Talk:Title

.

Organization of the article

I don't like the organisation of this page at all. Wouldn't it be better to have honorary titles sorted by country or region, rather than this fairly random selection of things like 'Honorary Titles Granted by a Mentor with the Same Title', 'Honorary Titles Granted By One's Peers' and 'Honorary Titles Bestowed by Followers'? In any case the latter two categories seem to me to be pretty hard to distinguish from each other. I'll reorganise the honorary titles bit this way if no one objects. - TinaSparkle 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of different titles

I think that it would be good if here (or somewhere else) are tables for comparisons of different titles in various cultures. Here is a table I made for clerical titles: Nikola 08:28, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Position	Catholicism	Orthodoxy	Protestantism	Judaism
Head of the church	Pope	Patriarch, Pope	Archbishop of Canterbury?	Chief Rabbi?
Head of a large area, state	Archbishop	Archbishop (Archyepiskop)	Archbishop	?
Head of smaller area	Bishop	Bishop (Episkop)	Bishop	?
Priest	Priest	Priest	Priest	Rabbi
Head of deacons	Archdeacon	Archdeacon	?	?
Church helper	Deacon	Deacon	Deacon	?

These I didn't know where to put: Deaconess Pontiff Presbyter Reverend

• The column "Protestantism" should say "Anglicanism". The hierachy is different in other protestant sects.

Internal Links

Some of these point willy-nilly to articles that may or may not contain related information. Case in point: postfix which leads to an article about computer jargon. I'm going to correct as I see fit, if there are no objections. Quill 22:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WTF. Why will Queen's Counsel not link nicely to the appropriate article. Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 02:23 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

spelling. (Councel vs Counsel). It links now. -- Someone else 02:26 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

None so blind as those who cannot see :) Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 02:46 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Titles specific to one person

It seems to me that there are titles creeping into this list that refer to one person only. Examples: 'Dear Leader', 'Nataji'. If these are general titles of veneration in their respective countries, then they belong here. If, however, they refer to one person only, then they should be referenced at that person's entry. Opinions? Quill 22:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Per this, I've also removed Duce and Führer. Has Mahatma been used for people other than Gandhi? I know Caudillo has been used for people other than Franco. - Montréalais 21:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mahatma is indeed used for people other than Gandhi - it's an old Indian religious term. - TinaSparkle 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is not the (so called) title of 'Ablak' (recently added) really the name of a saint of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. -RobertBlacknut 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Duce and Führer have returned, along with "Cock O' the North" that also belongs only to one person. Unless there's an objection I'll assume that the same principle apples and remove them.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Social titles

Titles conventionally appended to persons' names in social life. Some professional titles are used in social life, such as Rev.; others usually are not (Dr., for example, is generally not used in the US in the case of a Ph.D. but is used for the medical professionals; in other countries, for example the UK, it is considered somewhat inappropriate for non-academics to use Dr. solely on the strength of a medical degree).

The comment on the UK is not true. If someone is introduced as a Doctor in the UK it is automatically assumed that they are a medical doctor. It is only a few who would not assume this outside an academic setting. After all most of the population do not know that there is any other type of Doctor. Also some one should clarify the title for a surgeon in the UK, so that US tourists can be convinced that it realy it not a barber who is going to operate on them! Philip Baird Shearer 13:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here in the USA the administrators of school systems frequently have earned D.Ed. degrees as a minimum requirement for their job. They tend to require the honorific "Doctor" in their press releases, I suppose it has something to do with gravitas - ethics or the perception of such. In a controversy, those with doctor's name seem to have an advantage in credibility - fair or not. The concept of "terminal degree" is recognized here in academic circles but is lost in the general public when it comes to ethics, credibility and gravitas. The use of social titles, decided by tradition and class-based pride of occupation, seems similar to manners (you don't cut your dinner roll with a knife) but isn't it really a "style?" Is it not an arbitrary and capricious personal style? The long list of "terminal degrees" includes MBA, MSLS and MFA that took six semesters to achieve - the same as the D.Ed. - with ethics, leadership and expert professional practice included in the experience. So, as in some European countries, as a personal style, I have adopted the title MFA. If we all do it folks will eventually ask, "Whazis?" and we can answer, "Master of Fine Arts! It's a terminal degree."24.8.4.233 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Precedence of Titles (was 'Social Titles')

The assumption that 'Dr.' is medical is made anywhere in world. The user has to be prepared to correct this in social situations. Awareness that there are other types of Doctor is increasing.

Whether or not to use it is up to the person (though proof is needed to change your title on official documentation) who holds the title. Some see it as dangerous (i.e. what use is a Doctor who can’t treat patients in medical emergencies) whilst others (such as Ph.D. holders) believe due to the years of work they’ve put in that they have earned the right (apologies here, this is not meant to sound arrogant). Alternatively, they believe using ‘Dr.’ will give them a professional advantage especially if following an academic career.

As regards order of titles, it would be useful to add a brief section on this.

For post-nominal titles (English speaking countries), academic comes before professional and also academic titles go in order of least important first, most important last.

i.e.

1) John Smith B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D., CEng.

2) Jane Brown B.Med, Ph.D., D.Sc.

A Ph.D. would take precedence over a medical degree. D.Sc. is an academic honorary higher doctorate which takes precedence over the Ph.D.

For pre-nominal titles, the situation to me is less clear. I believe least important goes last, most important first. Also, religious titles (the field of divinity) I think take precedence over law, which themselves take precedence over academic titles, which in turn take precedence over a standard honorary title.

i.e.

1) Revd Prof. Dr. Sir John Smith B.A. (Hons), M.Sc.

2) Revd Prof. Sir Jane Brown B.A. (Hons), M.Sc., Ph.D. (this second example is the more normal format as Professor Doctor Jane Brown would sound a little silly)

Can anyone verify this bit then it can be added to the main article?

One thing I am sure of is a person cannot use Dr. as a pre-nominal title alongside B.Med or Ph.D. as a post-nominal title. Either one or the other is used (you’d effectively make yourself Dr. Dr. and this can be seen as a fraudulent misrepresentation).

I like the US idea of only using the most important title, otherwise all these titles begin to look messy.

Regards,

Ian.

Beefy_SAFC 19:37, 25 Oct 2009 (UTC)

You titled this section "social titles". The post-nominal titles should not be used socially at all. Most of the pre-nominal titles in a strictly social situation should be used sparingly if at all. Aristocratic titles can be used, divinical usually are as clergy are rarely in a strictly social situation, and "Dr." for M.D.'s has a long standing social usage in the US, though it is arrogant and pointless, but this is why many other types of doctors are using the title now also (rather than simply having everyone eschewing this title socially.) In the US, in strictly social settings, there really should be no title used other than Miss, Ms., Mrs., and Mister. Even in a professional setting, "Prof. Dr." is redundant in most cases and I've never heard of anyone styling themselves as such. The only common multiple pre title in the U.S. is "Rev. Dr." Using pre and post nominal titles at the same time is incorrect in all cases. If you are using post-nominal titles, these indicate the honorifics which would be used to address the person. Using pre-nominal titles for yourself is incorrect. I sign things with "John Smith, Ph.D." when I expect someone to refer to me as Dr. Smith, and simply John Smith for social uses, where Mr. Smith is appropriate. My brother and sister-in-law both have non-medical professional doctorates and insisted on having "The Doctors Smith" on all their printed wedding announcement, invitations, etc. It looked ridiculous as a wedding is strictly social. I had a cousin who insisted on using "Mayor Jack Jones" on his daughter's wedding invitations, which again was silly as the wedding had nothing to do with his office. Njsustain (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick response!!!

The 'social titles' heading was only because I was following up from someone else's material. I totally agree that in a social setting, the use of ANY title is arrogant and outmoded (i.e. "ooooo, look how wonderful I am", response "**** off!!!"). I'll change the heading to 'Precedence of Titles (was 'Social Titles')'. “Njsustain”, for the record I think your contribution is spot on; my original contribution was due to a family discussion over precedence of titles and trying to verify it as we’ve come across someone who refers to herself on correspondence as ‘Revd Dr’ (though rarely uses these titles).

I’ll take it further by saying that any of these titles even in a professional setting shall only be used if they really have to (a specialist conference for example). I refuse to list any of my qualifications on my business card for example. You accept me at face value and only if you ask will I tell you what my qualifications are; even then I only tell people what is relevant to the situation. In ten years of employment, I’ve only been asked twice.

My employers and direct line manager don’t even know about my Ph.D. (not included on CV with cooperation of a previous employer as regards references), with me only listing a single professional qualification when pushed by my direct line manager. Where things are let slip (a friend opening their mouth – and one does it occasionally to wind me up), I change subject quickly enough to leave people none the wiser.

I detest arrogance just as much as dishonesty (though might bend the truth a little when playing a joke on a friend – but that’s different). Anyone who goes out the way to make themselves look something special is not someone I want to know or at least keep at arm’s length.

Regards,

Ian. Beefy_SAFC 09:37, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Book titles

Was it just an oversight that there is no mention of a title of a book, or a web page? Or is there a good reason not to even mention that... --Connel MacKenzie 08:09, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a point; even if there's not a lot to say about these titles, animals have titles as well. Rectified; see Title (disambiguation) (and feel free to change the title ;) Quill 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prefixes and suffixes

It would be good to seperate the prefixes and the suffixes. For instance, MP and MEP are used as suffixes (at least in the UK). -- Joolz 15:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ex officio titles

Any suggestion for marking titles which are still appropriate for someone who is retired. In English, Bill Clinton is still addressed as "President Clinton", as the title does not imply that the position is current. However, other titles (Chairman) are only appropriate while someone is fulfilling a specific role. samwaltz 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Title vs Position

This article does not seem to distinguish well between title as a form of address or honorific, and title as an office or function -- at least in the Honorary titles granted by heads of state section. For instance, in the UK peerage or nobility is the position held, but the associated titles (depending upon rank are duke, marquess, earl, viscount, baron, lord or their feminine equivalents. A (modern) knight holds the honor of knighthood bestowed by the British monarch, but use of knight as a title is largely obsolete. Rather Sir and Dame are the prefixed -- and specified chivalric initials are the suffixed -- honorifics borne by knights. This article refers to Chamberlain, Champion, Marshal, Aide-de-camp, Equerry as "titles". But I would define these as terms for functions and positions. Whereas Honourable, also included is, rather, a style, i.e. an honorific attributed to certain titleholders adjectively. These should be removed. Lethiere 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One option would be renaming this article Titles, positions and styles which would allow these to be differentiated and then listed. I got to this article becaus I was wondering who gets called "Reverend" - not having it here was confusing - I no longer would claim it to be a title but in common usage it probably would be understood as such. SmithBlue 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Title of office = DAB(Title of authority | Title of office (address)) & honorary title = DAB(...) & honorific for quite different titles. But first of all someone has to find a reliable source which describes a classification of various types of titles. `'Míkka 05:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is getting ludicrous. One rule about WP is that it "is not a list" and that is precisely what this article now is. "Engineer" "biologist" and "physicist" are not titles... they are occupations. Any government certification under the sun does not constitute a title. What is this article supposed to be about? It needs MAJOR pruning. I'll try something just as an example, but it really needs major work. It is a disaster.Njsustain (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen's Scout

I am not sure that being a Queen's Scout (and holder of the Queen's Scout Award) is an "honorary title granted by an institution". It is conferred by Royal Warrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.68 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing title

In the United States, "Attorney" is a title commonly used in place of "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms." A judge will refer to a lawyer in court as "Attorney so-and-so." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.166.212 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a Commons-Category of Royal titles

What is a Royal title? Which titles are royal? --Diwas (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Change in) usage of "vocational" title in natural speech

I assume there are studies on the changing use of titles in natural speech (e.g. "that's Doctor Jones over there", in some languages (e.g. Norwegian 50 years ago) you would even say "he's next to Lawyer Browne"), has anyone got references on this? If so, I believe it would make a good section. --Kiwibird (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, or at least some parts of it, Attorney is commonly used as a title. I am field attorney for a federal agency, and I am frequently addressed as Attorney Smith or Agent Smith, at least in writing.Ggrzw (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of "former" to qualify someone who no longer holds an office

Is there a steadfast rule or guideline as to whether we qualify someone as "former" if they no longer hold an office? Specifically, I am dealing with the title of "Mayor". If in an article we refer to someone who once was a mayor of a major city, do we refer to them as "former Mayor John Doe" or are they always know as "Mayor John Doe"? SueDonem (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is too general

I don't think it should cover letters after the name such as degrees or membership of organizations. It should cover titles used the way that "Mr" and "Mrs" are in English speaking countries at the least and similar uses in other languages. Titles should only be covered if they are actually used before the name. Count Truthstein (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged that section for merge with Post-nominal letters. Any help in implementing the merge is welcome. -- Beland (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

I've noticed that there are articles Honorific and English honorific with similar subject matter. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; I think this article combines Title of authority with Honorific titles. See Talk:Honorific for proposed distinctions/merger which may impact reorganization here. -- Beland (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Unofficial use" - NPOV issue?

I see a heading under "Titles in English-speaking areas" that segregates out titles used by other organizations under "Unofficial use". I think this is an NPOV issue as the editor(s) who assigned that are implying that the organizations using these titles are somehow lesser than the government, aristocratic, religious, and military organizations that appear in the previous sections. I cannot think of a reason why those 4 categories of organizations would be somehow "official" where others are "unofficial". (There may be specific rules in given countries; however from a worldwide standpoint I do not believe this is appropriate.) I believe a more neutral terminology not implying a subjugation would be more in order, perhaps "Private organizations" or "Other organizations"? -- FA Jon (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Popess

The article contains "Popess" at the bottom of § Aristocratic titles, thus:

The title of a character found in Tarot cards based upon the Pope on the Roman Catholic Church. As the Bishop of Rome is an office always forbidden to women there is no formal feminine of Pope, which comes from the Latin word papa (an affectionate form of the Latin for father). Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary does not contain the word.

A similar note appears in the table. But in fact "popess" is included in

The Compact Oxford English Dictionary — Second Edition — Complete text reproduced micrographically (1991); from The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) (1989); ISBN 0-19-861258-3

So I have deleted the sentence quoted above starting with "Indeed".

References

--Thnidu (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Gomi in German?

In the second sentence of the article, just before the table of contents, "Gomi in German" is mentioned as a title inserted between the first and the last name. However,

1. I'm a native German speaker and have never heard of that word. Which may be due to it being specific, so no real argument here, but

2. the article does not mention "Gomi" ever again

3. the English Wikipedia has no fitting article

4. neither does the German Wikipedia

5. A quick google search on "Gomi title" results in this article and a bunch of sites discussing the Japanese surname.

Therefore, I believe Gomi is not really a word which is or was used in German as a title going in between first and last name and would delete that information if no one objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.175.150 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)