Language desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

Capitalization for officeholders

I'm familiar with the basic rule for capitalization of an officeholder's title. I.e., we capitalize the title only when it immediately precedes the name. We write Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa and Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa. But what if it's written as Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa? Or even, Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley? Yes, the word "Senator" immediately precedes the name, but that word is immediately preceded by the word "Republican". "Republican Senator" is a description, not a title. So which is correct, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley or Republican senator Chuck Grassley?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the latter. --Viennese Waltz 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it seems likely there's a hard rule on this, I just can't find it.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Wikipedia has an explicit style on this (it's not mentioned at MOS:JOBTITLES, anyway). The U.S style guides with which I'm most familiar (Chicago, Words into Type) recommend the "Republican senator Chuck Grassley" style, considering that when the name of an office is modified like that, it is a common noun to which the person's name is in apposition rather than a title preceding the name. Deor (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How about U.S. President Barack Obama? Or Missouri Governor Jay Nixon? Same animal? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just my opinion, but I would say that, yes, those would be treated the same. (I'm an old-fashioned sort, who likes to use the in expressions like "the British general Bernard Montgomery" or "the Republican senator Chuck Grassley"—rather than treating such "titles" as a strung-together bunch of attributives—so I would say that, wouldn't I?) In some cases, of course, the name would constitute a nonrestrictive appositive and would therefore be set off with commas—"In 1972, the U.S. president, Richard Nixon, ..." Deor (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who says things like "attributives" and "nonrestrictive appositive"—with a straight face—is good enough for me! I'll try editing to U.S. president Barack Obama in the lead of this article, and see if it flies.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I demur. We use capital letters where we are referring to a person in the nature of a "proper noun" context. We can refer to a "president" on many types but in US usage "the President" is the president of the US. [1] Grammarist.com: "President is capitalized when it comes immediately before the name of a president of a country. It is not capitalized when it refers to a president but does not immediately precede the name." CMOS says we do not capitalize "pope" unless used with the name. Thus we have "Pope Francis" but he is "the pope." We do not use "pope Francis." "Queen Elizabeth II" is "a queen of England" but the toast is "To the Queen." We do not use "queen Elizabeth II." The NYT Manual of Style also agrees on this.[2]. The CMOS is in a bit of a minority on some examples, but the general usage in the US and English-speaking areas is to capitalize when the intent is to denote a specific individual. Collect (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you demurring to Republican senator Chuck Grassley, or just U.S. president Barack Obama?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And wouldn't the more apt comparison be "British queen Elizabeth II"?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another usage difference is that in Britain we'd tend not to use positions as replacements for honorifics, so "Prime Minister Cameron" sounds strange, it should be "The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron" or "Mr Cameron, the Prime Minister", etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the proposal, it would be "Conservative prime minister David Cameron" or "UK prime minister David Cameron" which, I trust, would be an unusual usage. I further note in UK usage "the Prime Minister" when referring to a person is invariably capitalized. [3] [4] etc. appear discordant for the CMOS, but in accordance with all other manuals and usual US and UK practice in newspapers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule I would infer is, if you're using it as a title or referring to a specific office, capitalise it. If not, don't. So David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, and (say) attended a meeting of European prime ministers. I'd capitalise "president" as in "U.S. President Barack Obama", because that's a specific office, but if you were referring to him in the context of presidents of other countries - for example "Barack Obama is the first president of any modern republic to do x" - I wouldn't, because that's using "president" as a generic term. Not sure how to treat "senator" - I understand there is a national Senate but also state senates, so "senator" could be a generic term in some contexts and a reference to a specific office in others. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I could pull us back from US-UK comparisons for just a moment. As to my questions, Collect and Deor are two apparently knowledgeable people who disagree. Since Collect is the one more sure of his opinion, I'll go with his (not always a good idea, but it will do in this case). I just need some clarification on your position, Collect. Is it that all officeholder titles should be capitalized when they immediately precede the name, regardless of anything that precedes the title? Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the title is used to indicate a specific person as a proper noun, the rule is to capitalize the proper noun. This is not only applied to honorifics, but also to adjectives in general -- the "White House" is,indeed, "white" but the proper noun has the W capitalized anyway. Grassley is a "Republican senator" but he is "Republican Senator Grassley" - the first is not used as a proper noun, while the second is. "Queen Elizabeth II" but "Elizabeth II is the queen of England" where "queen of England" is not used as a proper noun. But (interestingly) "The Queen of England spoke" is capitalized as it is used as a proper noun (i.e. a specific person). We can have "... said President Barack Obama" "Barack Obama is the US president", "Barack Obama, president of the US", but "The President spoke at a conference" where it is used to denote a specific person. I know it may seem confusing <g>, but the concept is that a specific person, place or thing gets the majuscule letter, while a non-specific person, place or thing gets the minuscule letter. (OK - I did not really need the Latin) Collect (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa is a specific person, Collect, and I can't recall ever seeing that capitalized in any academic or journalism setting. Is my memory that bad? Never mind. The problem is with my reading comprehension, not my memory. I think I have it now. So the answer to my last question would be yes, since "precede the name" necessarily implies a specific person. I never had a problem knowing what to do with titles that don't precede the name, or titles not associated with a specific person. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See "False title".—Wavelength (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Period placement for quotation at end of sentence

This has no doubt been asked here a few dozen times. It may even be somewhere in MOS. But I'm old and tired.

What is the rule for placement of the period when a sentence ends with a quotation? In or out? Does it depend on the length of the quotation? Does it depend on whether the quotation is a sentence fragment or a complete sentence? Thanks. Time for a Geritol break!‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where American and British English differ. American style is to place the period before the closing quotation mark whereas British style is to place it after. See [5]. --Viennese Waltz 15:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS guideline for handling this in Wikipedia is at MOS:LQ. Basically, if the quoted matter is a complete sentence, put the period inside the closing quotation mark; if it isn't a complete sentence, put the period outside. Deor (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding, just what I needed. Thanks for supporting AARP.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not a member of that organization, but I've been qualified for membership for more than 15 years. Deor (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neutral or beneficial

Hello, Reference Deskers. I would like to describe some behaviors as either neutral (in that they are neither harmful or helpful) OR beneficial. I began with 'innocuous', but I don't think it really captures the "OR" that I want -- innocuous doesn't seem to include those that are beneficial. I could use the word non-harmful, but it doesn't have the right flair. Is there a word that does what I want? Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why does it have to be a word? "benificial or at least harmless" if it's more likely to be beneficial, or "harmless if not beneficial" if at least harmless, and maybe even beneficial? (or as I just said, "harmless, and maybe even beneficial".) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the end, if I can't think of a word, I'll probably just stick with "Non-Harmful". I'm trying to give a certain concept a name, which makes the concept easier to refer to, and so for simplicity, I'd like it if the name is a single word. Llamabr (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'benign' which has two meanings (not harmful, kindly) depending on context. Personally, i think it has a neutral/positive shade -- especially in the medical sense, given the usual alternative/expectation of 'malignant' ... ie, 'benign' can seem relatively positive. If you give us a bit more detail in how you're using it as label/name, we might come up with a more suitable term. El duderino ^(abides) 04:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. "Benign" means harmless and possibly beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harmless" might sound more natural than "non-harmful". Rojomoke (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also like 'benign' though it doesn't have the flash I want. I'll decide between "harmless" and "benign" (probably the latter). Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what did disco mean in the 19th century?

as per here - https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disco&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisco%3B%2Cc0

what on earth could that have been? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the hits are just word breaks - disco ver etc. Other hits refer to the word disco in latin - I learn or get to know, also used in botanical description. Mikenorton (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much! super clear. Though I wonder why line breaks no longer showed up? Did they stop breaking these words as frequently?212.96.61.236 (talk)

I think they used to use more fixed width spacing, which would make it harder to make all the lines work out evenly, unless you break the words. Variable width spacing takes more time and equipment when done by a printmaker, but now this is done by computer, so it's not a problem. It does sometimes lead to text that looks like this, though:

Bob and Julia
inadvertently
m   e   t   .

Personally, I don't think text needs to be both right and left justified. In fact, variable width lines make it easier for me to find my place again, when I look away and back. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]