV pushing), the style should remain. Zscout370 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did check the archive, and can find no evidence whatsoever that consensus was reached on this usage. What I can find evidence of is Jguk unilaterally changing the Wikipedia style guide to duplicitously force the usage in the JP2 page (before the death of JP2).  User:Whig, of course, was the person who added the footnote to make readers aware of the usage vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:31, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
 * Jguk did revert my edit to footnote to the survey. His reasoning was sound enough, however. I don't think we need to add footnotes to every page that uses styles while the survey is ongoing. Whig 02:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I do encourage everyone who is interested in whether the style is NPOV to prefix in this case, in all cases, or in no cases, to participate in the survey. Whig 02:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, OK. I'll let Whig decide whether to restore his (useful) footnote.  But it is pretty darn clear that most of the "Alternative 1 only" voters are motivated solely by a desire for the style next to the pope, and could not care less about what styles are or are not used for anyone else in the world.  At the least this includes Zscout370, Jtdirl, and Jguk.  Essentially the vote has turned into a forum for evangelizing Catholicism.  It will be very sad if Wikipedia loses its commitment to NPOV because of these few Catholic advocates. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

 * I really wish the debate could be less personalized. There are clear differences of opinion, and ultimately I do hope that the Wikipedia community will choose to participate in the survey in large enough numbers to overcome any small number who might be voting on the basis of a single biographical entry. The present consensus of the survey is to use prefixed style in all cases where a formal style is known. I don't agree personally but if this is the ultimate decision then it should only be ensured that it is enforced in all serious cases to maintain NPOV. There's still more than a week and a half to run on the survey, however, so no conclusions should be drawn now. Whig 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If the style policy changes, then I will go along with it with no problems. I am not Catholic (but I want to be), but I have no problems if I used the title or not. However, I do want to clear things up, but not about this sidebar. This is what I got about Titles of Articles: "For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome." I know the Article title is not disputed, but I wanted that to be clear for everyone. We do not want His Holiness to be part of the Article Title. This is the Honorifics that is being debated over: "If the person has any honorifics, these should be used in the initial reference, and elsewhere in the article where appropriate, but not included in the entry title." And honorific is clearly defined as: "An honorific is a term used to convey esteem or respect. "Honorific" may refer broadly to the style of language or particular words used, or, as in this article, to specific words used to convey honor to one perceived as a social superior.

 * (Please sign comment above with ~ )
 * The question being addressed in the survey is not about whether we use the honorific title (like Pope) but whether we prefix the formal style of address (like His Holiness) to the biographical entry, not just for this particular biographical entry, but for all others (like using Dear Leader for Kim Jong-il as well). Whig 03:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics are usually placed immediately before or after the name of the subject. They may also be used to denote occupation, such as "Doctor", "Father" (for a priest), or "Professor". Some honorifics can act as complete replacements for a name, as in "sir" or "ma'am". Subordinates will often use honorifics as punctuation before asking a superior a question or after responding to an order, "Yes, sir"." Though I would be happy to move the His Holiness to the Pope article (which will get mich pressure off of me), I know there is going to be an edit war over it. I just pray this ends soon. Zscout370 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, forgive my ignorance folks. I got tired trying to follow the logic of this debate across 4 pages. Could someone please try to NPOV sum up both sides of this debate?

BTW, what led me to the debate & survey is not the Pope's article. It was the Terri Schiavo article, and the effort to legitimaize the use of Formal Style over Journalistic Style in certain cases. The MoS allows for this at this time, although it does so be being vauge. In that case, the majority lent towards one of two forms of Formal Style over Journalistic. Interesting, the article is currently in Informal Style (my personal preference, but not position nor my edit). No one has challenged this choice since the edit.--ghost 03:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll try to fairly summarize as best I can. Since I have a POV on the issue, others may wish to comment. The advocates of prefixed style believe that it is just a formalism and not an expression of any particular endorsement by the Wikipedia when we use them to prefix the biographical entries. Jguk and others have expressed that using the prefixed style at the outset is simpler, less verbose, and communicates to readers information which they should reasonably be informed of. Thus, His Holiness does not imply that we think Benedict XVI is holy, only that this is his formal style of address. On the other hand, it seems that presently we do not use prefixed styles universally throughout the Wikipedia. In some cases this may be simple oversight, and can be corrected as we discover them. One possibility would be for a NPOV convention to be established for exceptions to the prefixed style rule. Another position is that we should not use prefixed styles of address at the beginning of biographical articles in any cases, as they may be perceived as POV even if they are not intended to be, and either exceptions cannot be carved out in a NPOV way or would be offensive when prefixed in certain cases if we cannot make exceptions. Whig 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Disclaimer of my POV. I do believe that it is impractical and potentially offensive to use prefixed styles in all cases, and I do not believe it is easy to carve out a NPOV rule for exceptions, and no proposal has been made yet which does so. Therefore, I think the styles should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph but not used to prefix the biographical entry. Whig 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/His Holiness


text:
Anemonoides ranunculoides

Anemonoides ranunculoides (syn. Anemone ranunculoides), the yellow anemone, yellow wood anemone, or buttercup anemone, is a species of herbaceous and perennial plant that grows in forests across Europe to western Asia, and less frequently in the Mediterranean region. It is occasionally found as a garden escape.

Description
Growing to 5 - 15 cm tall, the plant is herbaceous, dying back down to its root-like rhizomes by mid summer. The rhizomes spread just below the soil surface and multiply quickly, contributing to its rapid spread in woodland conditions. The flower is about 1.5 cm diameter, with from five to eight petal-like segments (actually tepals) of rich yellow colouring. In its native range, it flowers between March and May.

Distribution
The native range of Anemonoides ranunculoides extends across Continental Europe to southwest Siberia, reaching as far south as the Caucasus Mountains in Turkey. The species has been introduced into Great Britain and elsewhere. In Canada, there is a naturalized population at a well-known site in Quebec.

Cultivation
The plant is widely grown as a garden plant, especially by rock garden and alpine garden enthusiasts. It has been awarded an Award of Garden Merit or AGM by the Royal Horticultural Society. The RHS describes it as H4 (hardy throughout the British Isles). The double-flowered form 'Pleniflora' (sometimes listed as 'Flore Pleno') is also a recipient of the award. , a larger-growing, more robust cultivar, is sometimes available, as are the miniature subspecies A. ranunculoides'' subsp.  and a selection known as '', with finely divided leaves.

Related species and hybrids
Wood anemone – Anemonoides nemorosa – is similar to A. ranunculoides but has slightly larger flowers. is a hybrid between these two species and has pale yellow flowers; it is often found where the two parent species grow near each other. A. × lipsiensis '' is the best-known result of this cross. It has been awarded the Royal Horticultural Society Award of Garden Merit (RHS AGM).

title: Anemonoides ranunculoides