Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

2005 categorized contributions 2007–2008 discussion on British nationality 2008 discussion on honorific prefixes Jan 2003 – Feb 2003 Oct 2003 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Feb 2007 Feb 2007 – Dec 2007 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This is intended to be a talk and a personal question on why English Wikipedia has decided to avoid mentioning birth places in the lead section unless notable enough.

Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.

Many editions of Wikipedia in major languages (usually European ones) do the last one almost always. I will use articles on Joe Biden as examples:
Please see es:Joe Biden; ru:Байден, Джо; de:Joe Biden; pt:Joe Biden.

I will admit that many other major languages don't do said last option. Chinese Wikipedia doesn't (zh:乔·拜登), Japanese Wikipedia doesn't (ja:ジョー・バイデン, Arabic Wikipedia doesn't (ar:جو بايدن). French Wikipedia (fr:Joe Biden) doesn't technically do said last option, instead mentioning it as a clause.

*an example of a Spanish Wikipedia article not mentioning the birth place in the first sentence would be es:Cixí

Thanks, Caehlla2357 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not "notable enough", there's no need to clutter the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I did do some readings of the archives, which do mention clutter, I still am curious as to why we would set these standards when other languages do this anyway. This is simply a curiosity and I don't intend to overturn these standards for the time being. Caehlla2357 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many "local" peculiarities in Wikipedia. Personally, I don't understand MM/DD/YY as a date format. Surely it makes more sense to progress from the smallest unit of time to the largest: DD/MM/YY? WWGB (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "makes sense" is determined by where a person grew up. Respect for that fact is why MOS:DATETIES exists. MarnetteD|Talk 06:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have reinforced my point very nicely, there are local differences everywhere. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much concerted effort to have styles be consistent across languages. If there's an objective rationale for a practice from another language, one is always welcome to propose it here at en.wp.—Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADCLUTTER is relevant here, I think. People want to put this first in the lead, because it comes first chronologically, but it's very rare for it to be the main thing you want to know about the subject and it buries that main thing under other distractions making it harder to find. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Dates of birth and death are significant pieces of information. Places of birth and death generally are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed - also there is no suitable or standard way of displaying the places of birth in the opening brackets alongside the dates. GiantSnowman 14:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand these arguments.

(Additional things, mostly for myself to process): The place of birth usually is most useful in determining a person's nationality. However, nationality can and does change. Plus, sometimes, the place of birth becomes almost irrelevant altogether. (I don't feel comfortable giving examples).

I still don't get how come English Wikipedia in particular decided against the whole place of birth thing when other languages maintained it (but then again: many others, such as East Asian languages, also don't do this). "Differences" and "local peculiarities" (for me at least) just states the obvious, and doesn't really capture much.

Anyway, thanks for understanding, and have a good day. Caehlla2357 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

30% of Australians were born in another country. In most cases, that country will not be a significant factor in why they would end up with a Wikipedia article. It really would be silly listing a place of birth for all of them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually add in the birth/death places. But, I wouldn't object if it's decided to use only the dates in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to edit the lead in Karl Max, Prince Lichnowsky because the specification of the place of birth was too detailed and imhzo does not comply with MOS. The user:Peter NYC reverted it to me with a reason on my talk page, but ignores my arguments. Can you please look at the article and add an unbiased opinion on whether it is really okay? Since the user also reverted my other changes on the page and then began to revert my changes on other pages for no reason, I would also welcome some warning from the user about vandalism. Thanks. FromCzech (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment on the article TP. MB 16:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Doe is a former American model -or- Jane Doe is an American former model

There is currently an edit war going on in Bruce Willis on this issue. I've seen it both ways on biographies, most commonly the latter, and cannot find anything in the MOS that addresses Wikipedia style. Is there a Wikipedia consensus for either approach? Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the latter is correct - one retires from a profession, not a nationality... GiantSnowman 16:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is perhaps more common on Wikipedia, but I don't know why. Typically, published descriptions of adjective sequence (see Adjective#Order for examples) state that 'origin' (such as nationality) comes late in the sequence. The closest thing for 'retired' is the category 'age' (no, it's not necessarily age-based, but we're talking generalities), which is earlier. The only things after 'origin' are 'material' (not applicable here) and 'qualifier' (normally part of a compound noun). The adjectives don't modify each other (they modify the noun), so 'retired American' doesn't mean that the person has retired from a nationality (that's not possible anyway)... the confusion here is probably reading 'American' as a noun, where 'retired American' is possible, but add a noun and 'American' becomes an adjective, as in 'retired American man'. So, it should be 'Jane Doe is a former American model'. EddieHugh (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, it should not. Does Jane Doe, when retired from being a model, lose her citizenship? No, she remains American. GiantSnowman 18:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was talking about losing citizen ship. They are retired AND American. Retired American model CreecregofLife (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former American implies that someone renounced their citizenship… Citizenship should always go before career in a sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're confusing word types. 'American' is an adjective, not a noun, in the phrase 'former American model'. 'American' isn't modified by 'retired': each of those words modifies 'model'. Think of it like a sum... there's a model who is:

.. a retired model

+ an American model

= a retired American model

It's not:

.. a retired American

+ an American model

= a retired American model

Manuals of style (and normal English usage) have word orders for adjectives. That word order places words such as 'retired' before words such as 'American'. (I'm happy to be corrected if style guides advocating the opposite can be found.) EddieHugh (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, American is modified by retired... GiantSnowman 19:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'American' isn't modified in 'tall American model', 'dead American model', 'young American model', etc. Why do you think that it is modified in 'retired American model'? EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'retired American X' indicates that they are both no longer American and no longer X. Save it for people who have given up citizenship. saying 'American retired X' is much clearer. GiantSnowman 20:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t, and you’ve been shown that. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then described them as an 'American retired model' to make that clear. GiantSnowman 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They weren’t retired by Americans though. The only person it’s unclear to is you, CreecregofLife (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes...no sense. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So “American retired” makes no sense CreecregofLife (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense - see below from Bagumba. GiantSnowman 21:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books ngrams show a higher prevalence of "former American" compared to "American former"[1], but the latter construction is used in some writing.[2]

• The Best American Sports Writing 2017, African American former Tar Heels basketball player...
• The Racialized Experiences of Asian American Teachers in the U.S., We come to this book as Asian American former secondary teachers...
• Study of former prisoners of war, U.S. Veterans Admin., ...there are nearly 100,000 American former POWs...
• Poverty in the United States, ...on behalf of African American former slaves...
• The International Who's Who of Women 2002, ...American former diplomatist and banking executive...
• American Manufactures Export News (1921), ...to interest American former representatives...

So the nationality former/retired profession construct isn't incorrect, just not as common. Bruce Willis isn't the first time I've seen editors going back and forth on this word order. It seems like this might be a frequent enough issue that it would be helpful to get a consensus for one-way-or-the-other and add it to the MOS for biography leads? Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've always thought it would be better to simply avoid using former/retired here in any case. Both available options are clunky and imperfect, and it seems better to just describe people as they are known. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that "retired American actor" is a more natural word order. It's generally understood that "retired" refers to a person's career, and not nationality or any other trait. You may even talk more generally of "retired Americans" and it will be understood that you mean "Americans who have retired" and not "people who have retired from being American." TornadoLGS (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Another person who understands! And also, who retires their citizenship more than renouncing it? CreecregofLife (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with Tornado on which is more natural. Retire means to stop working, or less commonly to move location. I also agree with Frickeg, it's better to not use such constructs. Saying retired/former would have to be changed after the person dies. Better just to avoid it and say something like "is an American actor active from 1950 until 1988". MB 00:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though, adding to what I said above, "former" may be more likely to create ambiguity since it's a bit broader than "retired." TornadoLGS (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous discussion, only perpetuated by people who don't know the differences between nouns and adjectives, and the rules on order of adjectives. "Retired" and "american" are both independent adjectives. Neither modifies the other. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "retired American model". Have a look at Adjective#Order. It tells us to put qualities (e.g. retired) ahead of origins (American). Can we stop now please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per HiLo48, and several others, the correct word order, based on most common usage is "retired American <whatever>". Wikipedia is almost the only place I've seen it used, and the tiny cadre of very passionate editors who insist on the opposite order are really standing in the way of writing in the most common English. In the exact same way that we can understand "A large red apple" means that the apple is both large and red, and NOT that the red is large, people fully understand that a retired American actor is an actor whor is both retired and American, not that an American that is retired. Literally no one is confused by putting retired before American, and the opposite order is marked as non-standard phrasing. --Jayron32 11:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is the only place that uses that word order, why is it the correct one? GiantSnowman 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use "American former model" Slate has a relevant article that says former is a unique operator that changes the meaning of whatever follows it:

Such terms—“former,” “alleged,” “fake”—fundamentally change the meaning of whatever follows...Therefore, when dealing with operators, the precise idea you want to express determines the order of adjectives, and a furniture dealer is not at liberty to oscillate between “fake Malaysian ivory”—a material masquerading as Malaysian ivory—and “Malaysian fake ivory”—a not-ivory material from Malaysia.

If one is still an American, it's misleading to say "former American model".—Bagumba (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO IT'S NOT!!!!!!! The two adjectives are in the correct order, and are completely independent of one another. What is it about the rules of grammar that you don't understand? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but whereas "fake Malaysian ivory" can be contrasted with "Malaysian fake ivory", I don't see why anyone (in the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article) would be described as a "former American X", trying to say that the person used to be American. As "former American X" and "American former X" are extremely unlikely to be contrasted, we fall back to adjective sequence for 'former', or rephrase, as others have suggested. However, going back to the original question, I don't think the same analysis can be applied to "retired" (retiring from a nationality definitely isn't possible), so it's still 'retired American actor'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who played an international sport for nation X, and then later played for nation Y, could be described as a former X player of whatever sport. This is not uncommon when nations change their identities. The phrase "former Soviet" appears in some 8000 of our articles, for instance, and "former Yugoslav[ian]" in nearly 2000 more. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'former X' is acceptable only in the cases you have cited, where somebody's citizenship has changed. GiantSnowman 21:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't think the same analysis can be applied to 'retired'... Retired does not have the same modifying effect as former, so they are different. My peave with the case of retired is that most athletes retire from their sport, but are still working in some capacity. So former would be more suitable in those cases, but that point doesn't preclude retired in Willis' situation.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I dislike the use of either "former" or "retired". In the case of Bruce Willis, I would prefer Bruce Willis is an American actor who was active from 1978 to 2022 or something like that. Otherwise, "American former" or "American retired" is correct, not "former American" or "retired American". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing discussions of other adjectives, it becomes apparent that "retired" differs from them, since it specifically means a person who has left their career. "Bruce Willis is retired," is a complete sentence with a clear meaning. "Bruce Willis is former," is not. If I speak of "my retired friends" it is clear that I mean friends who are retired, not people who are no longer my friends. In the latter case I would say "former friends." In short, a word order that is appropriate for "retired" might not be appropriate for "former." But, if we are operating under the assumption that adjectives modify those that follow them, wouldn't "Bruce Willis is an American retired actor" suggest that there is something American about his retirement? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advocating for "an American who is retired"?—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying "retired American X" clearly refers to an American X who is retired, rather than an X who is retired from being American. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sharapova is a Russian who used to play tennis. I would describe her as a "Russian former tennis player". Daria Gavrilova is a current tennis player who used to play for Russia but now plays for Australia. I would describe her as a "former Russian tennis player". To describe them both as former Russian tennis player completely overlooks the significant difference in their situations. WWGB (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Partly stirring up trouble...) What happens when Gavrilova stops playing? Will she be a "former Russian former tennis player"? Better to rephrase, which is what has been done in her article ("is an Australian professional tennis player. She represented Russia until 2015, before emigrating to Australia"). EddieHugh (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A real former American Wayne Brabender is a former American who relinquished his citizenship to join the Spanish national team. People keep saying that it's understood that former doesn't apply to nationality for such-in-such case, until the time that it does. However, if we bastardize the common cases with "former American", we won't be able to distinguish from the real instances where they really are not an American anymore. Editors need to respect that some readers are not already familiar with the page topic and will therefore read it literally. Succinctness matters. Or we just become numb to inaccurate writing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the range of reactions here demonstrates that there's confusion, potential or real, over the use of 'former [nationality] [role]' and '[nationality] former [role]', I believe we should avoid using either combination. Succinctness without clarity isn't beneficial. 'retired [nationality] [role]' still looks like a separate case, where that construction (or rephrasing) is preferred. EddieHugh (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with those who are saying that we need a third option. Personally, I would go with something like: Doe is an American foosball player who retired in 2019.” I think that conveys the information clearly and without any confusion. However, there are other ways to phrase it that would be just as clear. Don’t write like robots… be creative. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a retired pelican hunter a retired pelican?--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. GiantSnowman 09:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A real-life case - "ex-British jihadist", showing that putting the 'former' or 'retired' in front of the nationality ends that, not the profession. This is a jihadist who has had their British citizenship revoked. GiantSnowman 06:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruce Willis example seems to have settled on "is an American retired actor".[3]—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sensible outcome. GiantSnowman 19:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long-running dispute across multiple articles about whether to mention someone's philanthropy in the lead paragraph (often the first sentence), when it is not their primary source of notability. Does ROLEBIO functionally discourage that? My feeling is that when someone is famous and has a lot of money, their donations tend to be large and attract coverage; but per ROLEBIO it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph unless there's reason to believe it is the source of their notability rather than just having coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's generically covered by MOS:ROLEBIO:

Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

It's really based on consensus on a per-topic basis.—Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]