This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Associated Press recently updated its style guide so that "Black" as in " Black people" should now be capitalized. [1] Should we apply those same changes to our MoS? Should similar racial terms, such as " White" be capitalized as well? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to wait. Capital B has already become the standard at a number of media organizations and publishers, AP is a bit late to the game and it is already commonly used in Wikipedia article - there is just a lack of consistency that needs to be rectified. Capitalizing "W" in white is non-standard as the usage is different, Black people are a self-identified (and externally identified) ethnic group or people. White people remain more likely to identify themselves either as European or by a particular ethnicity eg English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh (or British), French, German, Italian, Russian etc. This may change and if "White" becomes more widespread we may need to revisit that. See for instance this explanation from the Columbia Journalism Review: "we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists." 104.247.241.28 ( talk) 13:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what AP does. What matters is what the majority of RSs do. MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization ... only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The NYT now uppercases "Black". More detail on that decision and the request by the immediate past president of the National Association of Black Journalists:
courtesy collapsed
|
---|
|
I think it'd be worth making this a formal RfC now. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 01:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, NYT publishes (on a very slow cycle) its own style guide, which is widely divergent from others even in journalism, and has little effect on writing outside their own newsroom. While NYT is not quite as stylistically aberrant on so many things as The New Yorker (which says it gets more mail from readers about one of these quibbles than about any other subject!), it's still on that side of the fence; like The Economist and a few other publishers, they intentionally diverge from mainstream publishing norms as a means of branding/distinction. Not a single thing in MoS is based on NYT style, and MoS does not jump onto any style-shift bandwagons until they become norms reflected in the majority of the style guides that MoS is actually based on (Chicago, Hart's, Scientific Style and Format, Fowler's and Garner's), which is generally a 5–10 year shift cycle. This is why, e.g., WP was slow to adopt singular they vs. awkwardness like he/she or treating he as generic, a preference for US over U.S., and dropping the comma before Jr. or Sr. in a name, despite them already having become more common than the alternatives in mainstream writing.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Notes
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
We have multiple newspapers of record telling us that the move to capitalize Black alone is political and polarized, and that these publications are doing it explicitly as socio-political messaging [10] [11]). BLM editorials using "Black" but "white" drive this activism connection home clearly [12] [13] (and I say that as a huge fan of McWhorter as a linguist, BTW). Capitalizing both has long (my entire life and then some) been standard practice at many publications already. If Black and White are good enough for CNN [14] [15], the U.S. Census Bureau [16], APA style (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, one of the most-used academic style guides in the world, and influential on MoS) [17], among many others, then they're good enough for Wikipedia. While, yes, various publishers went the other direction and down-cased both (e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]), many are now reversing this decision (entirely or – often with dubious and subjective rationalizations [23] – in a reactive and politicized half-measures way). It simply is not acceptable to capitalize one but not the other here, for neutrality reasons, regardless what some publishers (who have paying audiences and advertisers to appease) choose to do, and I do not believe that anyone in this discussion doesn't actually understand that. Some are just seeking to skirt it to further their socio-political viewpoint. It's one I share, but we all know better than to do that on Wikipedia.
I have always favored capitalization when these words are used in this broadly conglomerating/generalizing ethno-racial sense, because it is jarring and likely offensive to have something like "The organization's Asian, black, Caucasian, and Hispanic advisory board members all agreed with the policy change", down-casing one category as if denigrating them. Used in this way, "Black" and "White" should be capitalized also because they are serving as stand-in names for (not literal descriptions of) human ethno-racial categorizations, and are thus acting in proper-name capacity, by definition. Just because "Black" is an imposed (and arguably originally derogatory) exonym is irrelevant; we don't write "navajo" with a lower-case n just because that's an exonym for the Dineh people. When "Brown" is used this way, it should also be capitalized; however, it is slangish and has nowhere near the penetration into mainstream, formal writing as "Black" and "White", so WP should probably not be using it except in quoted material. If we don't capitalize these terms, we also have a consistency problem with very similar but more specific ethnic names, like Coloured, a particular mixed-ethnicity group in South Africa, about whom that term is always capitalized (and always with a u).
None of these terms should be capitalized when not used in this ethnic manner: "My Hispanic half-sister is more brown that me." "Albinistic people can look very pale white in some light, but are actually rather pinkish because their lack of pigmentation makes their skin a bit translucent." "The mole on my back is virtually pitch black." Just because it has something to do with coloration and skin at all doesn't make it an ethnic label and thus doesn't make it a proper name.
Terms like "indigenous", "aboriginal", and "native" should only be capitalized when they are used in the same manner, as a name for, not just a description of, a specific group. Thus, people from the native populations of Australia are referred to as "Aboriginals", "Aboriginal Australians", or (decreasingly) "Aborigines"; it's effectively their official collective name. But it's lower-case a [or i or n] in "There are several different languages families among the aboriginal [or indigenous or native] peoples of the Americas." Other examples that have become proper names are Native Americans, and
First Nations.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC); revised: 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC); 2nd choice added: 03:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some overly detailed back-and-forth:
|
---|
|
[I]t can be overridden (like anything in these guidelines) by additional encyclopedic concerns like grammatical function– isn't this exactly why sources like the AP are arguing for the capital "B" in "Black"? As the AP's vice president for standards says, "The lowercase black is a color, not a person ... These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American". [30] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Digression about the Bible, NYT, and movement names:
|
---|
|
Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.Plenty of RSs do not capitalise black so we should continue to default to lowercase. From a writing perspective, I think capitalising black and white is pretty senseless; these terms do not derive from proper nouns (unlike, for example, Asia - > Asian). I think the choice to capitalise is made more on political grounds than matters of logic or clarity. That's not to say that politics isn't a good reason to change how we write things, but to me this simply feels sanctimonious. (I hope I'm not on the wrong side of history there; it will be interesting to see if this trend survives the language's general trend away from capitalising.) Popcornfud ( talk) 16:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
NABJ also recommends that whenever a color is used to appropriately describe race then it should be capitalized, such as Black community, Brown community, White community.I'm not so sure that this is a U.S.-only thing, either: for example Négritude has been fairly frequently capitalized in English going back almost a hundred years, according to the Wiktionary talk page discussion. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If you look more deeply into this "only Black" thing, it's an activism-originated and now, to a limited extent, news-writing shift. As the latter, it is largely driven by three (American) journalism forces: AP Stylebook (which many US – but not other – newspapers follow without variance), USA Today (the "least common denominator" US paper, barely more reliable than a tabloid, and rarely divergent from any AP choices), and NYT, which publishes its own (often weird) style guide, but has the same target audience and advertisers as most US papers, and so follows AP on almost all politicized choices. LA Times is in exactly the same boat as NYT (other than their style guide hasn't seen a new edition in print for a very long time).
The idea is not finding much support among book publishers, journal publishers, and others so far, nor among conservative-leaning news publishers, nor among centrist and even center-left news publishers who think carefully about style rather than just apply AP as a house rule. We know that the mainstream news media in the US (and most of the West) leans heavily leftward, and that it goes out of its way to avoid offending the sensibilities of the left (much more so than it does for the right); their attempts to appease advertisers (the actual primary source of their income) also play heavily into decisions like this. That is, as sources on what do on a heavily socio-politicized style question, they are twice-over not WP:INDY of the subject, but have direct fiduciary rationales for their preferences. Some of them resist it anyway. One example is The Atlantic (which is centrist or slightly left, depending on your definitions); see their editorial (written by a Black professor at NYU, though of Ghanaian-British, not African-American, background) on why it should be Black but also White too [50]. Unsurprisingly, his rationales are consistent with those raised in this discussion already. Reliable sources like Washington Examiner tell us clearly that this shift (for now) among some news organizations is political, and show that it is based on extremely dubious assertions.
To just pick one, let's start with this doozy from Columbia Journalism Review (which also generally follow's AP's lead): "Black is an ethnic designation; white merely describes the skin color of people who can, usually without much difficulty, trace their ethnic origins back to a handful of European countries". That's just nonsensical in multiple ways, and no cultural anthropologist or ethnologist who wasn't a kook would agree with this assessment. Let's just hit the high points quickly: Ethnicities, cultures, and subcultures are not determined by genealogical accuracy; they are mutable processes of collective acculturation. White does not describe skin color; it's a hand-wavy metaphor, exactly like other ethnic "color terms", including Black, and none of us are literally white or black, we're all part of a range of very pale tan to very dark brown. These terms are likely doomed within a few generations anyway, right along with Red and Yellow. Most White Americans are not from any particular European genetic or cultural background, but are a mishmash of a bunch of them (and often some non-European, too). The areas (mostly West African) from which most African ancestors were brought to the Americas are in fact well-known. This "ease of European-American genealogy" hypothesis a dead distinction now if it ever was one, because genetic tests, for about 20+ years now, can determine exactly where your ancestors came from, including in Africa. It's also meaningless because White and Black modern Americans generally have no direct social or experiential connection to "the old country/countries", unless of recent-immigrant stock (which would also apply to recent African immigrants), or unless they are "background aficionados" (and there are Black ones, too, especially since Alex Haley and others have spurred African Americans from the 1970s onward to investigate their own African ethno-cultural and now genetic backgrounds in detail). Moreover, it's especially meaningless because the dominant White American culture has mostly erased the lines between different European-descended groups in this country (while there are still anti-Semities, most Ashkenazi Jews in the US are part of "White", and there is virtually nothing left of the formerly common discrimination against certain European sub-ethnicities in the US, including Irish, Cornish, and Italian Americans). So, the main reason CJR argues that Black refers to a modern distinct meta-ethnicity in its own right actually has also applied to White in this country since around the late 19th century.
Next, no sociologist or other kind of social scientist who was not a kook would buy CJR's premise either, for two super-obvious reasons: 1) Most clearly of all, it simply would not be possible for the US to be dominated by a White American group with categorical White privilege, White dialect patterns in their English usage, and White voting, investing, consuming, music-preference, etc., patterns that are clearly identifiable, and so on, if White American, from the late 19th c. onward, were not an "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" in the over-broad sense that Black American or African American is. Indeed, arguing otherwise is basically socio-politically dangerous, as it provides "subconscious White supremacists" an obvious out: "I'm not White, and there is no White privilege, and I'm tired of being called 'White' and blamed for your problems. I'm Irish-Italian-Dutch, and about 2/3 of my own ancestors were discriminated against. So quit whining and just work harder. TANSTAAFL!" I've already occasionally encountered arguments like this my entire life, and they are now more common than ever. But this observation by me may itself be a soapboxy, political point (since it's anti-racialist and is critical of "white grievance" posturing and excuse-making).
2) European sub-ethnicities like Scottish and Montenegrin and Swedish are not used in the US as classifiers, by the government, by cops, by universities, by financial institutions, or by any other social force that matters, any more than they ask African Americans if they are of Eritrean or Kenyan stock in particular (but note that Asians often are asked to be more specific). It's just a White/Caucasian/European catch-all check box, like African. "African" itself is an over-generalization, since there are Afro-Asiatic (Semitic and Berber) and Turkic peoples also native since antiquity to North Africa, and most of the population of Madagascar is of Maritime Southeast Asian heritage). What our sociological categorizers are really asking is whether someone is of Sub-Saharan African ethnic background (though that, too, is not actually an ethnicity under most definitions; there's more genetic diversity between neighboring groups of Africans than between the Germans and the Okinawans). These sociological "ethnic" grouping classifiers like "White" and "Black" and "Asian" are based not on genetics or culture but geopolitics and its arbitrary labeling. Virtually nothing ever asks if someone is Turkic, for example. If you're a Turkish American, you're expected to identify as white; if your Turkic family background is from a bit more easterly (e.g. Azerbaijani or Turkmeni), you'll end up classified as Middle-Eastern, and if from further east (Uyghur, Kyrgyz) as Asian – which is not any kind of ethnic group at all, but a geographic origin label. At least most of these checkbox lists now split Asian up into subcategories that make a bit more sense (various Indic peoples are more closely related to Europeans, as are most Turkic and Semitic ones, than to East Asians, and Southeast Asians intergrade with Pacific Islanders all the way down to New Guinea and New Zealand).
The key take-way here is that if anything like the CJR rationale is actually a major factor in some news organizations' and activism organizations' rationales for "Black but white and brown" (and it certainly seems to be, in one wording or another, in most of the "why we're only capitalizing Black" statements I've read), it is patently pseudoscientific on many points, historically inaccurate, based on gross misunderstandings of ethnicity and culture and social forces, and just flat-out counterfactual and irrational nonsense in many places. We have a term for this:
WP:FRINGE. Hell, not even all far-left Americans agree this is a good idea, since many were long working on getting publications to write Black, Brown, and White and were already meeting with growing success. So, this is a fringe of a fringe, an internecine faction fight amongst progressives. The way to deal (off-WP or onsite) with a tedious
false equivalence like "White and Black Americans are the same, they're just ethnical groupings", which ignores centuries of differential justice and economics along racialized lines, is not to erect a farcical fantasy argument based itself on a whole slew of other false equivalences, irrelevancies, confusion of labels with what they label, and patently false claims. It's to be honest and rational and treat everyone with respect when it comes to labeling/classification. PS: for anyone unclear on why ethnicity and race and ancestry and heritage are themselves hard to even understand and talk about, as if we all mean different things by them sometimes, it's because we do. See
WP:Race and ethnicity for a run-down on this, which also includes some historical background on what makes the Black experience in America so different and why the US is unusually fraught with racialism, racism, and related strife. Most importantly, it covers why not to bring that socio-political baggage with you when editing Wikipedia. See also
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and, of course,
WP:NPOV.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
right-of-center...centrist [or] center-leftsources is beside the point. We don't have political litmus tests for reliability. The only relevant standard per MOS:CAPS is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.The notion that this is WP:CIRCULAR sourcing makes no sense. There's no evidence that the AP and others are following Wikipedia, since WP does not now generally capitalize "Black" in an ethnic or racial sense. Accounting for English usage in
Canada or the UK or various other placesseems like an argument for applying the change to US-related subjects only, per MOS:TIES. (It also puts the lie to the notion that this is a left-wing issue; in the UK or Europe the New York Times would be considered centrist or even center-right.)The most persuasive argument here against the proposal is that it is
not finding much support among book publishers [and] journal publishers. There's no need to muddy the waters with a lot of speculation about sources' reasoning or motives. The idea that the Associated Press and The New York Times, among others, have a financial or legal relationship to the topic of capitalizing/lowercasing "Black" is quite a stretch, and would appliy equally to conservative publications, who also have
fiduciary rationalesfor resisting the change (the idea that the Washington Examiner is particularly reliable is also new to me). In fact, the most prominent conservative news outlet, Fox News, is adopting the change as well, while also capitalizing "White" and "Brown". [51] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC) edited 20:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC))
Black and White anyway without being overridden by later editors? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@
SMcCandlish: I read the news every day, and I have never seen "White" (unless combined with a proper noun) and I seldom see "Black", and only in relation to America (that is, the US). All, or almost all, the examples quoted "South[ern[ers]]", "North[ern[ers]]", "Colored[s]", "Negro[es]", "Republicans", "Democrats", "Southern Democrats", "African Americans", "European Americans", "Baptists", "Union[ists]", "Confedera[cy
are again American-only terms. North and South are capitalized because they have specific meanings in the US context which is different from non-American, non-capitalized usages, and as a result the demonyms relating to these social groups are likewise capitalized. Ditto for words flowing from the geographical proper nouns "Africa", "Americas", and "Europe", those relating to political or religious persuasions like Baptism (note the need to distinguish from "baptism" and "baptists") and "Democrats" (note again distinction between supporters of "Democratic Party" and "democracy") and those relating to various nationalities and ethnicities like, say: "
Red Ruthenians" or "
White Huns" (note again not "Huns that are white"). "Republicans" (a meaningless political label no different from "Team Red") has a different meaning to "republicans", and the argument that because an adjective refers to a group of people it should be capitalized is not valid, or else anyone supporting the constitutional situation described by the term "republic" could be described as "Republican", which is obviously not the case. "Colored" (in US contexts) and "Coloured" (in South African contexts, like the
Cape Coloureds) were/are defined political-official categories foremost, with meanings specific to their capitalized forms which are different to their non-capitalized forms. (In contexts of historical segregationist societies like these, capitalization of the three segregated groups (viz. whites, coloreds, and coloureds) There really isn't any reason to dignify sweeping generalizations based on skin colour with the status of proper nouns; this is exactly the kind of pigeonholing and emphasis on basically trivial characteristics that one should seek to avoid. There are undoubtedly contexts where capitalizing is appropriate, ("Black hair" is different to "black hair") but I am strongly opposed to enforcing the promotion of what should be an adjectival description into a proper noun label across the project. (Risking whataboutism here but) would the same rationale extend to the forms "Disabled" or "Women"? The capitalization introduces the potential for unwelcome "Othering" and in the text gives undue visual weight to what should be ordinary descriptive words, in my view.
GPinkerton (
talk) 19:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not making any more complicated an argument than that. (And I would support "black and white" as second choice; just not "Black but white".) There's a convention in English to capitalize ethnic names/labels. There is absolutely not such a convention with regard to genders, or to ability/disability classes, so a comparison to those is a reductio ad absurdum. Coloured in the African context is conventionally capitalized, while Negro mostly was when it was current, though usage varied more for the American sense of Colored (which has a very different meaning from the African term), but capitalization of that was also very common. The fact that some of them have US-specific meanings isn't germane; Aboriginal has a special meaning in Australia (also an ethno-racial label), and it is capitalized. There are other such examples, and they're consistent. The only inconsistencies in the pattern are black and white. If you don't think Black and White (along with Hispanic/Latino, Native American, etc.) aren't "defined political-official categories" in the US then you must not live there. These labels are used for official purposes in many ways (census categories, minority grant and scholarship availability, etc.). Similar things seem to apply in various other places, though with different nuances (I'm told the UK tends to be more specific, and distinguishes often between people of Caribbean vs. direct-African descent, but they also definitely do use Black a lot.) If "There are undoubtedly contexts where capitalizing is appropriate", then it should just be capitalized, the end, per MOS:ARTCON and MOS:SIGCAPS.
This isn't about "dignifying" racialism; hell, I wrote
WP:Race and ethnicity. It's about the function of the words in the sentence, and the problem of not capitalizing those two when all other such terms are. It becomes a PoV problem in and of itself, from the readers' perspective, regardless of editorial intent. The argument I sometimes see along the lines of "but I don't wanna capitalize in White supremacy" is absurd. We capitalize in neo-Nazi, etc. The problem would be in writing White Supremacy and Neo-Nazi, turning the entire phrases into "proper names" (against
MOS:DOCTCAPS, regardless of topic) rather than just capitalizing the proper names within those phrases. In an ideal world, Black and White would get "retired" just like lots of old ethno-racial labels (Orientals, the Red Man, etc.). But it has not happened yet, and we have to write for the real-world readership. This is a "WP is not for language-change activism" matter both coming and going; neologistic practice is one extreme of it, and hyper-traditionalist no-caps-for-either resistance is the other.
[PS: Sorry if some of this is repetitive of previous posts; I've been cooking and going back and forth from the kitchen, and it would take a really long time to re-read this entire thread. On the up-side, I have discovered that adding a bit of chipotle to gumbo or jambalaya, while not exactly traditional, is marvelous.]
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
You're arguing from a position of "This idea is bad, so we should use style tricks to denigrate that point of view." WP simply does not work that way. I'm not going to continue going in circles on this. I've said my piece, and you have too, and that is sufficient. Especially since a review of your user talk page shows it to be a firehose of warnings and sanctions for disruption, especially in "human group conflict" topics. Anyone with in this much trouble centered on "your people vs. my people" conflicts is not likely to provide very useful input into how WP should write about much matters.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
There's an issue at Talk:Greek case#Capitalizing common nouns that may result in changes to MOS:INSTITUTIONS to include when we don't apply Wikipedia style to sourced material. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities § Capitalization question. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Should "[v]ictory or death" be capitalized in the following sentence on Ali Alexander? I think it should not be, because it's a phrase, not a proper noun. Nightscream, per Special:Diff/1000375775, thinks that it should be. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me preface this by saying this is a somewhat niche case, though it could extend to other similar items in concept.
As far as I can tell, the concept of a fully capitalised list is not covered within this guideline. The item that comes closest to it is the All Caps section, but even within that there is no specification of a case. The reason I bring this up is in reference to Port Adelaide Honour Board. It is currently represented in full caps, having been edited this way as a representation of the club's own honour board. I've been directed to open a discussion in reference to this, and believe that a clear indication of lists should be covered under the guideline in some capacity. Empoleonmaster23 ( talk) 03:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The project page says: "fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized"
. Does this include the titles of academic subjects, such as undergraduate degree courses and qualifications, e.g. Classics, Human Geography, Economics, Medieval English Literature, etc.? If it is meant to include these, should this be made a little clearer? If I saw a degree qualification, such as any one of these, in lower case, on someone's curriculum vitae, I'd think they were careless. I have always assumed they are proper nouns.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 10:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Capitalize the names of academic subjects only in the context of courses and examinations: "He wanted to study physics, he read Physics, sat the Physics examination, and received a degree in Physics, thereby gaining a physics degree."
It seems that almost none of the text in the Personal names section and none of the text in the Place names section is related to capitalisation. Am I missing something? Should it be moved to the relevant guideline page and/or deleted? — AjaxSmack 08:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I 'd like to request your assistance and advice at Pre-socratic philosophy. Which version of the word "presocratic" should we be using in the article. Almost all RS are using the word "Presocratic". I feel it is common sense we follow their lead. Or should we follow MOS guidance which in that case would be "pre-Socratic" or "presocratic"? Please have a look at the talk page. Pinging @ Teishin:, who pointed to this talk page when discussing the issue at Talk Page. Cinadon 36 13:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. The MOS as quoted above includes "unless the name derives from a proper name". Socrates is a proper name, and both pre-Socratic and Presocratic are very common in sources compared to Pre-Socratic and presocratic. Sources and the MOS agree that a capital letter is needed. Pick one. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
When we (well, mostly I) merged away WP:Manual of Style/Proper names after a 2018 proposal to do so, the content ended up in MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:BIO, MOS:TITLES, and the main MoS page. That was mostly done pretty well, except we ended up with WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages containing nothing but a single sentence (on an obscure matter), nothing about capitalization, and no advice that people are actually likely to ever be looking for. I'm pretty sure I noticed this at the time and meant to do something about it, but then other stuff intervened.
I've taken a stab at codifying actual consensus-in-practice, as best I can summarize it, in the following:
Terms for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, and the like are capitalized, including in adjectival forms ( Japanese cuisine, Cumbrian dialect). Cultural terms may lose their capitalization when their connection to the original culture has been lost (or there never really was one). Some fairly conventionalized examples are french fries, typographical romanization, english (cue-ball spin) in pool playing, scotch-doubles tournament, and gum arabic. Some are more transitional and can be written either way: latinization of names, dutch date, and russian roulette. Always capitalized: French cuisine, cultural Romanization, English billiards, Scotch whisky, Arabic coffee, liturgical Latinization, Dutch oven. Avoid over-capitalizing adjectival forms of such terms in other languages, most of which do not capitalize as much as English does. E.g., the book title Diccionario biográfico español ('Spanish Biographical Dictionary') does not capitalize the e of español. If in doubt, check how multiple high-quality reliable sources in English treat the name or phrase.
Combining forms are also generally capitalized where the proper name occurs: ( pan-Celticism, Austro-Hungarian, un-American). Some may be fully fused and decapitalized if the name is mid-word; e.g., unamerican, panamerican, transatlantic, and antisemitism are well-attested. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for or against these forms. However, prefer anti-Semitism in close proximity to other such terms ( Tatarophobia, etc.), else the lower-casing of Semitic may appear pointed and insulting. Similarly, for consistency within the article, prefer un-American and pan-American in an article that also uses anti-American, pan-African, and similar compounds.
Where a common name in English encompasses both a people and their language, that term is preferred, as in Swahili people and Swahili language rather than Waswahili and Kiswahili.
Some of this could be shunted into footnotes, though I don't think it's overly long. I don't think I've missed anything important here (other than see the thread immediately above this one), nor said anything that is just a random opinion and not reflected in actual practice across our articles, and also sometimes subject to various previous discussions, e.g. I was recently informed that "anti-Semitism" vs. "antisemitism" has been the subject of repeated RfCs, RMs, etc., and without a consensus to demand/reject either spelling. Finally, I've also tried to cross-reference the other material that most closely relates to this, including
MOS:EPONYM,
MOS:FOREIGNTITLE,
MOS:ARTCON, and
MOS:US, plus integrating an example from
MOS:CONFUSED. The thread above (
#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people)) and the request to summarize the recent RfC in this MOS:CAPS section is what inspired this fix-it work, since the section as it stood was so faulty that adding such an RfC summary in there might seem a confusing non sequitur.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Associated Press recently updated its style guide so that "Black" as in " Black people" should now be capitalized. [1] Should we apply those same changes to our MoS? Should similar racial terms, such as " White" be capitalized as well? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 05:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to wait. Capital B has already become the standard at a number of media organizations and publishers, AP is a bit late to the game and it is already commonly used in Wikipedia article - there is just a lack of consistency that needs to be rectified. Capitalizing "W" in white is non-standard as the usage is different, Black people are a self-identified (and externally identified) ethnic group or people. White people remain more likely to identify themselves either as European or by a particular ethnicity eg English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh (or British), French, German, Italian, Russian etc. This may change and if "White" becomes more widespread we may need to revisit that. See for instance this explanation from the Columbia Journalism Review: "we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists." 104.247.241.28 ( talk) 13:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what AP does. What matters is what the majority of RSs do. MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization ... only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
The NYT now uppercases "Black". More detail on that decision and the request by the immediate past president of the National Association of Black Journalists:
courtesy collapsed
|
---|
|
I think it'd be worth making this a formal RfC now. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 01:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, NYT publishes (on a very slow cycle) its own style guide, which is widely divergent from others even in journalism, and has little effect on writing outside their own newsroom. While NYT is not quite as stylistically aberrant on so many things as The New Yorker (which says it gets more mail from readers about one of these quibbles than about any other subject!), it's still on that side of the fence; like The Economist and a few other publishers, they intentionally diverge from mainstream publishing norms as a means of branding/distinction. Not a single thing in MoS is based on NYT style, and MoS does not jump onto any style-shift bandwagons until they become norms reflected in the majority of the style guides that MoS is actually based on (Chicago, Hart's, Scientific Style and Format, Fowler's and Garner's), which is generally a 5–10 year shift cycle. This is why, e.g., WP was slow to adopt singular they vs. awkwardness like he/she or treating he as generic, a preference for US over U.S., and dropping the comma before Jr. or Sr. in a name, despite them already having become more common than the alternatives in mainstream writing.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Notes
only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
We have multiple newspapers of record telling us that the move to capitalize Black alone is political and polarized, and that these publications are doing it explicitly as socio-political messaging [10] [11]). BLM editorials using "Black" but "white" drive this activism connection home clearly [12] [13] (and I say that as a huge fan of McWhorter as a linguist, BTW). Capitalizing both has long (my entire life and then some) been standard practice at many publications already. If Black and White are good enough for CNN [14] [15], the U.S. Census Bureau [16], APA style (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, one of the most-used academic style guides in the world, and influential on MoS) [17], among many others, then they're good enough for Wikipedia. While, yes, various publishers went the other direction and down-cased both (e.g. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]), many are now reversing this decision (entirely or – often with dubious and subjective rationalizations [23] – in a reactive and politicized half-measures way). It simply is not acceptable to capitalize one but not the other here, for neutrality reasons, regardless what some publishers (who have paying audiences and advertisers to appease) choose to do, and I do not believe that anyone in this discussion doesn't actually understand that. Some are just seeking to skirt it to further their socio-political viewpoint. It's one I share, but we all know better than to do that on Wikipedia.
I have always favored capitalization when these words are used in this broadly conglomerating/generalizing ethno-racial sense, because it is jarring and likely offensive to have something like "The organization's Asian, black, Caucasian, and Hispanic advisory board members all agreed with the policy change", down-casing one category as if denigrating them. Used in this way, "Black" and "White" should be capitalized also because they are serving as stand-in names for (not literal descriptions of) human ethno-racial categorizations, and are thus acting in proper-name capacity, by definition. Just because "Black" is an imposed (and arguably originally derogatory) exonym is irrelevant; we don't write "navajo" with a lower-case n just because that's an exonym for the Dineh people. When "Brown" is used this way, it should also be capitalized; however, it is slangish and has nowhere near the penetration into mainstream, formal writing as "Black" and "White", so WP should probably not be using it except in quoted material. If we don't capitalize these terms, we also have a consistency problem with very similar but more specific ethnic names, like Coloured, a particular mixed-ethnicity group in South Africa, about whom that term is always capitalized (and always with a u).
None of these terms should be capitalized when not used in this ethnic manner: "My Hispanic half-sister is more brown that me." "Albinistic people can look very pale white in some light, but are actually rather pinkish because their lack of pigmentation makes their skin a bit translucent." "The mole on my back is virtually pitch black." Just because it has something to do with coloration and skin at all doesn't make it an ethnic label and thus doesn't make it a proper name.
Terms like "indigenous", "aboriginal", and "native" should only be capitalized when they are used in the same manner, as a name for, not just a description of, a specific group. Thus, people from the native populations of Australia are referred to as "Aboriginals", "Aboriginal Australians", or (decreasingly) "Aborigines"; it's effectively their official collective name. But it's lower-case a [or i or n] in "There are several different languages families among the aboriginal [or indigenous or native] peoples of the Americas." Other examples that have become proper names are Native Americans, and
First Nations.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC); revised: 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC); 2nd choice added: 03:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some overly detailed back-and-forth:
|
---|
|
[I]t can be overridden (like anything in these guidelines) by additional encyclopedic concerns like grammatical function– isn't this exactly why sources like the AP are arguing for the capital "B" in "Black"? As the AP's vice president for standards says, "The lowercase black is a color, not a person ... These changes align with long-standing capitalization of other racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American". [30] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Digression about the Bible, NYT, and movement names:
|
---|
|
Only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.Plenty of RSs do not capitalise black so we should continue to default to lowercase. From a writing perspective, I think capitalising black and white is pretty senseless; these terms do not derive from proper nouns (unlike, for example, Asia - > Asian). I think the choice to capitalise is made more on political grounds than matters of logic or clarity. That's not to say that politics isn't a good reason to change how we write things, but to me this simply feels sanctimonious. (I hope I'm not on the wrong side of history there; it will be interesting to see if this trend survives the language's general trend away from capitalising.) Popcornfud ( talk) 16:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
NABJ also recommends that whenever a color is used to appropriately describe race then it should be capitalized, such as Black community, Brown community, White community.I'm not so sure that this is a U.S.-only thing, either: for example Négritude has been fairly frequently capitalized in English going back almost a hundred years, according to the Wiktionary talk page discussion. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
If you look more deeply into this "only Black" thing, it's an activism-originated and now, to a limited extent, news-writing shift. As the latter, it is largely driven by three (American) journalism forces: AP Stylebook (which many US – but not other – newspapers follow without variance), USA Today (the "least common denominator" US paper, barely more reliable than a tabloid, and rarely divergent from any AP choices), and NYT, which publishes its own (often weird) style guide, but has the same target audience and advertisers as most US papers, and so follows AP on almost all politicized choices. LA Times is in exactly the same boat as NYT (other than their style guide hasn't seen a new edition in print for a very long time).
The idea is not finding much support among book publishers, journal publishers, and others so far, nor among conservative-leaning news publishers, nor among centrist and even center-left news publishers who think carefully about style rather than just apply AP as a house rule. We know that the mainstream news media in the US (and most of the West) leans heavily leftward, and that it goes out of its way to avoid offending the sensibilities of the left (much more so than it does for the right); their attempts to appease advertisers (the actual primary source of their income) also play heavily into decisions like this. That is, as sources on what do on a heavily socio-politicized style question, they are twice-over not WP:INDY of the subject, but have direct fiduciary rationales for their preferences. Some of them resist it anyway. One example is The Atlantic (which is centrist or slightly left, depending on your definitions); see their editorial (written by a Black professor at NYU, though of Ghanaian-British, not African-American, background) on why it should be Black but also White too [50]. Unsurprisingly, his rationales are consistent with those raised in this discussion already. Reliable sources like Washington Examiner tell us clearly that this shift (for now) among some news organizations is political, and show that it is based on extremely dubious assertions.
To just pick one, let's start with this doozy from Columbia Journalism Review (which also generally follow's AP's lead): "Black is an ethnic designation; white merely describes the skin color of people who can, usually without much difficulty, trace their ethnic origins back to a handful of European countries". That's just nonsensical in multiple ways, and no cultural anthropologist or ethnologist who wasn't a kook would agree with this assessment. Let's just hit the high points quickly: Ethnicities, cultures, and subcultures are not determined by genealogical accuracy; they are mutable processes of collective acculturation. White does not describe skin color; it's a hand-wavy metaphor, exactly like other ethnic "color terms", including Black, and none of us are literally white or black, we're all part of a range of very pale tan to very dark brown. These terms are likely doomed within a few generations anyway, right along with Red and Yellow. Most White Americans are not from any particular European genetic or cultural background, but are a mishmash of a bunch of them (and often some non-European, too). The areas (mostly West African) from which most African ancestors were brought to the Americas are in fact well-known. This "ease of European-American genealogy" hypothesis a dead distinction now if it ever was one, because genetic tests, for about 20+ years now, can determine exactly where your ancestors came from, including in Africa. It's also meaningless because White and Black modern Americans generally have no direct social or experiential connection to "the old country/countries", unless of recent-immigrant stock (which would also apply to recent African immigrants), or unless they are "background aficionados" (and there are Black ones, too, especially since Alex Haley and others have spurred African Americans from the 1970s onward to investigate their own African ethno-cultural and now genetic backgrounds in detail). Moreover, it's especially meaningless because the dominant White American culture has mostly erased the lines between different European-descended groups in this country (while there are still anti-Semities, most Ashkenazi Jews in the US are part of "White", and there is virtually nothing left of the formerly common discrimination against certain European sub-ethnicities in the US, including Irish, Cornish, and Italian Americans). So, the main reason CJR argues that Black refers to a modern distinct meta-ethnicity in its own right actually has also applied to White in this country since around the late 19th century.
Next, no sociologist or other kind of social scientist who was not a kook would buy CJR's premise either, for two super-obvious reasons: 1) Most clearly of all, it simply would not be possible for the US to be dominated by a White American group with categorical White privilege, White dialect patterns in their English usage, and White voting, investing, consuming, music-preference, etc., patterns that are clearly identifiable, and so on, if White American, from the late 19th c. onward, were not an "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" in the over-broad sense that Black American or African American is. Indeed, arguing otherwise is basically socio-politically dangerous, as it provides "subconscious White supremacists" an obvious out: "I'm not White, and there is no White privilege, and I'm tired of being called 'White' and blamed for your problems. I'm Irish-Italian-Dutch, and about 2/3 of my own ancestors were discriminated against. So quit whining and just work harder. TANSTAAFL!" I've already occasionally encountered arguments like this my entire life, and they are now more common than ever. But this observation by me may itself be a soapboxy, political point (since it's anti-racialist and is critical of "white grievance" posturing and excuse-making).
2) European sub-ethnicities like Scottish and Montenegrin and Swedish are not used in the US as classifiers, by the government, by cops, by universities, by financial institutions, or by any other social force that matters, any more than they ask African Americans if they are of Eritrean or Kenyan stock in particular (but note that Asians often are asked to be more specific). It's just a White/Caucasian/European catch-all check box, like African. "African" itself is an over-generalization, since there are Afro-Asiatic (Semitic and Berber) and Turkic peoples also native since antiquity to North Africa, and most of the population of Madagascar is of Maritime Southeast Asian heritage). What our sociological categorizers are really asking is whether someone is of Sub-Saharan African ethnic background (though that, too, is not actually an ethnicity under most definitions; there's more genetic diversity between neighboring groups of Africans than between the Germans and the Okinawans). These sociological "ethnic" grouping classifiers like "White" and "Black" and "Asian" are based not on genetics or culture but geopolitics and its arbitrary labeling. Virtually nothing ever asks if someone is Turkic, for example. If you're a Turkish American, you're expected to identify as white; if your Turkic family background is from a bit more easterly (e.g. Azerbaijani or Turkmeni), you'll end up classified as Middle-Eastern, and if from further east (Uyghur, Kyrgyz) as Asian – which is not any kind of ethnic group at all, but a geographic origin label. At least most of these checkbox lists now split Asian up into subcategories that make a bit more sense (various Indic peoples are more closely related to Europeans, as are most Turkic and Semitic ones, than to East Asians, and Southeast Asians intergrade with Pacific Islanders all the way down to New Guinea and New Zealand).
The key take-way here is that if anything like the CJR rationale is actually a major factor in some news organizations' and activism organizations' rationales for "Black but white and brown" (and it certainly seems to be, in one wording or another, in most of the "why we're only capitalizing Black" statements I've read), it is patently pseudoscientific on many points, historically inaccurate, based on gross misunderstandings of ethnicity and culture and social forces, and just flat-out counterfactual and irrational nonsense in many places. We have a term for this:
WP:FRINGE. Hell, not even all far-left Americans agree this is a good idea, since many were long working on getting publications to write Black, Brown, and White and were already meeting with growing success. So, this is a fringe of a fringe, an internecine faction fight amongst progressives. The way to deal (off-WP or onsite) with a tedious
false equivalence like "White and Black Americans are the same, they're just ethnical groupings", which ignores centuries of differential justice and economics along racialized lines, is not to erect a farcical fantasy argument based itself on a whole slew of other false equivalences, irrelevancies, confusion of labels with what they label, and patently false claims. It's to be honest and rational and treat everyone with respect when it comes to labeling/classification. PS: for anyone unclear on why ethnicity and race and ancestry and heritage are themselves hard to even understand and talk about, as if we all mean different things by them sometimes, it's because we do. See
WP:Race and ethnicity for a run-down on this, which also includes some historical background on what makes the Black experience in America so different and why the US is unusually fraught with racialism, racism, and related strife. Most importantly, it covers why not to bring that socio-political baggage with you when editing Wikipedia. See also
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and, of course,
WP:NPOV.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
right-of-center...centrist [or] center-leftsources is beside the point. We don't have political litmus tests for reliability. The only relevant standard per MOS:CAPS is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.The notion that this is WP:CIRCULAR sourcing makes no sense. There's no evidence that the AP and others are following Wikipedia, since WP does not now generally capitalize "Black" in an ethnic or racial sense. Accounting for English usage in
Canada or the UK or various other placesseems like an argument for applying the change to US-related subjects only, per MOS:TIES. (It also puts the lie to the notion that this is a left-wing issue; in the UK or Europe the New York Times would be considered centrist or even center-right.)The most persuasive argument here against the proposal is that it is
not finding much support among book publishers [and] journal publishers. There's no need to muddy the waters with a lot of speculation about sources' reasoning or motives. The idea that the Associated Press and The New York Times, among others, have a financial or legal relationship to the topic of capitalizing/lowercasing "Black" is quite a stretch, and would appliy equally to conservative publications, who also have
fiduciary rationalesfor resisting the change (the idea that the Washington Examiner is particularly reliable is also new to me). In fact, the most prominent conservative news outlet, Fox News, is adopting the change as well, while also capitalizing "White" and "Brown". [51] — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC) edited 20:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC))
Black and White anyway without being overridden by later editors? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@
SMcCandlish: I read the news every day, and I have never seen "White" (unless combined with a proper noun) and I seldom see "Black", and only in relation to America (that is, the US). All, or almost all, the examples quoted "South[ern[ers]]", "North[ern[ers]]", "Colored[s]", "Negro[es]", "Republicans", "Democrats", "Southern Democrats", "African Americans", "European Americans", "Baptists", "Union[ists]", "Confedera[cy
are again American-only terms. North and South are capitalized because they have specific meanings in the US context which is different from non-American, non-capitalized usages, and as a result the demonyms relating to these social groups are likewise capitalized. Ditto for words flowing from the geographical proper nouns "Africa", "Americas", and "Europe", those relating to political or religious persuasions like Baptism (note the need to distinguish from "baptism" and "baptists") and "Democrats" (note again distinction between supporters of "Democratic Party" and "democracy") and those relating to various nationalities and ethnicities like, say: "
Red Ruthenians" or "
White Huns" (note again not "Huns that are white"). "Republicans" (a meaningless political label no different from "Team Red") has a different meaning to "republicans", and the argument that because an adjective refers to a group of people it should be capitalized is not valid, or else anyone supporting the constitutional situation described by the term "republic" could be described as "Republican", which is obviously not the case. "Colored" (in US contexts) and "Coloured" (in South African contexts, like the
Cape Coloureds) were/are defined political-official categories foremost, with meanings specific to their capitalized forms which are different to their non-capitalized forms. (In contexts of historical segregationist societies like these, capitalization of the three segregated groups (viz. whites, coloreds, and coloureds) There really isn't any reason to dignify sweeping generalizations based on skin colour with the status of proper nouns; this is exactly the kind of pigeonholing and emphasis on basically trivial characteristics that one should seek to avoid. There are undoubtedly contexts where capitalizing is appropriate, ("Black hair" is different to "black hair") but I am strongly opposed to enforcing the promotion of what should be an adjectival description into a proper noun label across the project. (Risking whataboutism here but) would the same rationale extend to the forms "Disabled" or "Women"? The capitalization introduces the potential for unwelcome "Othering" and in the text gives undue visual weight to what should be ordinary descriptive words, in my view.
GPinkerton (
talk) 19:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really not making any more complicated an argument than that. (And I would support "black and white" as second choice; just not "Black but white".) There's a convention in English to capitalize ethnic names/labels. There is absolutely not such a convention with regard to genders, or to ability/disability classes, so a comparison to those is a reductio ad absurdum. Coloured in the African context is conventionally capitalized, while Negro mostly was when it was current, though usage varied more for the American sense of Colored (which has a very different meaning from the African term), but capitalization of that was also very common. The fact that some of them have US-specific meanings isn't germane; Aboriginal has a special meaning in Australia (also an ethno-racial label), and it is capitalized. There are other such examples, and they're consistent. The only inconsistencies in the pattern are black and white. If you don't think Black and White (along with Hispanic/Latino, Native American, etc.) aren't "defined political-official categories" in the US then you must not live there. These labels are used for official purposes in many ways (census categories, minority grant and scholarship availability, etc.). Similar things seem to apply in various other places, though with different nuances (I'm told the UK tends to be more specific, and distinguishes often between people of Caribbean vs. direct-African descent, but they also definitely do use Black a lot.) If "There are undoubtedly contexts where capitalizing is appropriate", then it should just be capitalized, the end, per MOS:ARTCON and MOS:SIGCAPS.
This isn't about "dignifying" racialism; hell, I wrote
WP:Race and ethnicity. It's about the function of the words in the sentence, and the problem of not capitalizing those two when all other such terms are. It becomes a PoV problem in and of itself, from the readers' perspective, regardless of editorial intent. The argument I sometimes see along the lines of "but I don't wanna capitalize in White supremacy" is absurd. We capitalize in neo-Nazi, etc. The problem would be in writing White Supremacy and Neo-Nazi, turning the entire phrases into "proper names" (against
MOS:DOCTCAPS, regardless of topic) rather than just capitalizing the proper names within those phrases. In an ideal world, Black and White would get "retired" just like lots of old ethno-racial labels (Orientals, the Red Man, etc.). But it has not happened yet, and we have to write for the real-world readership. This is a "WP is not for language-change activism" matter both coming and going; neologistic practice is one extreme of it, and hyper-traditionalist no-caps-for-either resistance is the other.
[PS: Sorry if some of this is repetitive of previous posts; I've been cooking and going back and forth from the kitchen, and it would take a really long time to re-read this entire thread. On the up-side, I have discovered that adding a bit of chipotle to gumbo or jambalaya, while not exactly traditional, is marvelous.]
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
You're arguing from a position of "This idea is bad, so we should use style tricks to denigrate that point of view." WP simply does not work that way. I'm not going to continue going in circles on this. I've said my piece, and you have too, and that is sufficient. Especially since a review of your user talk page shows it to be a firehose of warnings and sanctions for disruption, especially in "human group conflict" topics. Anyone with in this much trouble centered on "your people vs. my people" conflicts is not likely to provide very useful input into how WP should write about much matters.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
There's an issue at Talk:Greek case#Capitalizing common nouns that may result in changes to MOS:INSTITUTIONS to include when we don't apply Wikipedia style to sourced material. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities § Capitalization question. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Should "[v]ictory or death" be capitalized in the following sentence on Ali Alexander? I think it should not be, because it's a phrase, not a proper noun. Nightscream, per Special:Diff/1000375775, thinks that it should be. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me preface this by saying this is a somewhat niche case, though it could extend to other similar items in concept.
As far as I can tell, the concept of a fully capitalised list is not covered within this guideline. The item that comes closest to it is the All Caps section, but even within that there is no specification of a case. The reason I bring this up is in reference to Port Adelaide Honour Board. It is currently represented in full caps, having been edited this way as a representation of the club's own honour board. I've been directed to open a discussion in reference to this, and believe that a clear indication of lists should be covered under the guideline in some capacity. Empoleonmaster23 ( talk) 03:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The project page says: "fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized"
. Does this include the titles of academic subjects, such as undergraduate degree courses and qualifications, e.g. Classics, Human Geography, Economics, Medieval English Literature, etc.? If it is meant to include these, should this be made a little clearer? If I saw a degree qualification, such as any one of these, in lower case, on someone's curriculum vitae, I'd think they were careless. I have always assumed they are proper nouns.
Martinevans123 (
talk) 10:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Capitalize the names of academic subjects only in the context of courses and examinations: "He wanted to study physics, he read Physics, sat the Physics examination, and received a degree in Physics, thereby gaining a physics degree."
It seems that almost none of the text in the Personal names section and none of the text in the Place names section is related to capitalisation. Am I missing something? Should it be moved to the relevant guideline page and/or deleted? — AjaxSmack 08:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I 'd like to request your assistance and advice at Pre-socratic philosophy. Which version of the word "presocratic" should we be using in the article. Almost all RS are using the word "Presocratic". I feel it is common sense we follow their lead. Or should we follow MOS guidance which in that case would be "pre-Socratic" or "presocratic"? Please have a look at the talk page. Pinging @ Teishin:, who pointed to this talk page when discussing the issue at Talk Page. Cinadon 36 13:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. The MOS as quoted above includes "unless the name derives from a proper name". Socrates is a proper name, and both pre-Socratic and Presocratic are very common in sources compared to Pre-Socratic and presocratic. Sources and the MOS agree that a capital letter is needed. Pick one. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
When we (well, mostly I) merged away WP:Manual of Style/Proper names after a 2018 proposal to do so, the content ended up in MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, MOS:BIO, MOS:TITLES, and the main MoS page. That was mostly done pretty well, except we ended up with WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages containing nothing but a single sentence (on an obscure matter), nothing about capitalization, and no advice that people are actually likely to ever be looking for. I'm pretty sure I noticed this at the time and meant to do something about it, but then other stuff intervened.
I've taken a stab at codifying actual consensus-in-practice, as best I can summarize it, in the following:
Terms for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, and the like are capitalized, including in adjectival forms ( Japanese cuisine, Cumbrian dialect). Cultural terms may lose their capitalization when their connection to the original culture has been lost (or there never really was one). Some fairly conventionalized examples are french fries, typographical romanization, english (cue-ball spin) in pool playing, scotch-doubles tournament, and gum arabic. Some are more transitional and can be written either way: latinization of names, dutch date, and russian roulette. Always capitalized: French cuisine, cultural Romanization, English billiards, Scotch whisky, Arabic coffee, liturgical Latinization, Dutch oven. Avoid over-capitalizing adjectival forms of such terms in other languages, most of which do not capitalize as much as English does. E.g., the book title Diccionario biográfico español ('Spanish Biographical Dictionary') does not capitalize the e of español. If in doubt, check how multiple high-quality reliable sources in English treat the name or phrase.
Combining forms are also generally capitalized where the proper name occurs: ( pan-Celticism, Austro-Hungarian, un-American). Some may be fully fused and decapitalized if the name is mid-word; e.g., unamerican, panamerican, transatlantic, and antisemitism are well-attested. There is no consensus on Wikipedia for or against these forms. However, prefer anti-Semitism in close proximity to other such terms ( Tatarophobia, etc.), else the lower-casing of Semitic may appear pointed and insulting. Similarly, for consistency within the article, prefer un-American and pan-American in an article that also uses anti-American, pan-African, and similar compounds.
Where a common name in English encompasses both a people and their language, that term is preferred, as in Swahili people and Swahili language rather than Waswahili and Kiswahili.
Some of this could be shunted into footnotes, though I don't think it's overly long. I don't think I've missed anything important here (other than see the thread immediately above this one), nor said anything that is just a random opinion and not reflected in actual practice across our articles, and also sometimes subject to various previous discussions, e.g. I was recently informed that "anti-Semitism" vs. "antisemitism" has been the subject of repeated RfCs, RMs, etc., and without a consensus to demand/reject either spelling. Finally, I've also tried to cross-reference the other material that most closely relates to this, including
MOS:EPONYM,
MOS:FOREIGNTITLE,
MOS:ARTCON, and
MOS:US, plus integrating an example from
MOS:CONFUSED. The thread above (
#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people)) and the request to summarize the recent RfC in this MOS:CAPS section is what inspired this fix-it work, since the section as it stood was so faulty that adding such an RfC summary in there might seem a confusing non sequitur.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)