![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone should move the quotes to wikiquote, I would but I don't know how.
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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.218 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, January 25, 2003 (UTC).
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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.16.2 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, December 23, 2003 (UTC).
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:
66.32.79.137 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I have remmoved the following words from the introductory sentence:
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)
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
Please see the decision section below instead of voting
It seems that some people do not honour the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English
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
Give me a break !!!! -- 84.153.21.247 20:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
Edit history
Commonwealth spelling is always used in international organisations. -- 203.217.43.161 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
After 6 days the decision has been taken to retain the current title. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
OK, there is a perfect page
Honor student, so I fixed the link by changing from
gifted education.--
143.88.201.212
17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone proposes merging "Changes in Honour" into the section of this article that talks about cultures of honour and cultures of law.
I would not approve of this merger if it means any replacement of the current text. The current text speaking about these matters is referenced to Montesquieu and Steven Pinker, and relatively neutral; the "changes" text is strongly Eurocentric, and speaks of the cultural benefits brought to European nobility by the concept of honour. The "changes" text would be more at home in chivalry anyways, which is already linked from here. The anthropological explanation involving security to person and property in the absence of a neutral third party devoted to law enforcement should definitely remain. Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
someone would be willing to contrast Cheneydo with Bushido in the article focused on how those outside the law (above, below - whatever) manage their affairs; otherwise do not merge. -- Metarhyme 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article only talk abotu insults? I always thought that honor had more to do with keeping to your word. Or behaving honorably to others, like not stealing from a sleeping person, not cheating someone, etc. 67.165.96.26 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I notice that in this article there is a lot of activity about spelling that could be better channeled into the subject itself. You may be interested in this proposal to put an end to the problem. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The article at the present time is titled Honour and is unlikely to change, given the above vote. Is there a consensus then to change all instances of Honor within the article (except for the American English definition) to Honour? I don't mind if either is the standard, however, one of them should be within the article. čĥàñľōŕď 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Article seems to make the claim that most honour killings are directed at females. From what I have heard it is the other way round but those against woman gain more press. Though it is possible that the vast majority of male deaths falls into a different subclass of murder. Any way citation is needed.
is that British usage? Am. Engl. "values". As for one not tolerating insults in old Japan, see the "Hagakure". Taibaka, 26-5-06.
Re. an international standard in English, there is no international body that determines which spelling or usage is standard. There is British English, American English, and a number of regional Englishes. The British Empire dominated more areas, more colonies, and therefore British usage is the norm. right. This attitude is reflected when a Brit "corrects" an American's pronunciation of a common word. 27-5-06
I've seen this pop up several times around the page, and just want to point out that it's patently false. More countries spell it "honour," but the English-speaking population of the US is about equal to that of those countries combined. Even in India, the only English-speaking nation larger than the US, most people don't speak it very well. Twin Bird 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as possible original research. It mostly seems to me to consist of a hotchpotch of miscelaneous informtion, including some very contentious material, with almost no referencing. Come to think of it, I'm going to add a cleanup tag too. mg e kelly 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed from the article as cruft:
The Spanish concept of honra is explored in several works of the Spanish Golden Century. Some of the themes are whether peasants could have honour or it is limited to nobility. It is also linked to purity of blood: to be a New Christian (a Morisco or Jewish Converso) is very dishonorous. For nobles, even lowly hidalgos, one could lose honour by engaging in manual work, as the miserly Squire in Lazarillo de Tormes shows. An exception was the universal gentry claimed for the general population of Biscay.
As has been the convention time and again, and indeed this is from another page:
"When the subject of an article is not obviously linked to one English-speaking nation, the usual Wikipedia convention is to follow the choice of the first editor." [1]
The earliest usage was of "honor," back to which it has been changed, save specific literary references and examples. Stop reverting it to the railroaded "honour" that occurred over a small period of time in December of 2003. 67.185.99.246 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have to vote on this again when it has already been decided not to move it at least twice before - see [ [4]]. All you are doing is wasting everybody's time with this again. Jooler 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just removed this section, as it doesn't belong in this article. It should probably have its own article or be merged into some other article. In the former case a disambiguation should be created. The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the true breakdown of the word, but it was used by Shakespeare, and if the first part of the word is referencing the definition as we know it and not something else, wouldn't an unorthodox spelling seem noteworthy? On that note, the "international" spellings might be getting out of hand, as one page referenced the season of winter as "wintour", which is not and has never been a historical spelling. It seems like some people think adding "u" after every "o" is a way to "internationalize" the spelling. My general guideline is whether the specific example spells the word with or without the "u". For example, The Beatles received the honour of..., and The Ramones were honored by...I'm not sure if this is acceptable by Wiki guidelines. Back on topic though: is word noteworthy, as it possibly provides a spelling alteration over 400 years ago? Zchris87v 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The word 'Honorificabilitudinitatibus' is not an English word, but a faux Latin word. The reason it is spelt with a 'u' is because it has entered English via the French word 'honneur.' The Latin origin of the word 'honour' doesn't contain a 'u' which is why it has been adapted in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.199.58 ( talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone in favour of merging this with pride? I think they're dissimilar enough to warrant separate articles. Larklight ( talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Pride and Honour are quite different! Yes, they overlap at some points, but so does a roof an its supporting walls! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
210.9.142.253 (
talk)
03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous edit removed a paragraph, which I was just going to replace, but I notice it was entirely uncited, so I'm just posting here, in case someone wants to do some kind of follow-up. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Lost, Aberdeenshire in the See Also section? Did I miss something? -- PokeYourHeadOff ( talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a section on the role of honour in culture (medieval, Japanese etc.) might be interesting. Tomasz W. Kozłowski ( talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I used to think the Japanese were obsessed with honor during her imperial days. Lucas Duke ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume Honour came into English post-1066 and from the French (rather than latin, hence the spelling), yet this isn't stated in the article at all. It also makes the English spelling seem inferior due to the Latin spelling being stated as the only root of the word. -- Kurtle ( talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not true that the word was first used in the sense of lands which gave honour: the word derives from "Latin honōr-em repute, esteem, official dignity, honorary gift, ornament, grace, beauty." (OED). On the stated origin of "on my honour", I am rather dubious since it is not supported by the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives first examples in late 15th C. and those seem to be in modern meaning.
Can I ask whoever added this to check their sources and the OED and consider revision, or alternatively to give fuller sources. Aardwolf ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the "Karate Kid, Part II" paragraph really, really, lacks enough relevance to be in this article? 121.217.103.248 ( talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The main picture for honor is the American politicians Hamilton and Burr dueling, yet you use the spelling honour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well change it back to its original form! To check majority preference - do a Google search of honor and honour and you will see a very clear preference of more than 10 to 1 for honor!
Let me explain why its Honour. Its the English language (English language, England - give you any clues?) Therefore the American regional variation of the English language comes second so English proper on a site such as Wikipedia because it is just that, a variation of the English language, a language which originated, developed and continues to do so in England. 79.76.216.80 ( talk) 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.77 ( talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Know how this can be solved? Title the article "Honor/Honour". Bam, problem solved. Moving on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.191.2 ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
But then the Brits couldn't lord it over the Americans. And here at Wiki, that is job number one. Jersey John ( talk) 08:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are some of the Americans on here so vitriolic? Honour is probably used because it reflects the tradition the word conveys; and since honour is a concept that is hundreds of years old it would be more appropriate to use the British spelling.
You can have your honour if we can have our airplane. 184.3.250.15 ( talk) 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Found on a redirect talked and moved here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This article focuses on a very small subsection of what can be called honor: namely, aspects having to do with revenge and retribution of insult or injury. I think it misses the main concept... which more along the lines of (from Oxford American Dict):
Adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct
Of course, it depends on what your particular standard of conduct is, but traditional honor relates to all areas of life and relationships. For example, paying back money you owe, how to treat your elders, refraining from taking advantage of someone who's in an inferior or vulnerable position (ie. child/employee), giving up a great job to stay home with an ailing family member, etc., etc.
The article seems to imply that honor and rule of law are at odds with each other, and this would indeed be the case if honor was only concerned with revenge. But using the broader, more correct use of the word, it is clear to me that a code of honor simply takes over where the law leaves off. You can't make laws saying that you have to help the old lady across the street. But honor may dictate that action.
Also, an act out of honor is usually NOT done out of selfishness; the article seems to equate honor with a lack of self-control. But it's really the opposite: an act of honor almost always has an element of self-sacrifice. You may lose you a business opportunity or be inconvenienced or even have to allow your reputation to be tarnished in the public eye. In short, honor means doing what's "right", and the article, as it stands, doesn't adequately address this concept.
I came here from Family honor to check how the essential word was dealt with. I found the lead sentence inadequate and a subsequent sentence meaningless, so I went looking into the History to discover why.
What I found was that back in 2066 the article had a perfectly good introductory sentence. It said: Honour or honor (see spelling differences) comprises the reputation, self-perception, or moral identity of an individual or of a group.
So in October of 2006, Esperant thunders into the article, discovers that there is a definition by Doctor Samuel Johnson that is quoted a little further down, and (presumable with all the best intentions) simply deletes the lead sentence, taking the article back to 1755 as if no further thought had been given to the subject. One can only presume that Esperant thought Dr Johnson was a current editor of the OED.
Someone eventually wrote a new introductory sentence, but not nearly as good as the original.
This definition is inadequate on three counts.
So I have just rewritten the first sentence to be much closer to the way it was back before the inappropriate deletion.
Amandajm ( talk) 01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"From the point of moral relativism, honour is perceived as arising from universal concerns for material circumstance and status, rather than fundamental differences in principle between those who hold different honour codes."
I don't follow this; perhaps the original author of this sentence can help. Should the grammatical subject be no honour, but /differences between different individuals' or societies' perceptions of what constitutes honour/? This would explain the "rather..." clause, which otherwise doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.154.207 ( talk) 23:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Just keep the proper spelling, please. 149.172.237.0 ( talk) 09:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do we use the British spelling honour and not the American spelling honour. I would presume many more Americans use wikipedia than non-Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwood89 ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Cultures of honour and cultures of law", the article mentions a concept, "habitus", written about by a French author that is worth reading but offers no link to even an article stub. I believe this article would be improved by even a brief definition stub article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.223.122 ( talk) 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Help me I/'m drunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.34.192 ( talk) 03:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The spelling "honour" belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language pattern, which honors a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and, in a different way than in the land-abundant nations, to the materialistic.
The democratic nations have a higher concept of honor which is not undermined by the oligarchic nations concept of honor, which is flexed with indicated spelling which is stylistic in the local pattern of Received English and therefore gives loan to European English and the European ideas of government, which do not give sufficient bodily form to the anti-oligarchic principle. - Stevertigo ( t | c, ed. 2002) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thou shalt honour thy mother and father. Thou shalt honour thy father and mother. KJV bible of 10 commandments 124.106.129.113 ( talk) 08:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have a part about honour in different cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.71.208 ( talk) 18:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Honour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:His Holiness which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone should move the quotes to wikiquote, I would but I don't know how.
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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.218 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, January 25, 2003 (UTC).
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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.16.2 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, December 23, 2003 (UTC).
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:
66.32.79.137 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I have remmoved the following words from the introductory sentence:
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)
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
Please see the decision section below instead of voting
It seems that some people do not honour the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English
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
Give me a break !!!! -- 84.153.21.247 20:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold
Edit history
Commonwealth spelling is always used in international organisations. -- 203.217.43.161 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
After 6 days the decision has been taken to retain the current title. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
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)
OK, there is a perfect page
Honor student, so I fixed the link by changing from
gifted education.--
143.88.201.212
17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone proposes merging "Changes in Honour" into the section of this article that talks about cultures of honour and cultures of law.
I would not approve of this merger if it means any replacement of the current text. The current text speaking about these matters is referenced to Montesquieu and Steven Pinker, and relatively neutral; the "changes" text is strongly Eurocentric, and speaks of the cultural benefits brought to European nobility by the concept of honour. The "changes" text would be more at home in chivalry anyways, which is already linked from here. The anthropological explanation involving security to person and property in the absence of a neutral third party devoted to law enforcement should definitely remain. Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
someone would be willing to contrast Cheneydo with Bushido in the article focused on how those outside the law (above, below - whatever) manage their affairs; otherwise do not merge. -- Metarhyme 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article only talk abotu insults? I always thought that honor had more to do with keeping to your word. Or behaving honorably to others, like not stealing from a sleeping person, not cheating someone, etc. 67.165.96.26 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I notice that in this article there is a lot of activity about spelling that could be better channeled into the subject itself. You may be interested in this proposal to put an end to the problem. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The article at the present time is titled Honour and is unlikely to change, given the above vote. Is there a consensus then to change all instances of Honor within the article (except for the American English definition) to Honour? I don't mind if either is the standard, however, one of them should be within the article. čĥàñľōŕď 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Article seems to make the claim that most honour killings are directed at females. From what I have heard it is the other way round but those against woman gain more press. Though it is possible that the vast majority of male deaths falls into a different subclass of murder. Any way citation is needed.
is that British usage? Am. Engl. "values". As for one not tolerating insults in old Japan, see the "Hagakure". Taibaka, 26-5-06.
Re. an international standard in English, there is no international body that determines which spelling or usage is standard. There is British English, American English, and a number of regional Englishes. The British Empire dominated more areas, more colonies, and therefore British usage is the norm. right. This attitude is reflected when a Brit "corrects" an American's pronunciation of a common word. 27-5-06
I've seen this pop up several times around the page, and just want to point out that it's patently false. More countries spell it "honour," but the English-speaking population of the US is about equal to that of those countries combined. Even in India, the only English-speaking nation larger than the US, most people don't speak it very well. Twin Bird 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as possible original research. It mostly seems to me to consist of a hotchpotch of miscelaneous informtion, including some very contentious material, with almost no referencing. Come to think of it, I'm going to add a cleanup tag too. mg e kelly 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The following was removed from the article as cruft:
The Spanish concept of honra is explored in several works of the Spanish Golden Century. Some of the themes are whether peasants could have honour or it is limited to nobility. It is also linked to purity of blood: to be a New Christian (a Morisco or Jewish Converso) is very dishonorous. For nobles, even lowly hidalgos, one could lose honour by engaging in manual work, as the miserly Squire in Lazarillo de Tormes shows. An exception was the universal gentry claimed for the general population of Biscay.
As has been the convention time and again, and indeed this is from another page:
"When the subject of an article is not obviously linked to one English-speaking nation, the usual Wikipedia convention is to follow the choice of the first editor." [1]
The earliest usage was of "honor," back to which it has been changed, save specific literary references and examples. Stop reverting it to the railroaded "honour" that occurred over a small period of time in December of 2003. 67.185.99.246 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do we have to vote on this again when it has already been decided not to move it at least twice before - see [ [4]]. All you are doing is wasting everybody's time with this again. Jooler 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just removed this section, as it doesn't belong in this article. It should probably have its own article or be merged into some other article. In the former case a disambiguation should be created. The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the true breakdown of the word, but it was used by Shakespeare, and if the first part of the word is referencing the definition as we know it and not something else, wouldn't an unorthodox spelling seem noteworthy? On that note, the "international" spellings might be getting out of hand, as one page referenced the season of winter as "wintour", which is not and has never been a historical spelling. It seems like some people think adding "u" after every "o" is a way to "internationalize" the spelling. My general guideline is whether the specific example spells the word with or without the "u". For example, The Beatles received the honour of..., and The Ramones were honored by...I'm not sure if this is acceptable by Wiki guidelines. Back on topic though: is word noteworthy, as it possibly provides a spelling alteration over 400 years ago? Zchris87v 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The word 'Honorificabilitudinitatibus' is not an English word, but a faux Latin word. The reason it is spelt with a 'u' is because it has entered English via the French word 'honneur.' The Latin origin of the word 'honour' doesn't contain a 'u' which is why it has been adapted in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.199.58 ( talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone in favour of merging this with pride? I think they're dissimilar enough to warrant separate articles. Larklight ( talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Pride and Honour are quite different! Yes, they overlap at some points, but so does a roof an its supporting walls! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
210.9.142.253 (
talk)
03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous edit removed a paragraph, which I was just going to replace, but I notice it was entirely uncited, so I'm just posting here, in case someone wants to do some kind of follow-up. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is Lost, Aberdeenshire in the See Also section? Did I miss something? -- PokeYourHeadOff ( talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a section on the role of honour in culture (medieval, Japanese etc.) might be interesting. Tomasz W. Kozłowski ( talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I used to think the Japanese were obsessed with honor during her imperial days. Lucas Duke ( talk) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I assume Honour came into English post-1066 and from the French (rather than latin, hence the spelling), yet this isn't stated in the article at all. It also makes the English spelling seem inferior due to the Latin spelling being stated as the only root of the word. -- Kurtle ( talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not true that the word was first used in the sense of lands which gave honour: the word derives from "Latin honōr-em repute, esteem, official dignity, honorary gift, ornament, grace, beauty." (OED). On the stated origin of "on my honour", I am rather dubious since it is not supported by the Oxford English Dictionary. It gives first examples in late 15th C. and those seem to be in modern meaning.
Can I ask whoever added this to check their sources and the OED and consider revision, or alternatively to give fuller sources. Aardwolf ( talk) 21:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that the "Karate Kid, Part II" paragraph really, really, lacks enough relevance to be in this article? 121.217.103.248 ( talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The main picture for honor is the American politicians Hamilton and Burr dueling, yet you use the spelling honour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 ( talk) 23:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well change it back to its original form! To check majority preference - do a Google search of honor and honour and you will see a very clear preference of more than 10 to 1 for honor!
Let me explain why its Honour. Its the English language (English language, England - give you any clues?) Therefore the American regional variation of the English language comes second so English proper on a site such as Wikipedia because it is just that, a variation of the English language, a language which originated, developed and continues to do so in England. 79.76.216.80 ( talk) 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.77 ( talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Know how this can be solved? Title the article "Honor/Honour". Bam, problem solved. Moving on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.191.2 ( talk) 17:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
But then the Brits couldn't lord it over the Americans. And here at Wiki, that is job number one. Jersey John ( talk) 08:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are some of the Americans on here so vitriolic? Honour is probably used because it reflects the tradition the word conveys; and since honour is a concept that is hundreds of years old it would be more appropriate to use the British spelling.
You can have your honour if we can have our airplane. 184.3.250.15 ( talk) 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Found on a redirect talked and moved here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This article focuses on a very small subsection of what can be called honor: namely, aspects having to do with revenge and retribution of insult or injury. I think it misses the main concept... which more along the lines of (from Oxford American Dict):
Adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct
Of course, it depends on what your particular standard of conduct is, but traditional honor relates to all areas of life and relationships. For example, paying back money you owe, how to treat your elders, refraining from taking advantage of someone who's in an inferior or vulnerable position (ie. child/employee), giving up a great job to stay home with an ailing family member, etc., etc.
The article seems to imply that honor and rule of law are at odds with each other, and this would indeed be the case if honor was only concerned with revenge. But using the broader, more correct use of the word, it is clear to me that a code of honor simply takes over where the law leaves off. You can't make laws saying that you have to help the old lady across the street. But honor may dictate that action.
Also, an act out of honor is usually NOT done out of selfishness; the article seems to equate honor with a lack of self-control. But it's really the opposite: an act of honor almost always has an element of self-sacrifice. You may lose you a business opportunity or be inconvenienced or even have to allow your reputation to be tarnished in the public eye. In short, honor means doing what's "right", and the article, as it stands, doesn't adequately address this concept.
I came here from Family honor to check how the essential word was dealt with. I found the lead sentence inadequate and a subsequent sentence meaningless, so I went looking into the History to discover why.
What I found was that back in 2066 the article had a perfectly good introductory sentence. It said: Honour or honor (see spelling differences) comprises the reputation, self-perception, or moral identity of an individual or of a group.
So in October of 2006, Esperant thunders into the article, discovers that there is a definition by Doctor Samuel Johnson that is quoted a little further down, and (presumable with all the best intentions) simply deletes the lead sentence, taking the article back to 1755 as if no further thought had been given to the subject. One can only presume that Esperant thought Dr Johnson was a current editor of the OED.
Someone eventually wrote a new introductory sentence, but not nearly as good as the original.
This definition is inadequate on three counts.
So I have just rewritten the first sentence to be much closer to the way it was back before the inappropriate deletion.
Amandajm ( talk) 01:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
"From the point of moral relativism, honour is perceived as arising from universal concerns for material circumstance and status, rather than fundamental differences in principle between those who hold different honour codes."
I don't follow this; perhaps the original author of this sentence can help. Should the grammatical subject be no honour, but /differences between different individuals' or societies' perceptions of what constitutes honour/? This would explain the "rather..." clause, which otherwise doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.154.207 ( talk) 23:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Just keep the proper spelling, please. 149.172.237.0 ( talk) 09:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do we use the British spelling honour and not the American spelling honour. I would presume many more Americans use wikipedia than non-Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwood89 ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Cultures of honour and cultures of law", the article mentions a concept, "habitus", written about by a French author that is worth reading but offers no link to even an article stub. I believe this article would be improved by even a brief definition stub article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.156.223.122 ( talk) 12:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Help me I/'m drunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.34.192 ( talk) 03:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The spelling "honour" belongs to the domain of language regulated by a particular government, and is therefore not a part of the Common Anglish/English/Ynglish language pattern, which honors a greater body of people and a greater vision of government, to which the word "honor" is bound to greater ownership of the altruistic, sacrifice for the greater body of people, for the higher then the highest principle, and to the providential and not merely the prosperous. In the context of auto- olig- and mono- archic governments, the term is also loaned to the honor-ific, to the stylistic, and, in a different way than in the land-abundant nations, to the materialistic.
The democratic nations have a higher concept of honor which is not undermined by the oligarchic nations concept of honor, which is flexed with indicated spelling which is stylistic in the local pattern of Received English and therefore gives loan to European English and the European ideas of government, which do not give sufficient bodily form to the anti-oligarchic principle. - Stevertigo ( t | c, ed. 2002) 17:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thou shalt honour thy mother and father. Thou shalt honour thy father and mother. KJV bible of 10 commandments 124.106.129.113 ( talk) 08:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have a part about honour in different cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.71.208 ( talk) 18:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Honour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:His Holiness which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)