Talk:Honour

Contents

1 Old talk 2 True or false: 3 A silly way to begin an article 4 Move to Honor 4.1 Votes 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Decision 5 What about education?

Old talk

Important point: Not just the "British", but Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and almost all people who learn English elsewhere in the world use the "ou" spellings. They are standard in International English, not the American ones.

I know it means changing a lot of articles. But that's the fact of the matter, "ou" is the standard.

Now, honour without u is honor, kind of like Bush without u is still an attack on Iraq. So maybe this is really two different concepts, one in the USA without u, and one with?

---

I had the wording "Attempts were made to preserve the integrity of an honor over time..." and this was changed to say "Holders of honors attempted to preserve...". I realize the wording was in the passive voice, but I used it here for a reason: it wasn't just the honor holder who made this attempt. If an honor escheated back to the king (due to lack of heirs or treason on the part of the holder or whatever) the king oftentimes gave out the honor as a unit to someone else. Or he might retain it as part of the royal demesne, but continue to administer it as a unit. If someone can find a good, simple active voice way to say this, but all means do so. Loren Rosen 04:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

as of 23rd December some of the mentions of honour in the article were spelt properly, others still as "honor". As this looks very scrappy, I have changed them all to "honour". i hope this is all right: I assume that the remaining "honor"'s were due to a lack of time and not a conscious decision.

A

True or false:

True or false:

If the Talk:George Washington page ever gets extremely large, it can be time to move the "Honors" part to separate pages:

1. List of honors of George Washington
2. List of honors of Thomas Jefferson
3. List of honors of Benjamin Franklin
4. List of honors of Andrew Jackson
5. List of honors of James Madison
6. List of honors of James Monroe
7. List of honors of Alexander Hamilton
8. List of honors of John Q. Adams
9. List of honors of Henry Clay
10. List of honors of James Polk
11. List of honors of Robert Lee
12. List of honors of Abraham Lincoln
13. List of honors of Theodore Roosevelt
14. List of honors of Franklin Roosevelt
15. List of honors of Woodrow Wilson

66.32.79.137 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

A silly way to begin an article

I have remmoved the following words from the introductory sentence:

(most variants of English, including Australian English, British English, Canadian English and New Zealand English) or honor (American English)

If consensus is to use the international spelling in this article, then just use the international spelling. A list of all the different variants of English unnecessarily clutters the article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's still silly! How can the first section be called "Honour, sex, and violence"? dab 20:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree should be changed soon and we need an honour/integrity portion as honour may mean something altogether diferent than the tone displayed ie; honorable. Paladine

Rather than refer to the spelling honour as British English, albeit true, it might be appropriate to refer to this spelling as Commonwealth English. The term International English is quite debated, but may be appropriate seeing as this spelling has been chosen as the most international here. In fact the article International English has a good discussion of what truly is international in this language. Gareth Hughes 00:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move to Honor

Votes

• Strongest object conceivable. - reverted changes violet/riga (t) 23:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Objection! - Read the top of the freaking talk page! Honour is more common. --Neo 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto jguk 23:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object — this is a proposal that an article should be biased towards US readership, and is against policy. Gareth Hughes 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong objection. There is absolutely no reason to move the article. Jooler 23:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• *Chortle* Object — Matt Crypto 00:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object—In cases where neither US nor Commonwealth English have an obvious link with the topic, the article should remain consistent with that used by the originator.
• Object. This particular article is most sensible where it is. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object — the only nation-specific parts of the article deal with British feudal honours, so an insular spelling is appropriate here. -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object is trampling other peoples' orthography the new international standard too? adamsan 09:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Timrollpickering 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. zoney ♣ talk 10:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Tim says, our style guide comes out against such modifications. I don't mind US spelling--if you check my edits and my Usenet posts you'll see I have always used it in preference to British. But the issue here is whether we let arguments over the spellings deflect us from writing an excellent encyclopedia (or, for that matter, encyclopædia, or encyclopaedia). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object of course - it should be left where it started, at honour, as should the spelling in the article itself, both in accordance with policy. [comments moved to discussion]-- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object against policy. Warofdreams 11:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Honour" is the standard spelling outside the United States. -- Necrothesp 14:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object —Michael Z. 2005-03-8 17:35 Z
• Object --Sketchee 22:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. James F. (talk) 23:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. (I had voted and commented earlier, but somehow it disappeared.) Jonathunder 23:47, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Please see the decision section below instead of voting

Discussion

It seems that some people do not honour the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)

...

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

This cuts both ways. I would object to color being moved to "colour" for the same reasons. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM

• On the contrary. International spelling is becoming the American standard. And changing those occurrences is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on spelling. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  American English, popular throughout Latin America, Eastern Europe, and much of Asia, is just as "international" as British English; if anything, the trend is toward Americanisation. This is neither the place for trolling nor for placing votes. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  Please see International English for the complicated arguments surrounding the standardisation of the English language. It is true that US English is being taken up by more students of English as a Foreign Language, but that most readers of English use Comonwealth English standards. Isn't the question really about needless disruption of this article? Gareth Hughes 14:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  There are 3 member states of the European Union for whom English (and more specifically the British variety) is an offical language, UK, Rep of Ireland and Cyprus. In order to teach English as a foreign Language (EFL) in the European Union you either have to be a citizen of one of the EU member states or you need to have a work permit. In order to get a work permit you have to demonstrate that no-one from inside the EU could do the same job. This pretty much means that no-one from North America can teach EFL in Europe. Thus it would seem to me that the EFL taught in Europe is by default almost exclusively British English. Jooler 21:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  ^That is a load of crap, pardon my English. I live in the EU, in Germany to be exact and before that in France. I have met many many EFL teachers here and a large minority were Americans or Canadians. Your statement is pure rubbish. Do you have any idea how many American have dual citizenship (US and EU) - millions. Not to mention the number who had grandparents who were born in the EU and are therefore entitled to work permits in most EU states. I have no idea of where you live but I have met many many Americans who live in the EU with work permits and not just in professional or specialists jobs.

Give me a break !!!! --84.153.21.247 20:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold

• Partly right (at least according to our Wikipedia entries). English is not an official language of Cyprus (though it is widely spoken there). It is an official language, along with Maltese, in Malta. Additionally, in Europe, it is used officially in the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Gibraltar, jguk 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English is also one of the two official languages (alongside French) of the Council of Europe, and is one of the official languages of the United Nations. British spellings are normally used in those contexts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit history

• Hmm. On checking, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honour&direction=prev&oldid=619535) would seem to be how the article started. If so, perhaps we have been a little hasty... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been honour since Dec 2003. It's not how the article started that counts, it's what format major contributions followed (i.e. a sudden mass change of honour to honor throughout a well-developed article is not in line with this). But in any case, this only applies if the version of English to be used cannot be decided on other grounds. Compelling arguments include that in this case, apparently only the US uses "honour" (rather than all English versions based on US spelling). zoney ♣ talk 12:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The history doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. It may be that it was a duplicate article moved to replace an older article. Jooler 13:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, unless you can demonstrate what the whole story is, outside the history, that is all we have to go on. I can't see any evidence of article moves or article deletions. The change from "honor" to "honour" was done all at once (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honour&diff=2082765&oldid=2031657) by an anon, User:213.78.16.2, at 20:57, 23 Dec 2003, without any concurrent major contribution. Why is it acceptable that this anon's changes, against policy, are OK, whereas the recent changes back are not? Are we saying that it is OK for policy to have been broken for over a year - basically, that policy need not be followed if no-one finds out for long enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Any edit that survives for over a year is pretty stable. There's nothing to be gained by moving the poor article again. Either spelling is okay but the one we've got is "honour". Moving it again would only appease the spelling warriors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decision

After 6 days the decision has been taken to retain the current title. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about education?

What about term 'honors' in education? This should be covered as well, at the very least as the see also or disambiguation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)