User:Nford24/Pomona

When a consensus isn't a consensus.

The discussion around the inclusion of Sir and Dame in the name field of info boxes is a long and bumpy journey. In this essay I aim to show you when a consensus isn't a consensus and how a simple RfC can confirm this.

The Method for consensus building requires two or more editors to openly discuss and effectively negotiate a consensus. A consensus is reached when "A proposed resolution in which all the responses are at least "neutral" is deemed to have achieved consensus. Everyone has in effect said they can at least live with it. The definition of "all" is responses after 72 hours or by all the editors who have posted or responded to positions in the discussion." A consensus is not reached when "all the proposals fail and there are no new counterproposals, the discussion is considered to be in deadlock and without consensus. Any editor who posted or responded to a position may propose that it is in a state of deadlock, and an action to take. However, alternative proposed resolutions may also continue to be posted."

RfC

When conducting or participating in an RfC, It's important to understand that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, as simply voting agree or disagree adds no value to the RfC. The closing of the RfC will see that The final decision is made based on the points made by those participating in the discussion and their congruence to Wikipedia's existing policies. The purpose of making a comment on an AfD board is not to make a vote as to whether or not to keep or delete a page, but to help the Wikipedia community and ultimately a closing administrator interpret Wikipedia's guidelines in reference to whether the page should or should not belong. As such, when participating in an RfC, its important that you don't Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid.

Here we see a breakdown of an RfC that took place from 12 January 2022.Link here

The results of the last RfC:

• Support: 6
• Oppose: 12
• Comment: 2

Remember, an RfC by convention is not a vote, but a snapshot of editor views with their argument for or against.

A breakdown of opposing arguments:

• 1. 'Sir' or 'Dame' are honorific prefixes and infobox fields exist specifically for them. They should not be included as part of the 'name' field. User:GiantSnowman

Response - Policy for peerages already puts name-changing titles in the name field.

• 2. As per User:GiantSnowman's argument. Additionally, I am not convinced by the arguments that it looks "nicer" to have the "Sir" or "Dame" put in bold on the name line or that there is some kind of inconsistency in the current version just because the same honorifics are boldfaced in the lead section (as per MOS:BOLDTITLE or MOS:BOLDSYN). (1) Arguing on purely aesthetic grounds is somewhat pointless, (2) this discrepancy is not unique in Wikipedia: e.g., in Augustine of Hippo, the lead section has Saint Augustine but 'Infobox saint' has "Saint" as a non-boldfaced pre-nominal (as per Template:Infobox saint/testcases). User:Omnipaedista

First part is refuted in the first opposition (merely agreeing with the person above brings no substance to an RfC). Second part also refuted above as the inconsistency is that people with peerages have their name-changing titles listed in the name field. third part titles awarded by the catholic church are catholic specific, the article for Thomas More doesnt even list his saintly title in the infobox.

• 3. I understand the argument that those titles are name-changing, but no reasonable person would argue that "Dame" is actually part of Maggie Smith's name. And that's what the name field is for. Names. User:PraiseVivec

As a name-chaning title, thats exactly what it means. Second part is also refuted in the first opposition.

• 4. The flimsy argument rests on two consecutive faulty premises. The first is that a report by a Parliamentary Select Committee has legal standing or force in the UK. It does not. The second, more absurd, premise is that UK law or convention governs Wikipedia style policy. In addition, the notion that these [commonwealth] countries recognise knighthoods and Damehoods as name-changing titles does not follow in any logical way from the preceding observation. Given the faulty premises, either of which alone would neuter the argument for this proposal, we can properly discount it. User:Cambial

The report is a perfectly acceptable reference, the Parliamentary Select Committee is not on the wikipedia reference blacklist. Second part Don't believe that was ever argued, however existing wikipeida policy on name-chaning titles fully allow for Sir/Dame in the name field. Third part makes a statment without backing it up with anything, post independnce both Australia & New Zealand awarded knighthoods/Damehoods and all comwealth realms still award knighthoods/Damehoods.

• 5. Argument not strong enough, Don't see a reason to change. User:Tepkunset

Only apparent oppositon was that the argument itsself is not strong enough. Good to know.

• 6. Name is what name field is for … per PraiseVivec. User:Pincrete

First part is refuted in the third opposition. Second part refuted in the first opposition. The entire response is merely agreeing with the person above and brings no substance to the RfC.

• 7. The non-neutral opening statements make a good case for opposition. Rather than presenting sources to support the change to MOS, it presents the editor's own "logic". That's WP:OR. User:A D Monroe III

The opening was altered as requested by User:JohnFromPinckney four days before this response was made. Response also suggests that no references were provided, which is not the case, the editotrs own logic was provided as part of the reasoning after the references were provided.

• 8. No change to MOS. Infobox specific labels and rules override general MOS and the label “name” is not universal, plus there are too many nationalities and degrees of knighthood for this simple a rule. If a title is hereditary, then birth-name does and must include the title because it is part of them from birth e.g. infobox royalty and birth-name Princess Elizabeth of York, or infobox Peer and name The Duke of Argyll. But if knighthood is awarded due to their life career, then infobox selection reflects that and respects that calling, and it follows whatever infobox labels are part of it and any rules there are - plus the MOS:SIR guidance is enough. e.g. infobox officeholder for birth_name Anthony Charles Lynton Blair or Dame Mary Cook with name Mary Cook, infobox scientist for Jane Goodall, infobox Military Person for name Sir Henry Wilson. Cheers User:Markbassett

This argument was refuted by User:Atchom, User:Markbassett never responded back.

• 9. per PraiseVivec. The name section should be for names only. User:OccultSlolem

A second 'per PraiseVivec' response resulting in no substance added to the RfC. This is also the third 'per....' response in the RfC so far.

• 10. I don't see why a UK Parliament's select committee report saying that knighthoods are confusing and different people have different preferences about what to be called should bear on Wikipedia style. Sir and Dame are words that honour a person by going in front of their name: they're honorific prefixes, which we have infobox fields specifically for. I would support a change to MOS:SIR to explicitly not include these titles in name fields, which I think the weight of argument made by other contributors above would also support. User:Ralbegen

This argument is both refuted in the First and Second oppositions. This is only the second opposing editor to specificaly mention the select committee report and does not refut its validity. Unfortunately User:Ralbegen failed to grasp what the report was saying when it referes to knighthoods/Damehoods as name-changing titles.

• 11. While I see two people arguing that these are "name changing", to the best of my knowledge the majority mainstream view (outside Wikipedia) is that these are "honorific prefixes", not someone's "base name". The extensive oppose votes above affirm that general editors concur with my understanding of the mainstream public view on this. Furthermore I assert a general skepticism regarding anything that is even debatably an honorific. Any nationality or group that asserts honorifics is going to be inclined towards advocacy and special favor for their own group's honorifics. User:Alsee

This was refuted by two editors, User:Robin S. Taylor and User:Atchom. User:Alsee did not respond.

• 12. these are high-grade honorifics, not actual names, and have no place in the "Names" part of the infobox. User:Orange Mike

This is also refuted in the first opposition.

The editors opposing the question in the RfC failed to gain a consensus, which is supported by WP:MEATPUPPET, which arguably means that no consensus was reached. In a situation like this, one side will always try and claim a consensus victory, What "no consensus" means is that not all participants agree. If a "consensus" does not mean everyone, then it is some kind of debated vote, with no need to pretend that it is a joint agreement. You don't have someone's consent when they don't. If they disagree, it's not an agreement, period. Just discuss & vote (but don't claim that "we all agree"). Many people have tried to imply that a failed consensus is still a joint agreement, perhaps because Wikipedia policies did not clarify what actions to take when consensus fails. The attitude is like treating a loss of life, as not death, but some other type of life: seek to keep the patient alive, and seek consensus. Replace the word "consensus" using the term "total consent" and the issues become very clear. The plan is not to "overpower" the dissenting opinion with numerous people who agree against them. The plan is to seek consensus, a joint agreement that all can live with. All agree not to "sneak back" and revert the consensus view.

See also

Essays

• Consensus is consensus