Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (France & French-related)

Capitalization in French titles and style from 1589 to 1830

To begin with, if this is not the appropriate notice board to post this discussion, please excuse me. I am in a dispute with Charles and, apparently, WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles. I find this whole section of the MOS faulty. It tries to set standards were it readily admits there are no standards. In the end, the standard it does promote is contrary to the actual usage of capitilization method used by the House of Bourbon between 1589 and 1830. In addition, the standard is not followed by many English-speaking authors today, leading to a style of writing most English-speakers would not be familiar with from reading a biography of a member of the French royal family.

In particular, I am offended by the following comment/directive and find it to be arbitrary, incorrect and representative of a very biased POV:

"in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney). This is a incorrect Franco-English hybrid form using the capitalization rules of an English-user."

I am interested in getting this policy changed, and WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles rewritten or deleted. I will summarize my argument as follows (it is found more fully in Talk:Fils_de_France and Talk:Prince_du_Sang):

1) The capitalization method described in the MOS is not an incorrect "Franco-English hybrid." It is the one used by the French royal family and court themselves:

• In the illustrations section of Antonia Fraser's book, Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life fo the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006, she reproduces a letter written in 1700 from Princess Marie-Adélaïde of Savoy to her grandmother, Marie Jeanne of Savoy-Nemours. On the last page, her style is clearly handwritten (probably by a lady-in-waiting) as "Mme. la Duchesse de Bourgogne", again with the title "duchesse" explicitly capitalized.
• In the endpapers of Lucy Norton's Historical Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon, Volume III, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1972, there is a facsimile of one of the handwritten pages of Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon's memoirs. It specifically refers to Philippe II, Duke of Orléans as, "S.A.R. Mg'r le Duc d'Orléans" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized.
• In Susan Nagel's new biography of Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte of France, Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008, p.374, the author does an analysis of Madame Royale's handwriting. She reproduces a letter written in 1804 by the Fille de France to her cousin, Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé in which she specifically refers to his son, Louis Henry II, Prince of Condé as, "M. le Duc de Bourbon" with the title "duc" explicitly capitalized.

2) Many modern English-speaking authors do not use the Wikipedia style of capitalization, and to use it not only misrepresents how the people who used those titles and styles referred to themselves, but also is confusing to most English-speakers, whose reading material should not be censored by modern French linguists and how they feel about linguistic revisionism.

The following is a list of well-known books in English on the French royal family that specifically do NOT use Wikipedia's incorrect capitalization standard for French titles:

• Nancy Mitford - The Sun King, Harper & Row, 1966;
• Antonia Fraser - Marie Antoinette, The Journey, Doubleday, 2001;
• Antonia Fraser - Love and Louis XIV, The Women in the Life of the Sun King, Doubleday, 2006;
• Caroline Weber - Queen of Fashion, Henry Holt and Company, 2006;
• Susan Nagel - Marie-Thérèse, Child of Terror: The Fate of Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Bloomsbury, 2008.

BoBo (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming fr.wikipedia.com will follow the Académie française on this; how do they capitalize? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to consider what either French Wikipedia or the Académie française says on the matter. They are concerned only with modern French speakers. They are neither concerned with the accurate preservation in modern English of French capitalization from the past, nor with how an article in modern English should be written concerning old French styles and titles. BoBo (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying that we need to capitalize the same way the modern French do. I'm saying that you made two arguments; one was about what modern English writers do, and that's certainly important. Your other argument was on a subject that I'd be much more willing to trust the Académie française on, namely, "What capitalization was used in the 18th century by the French royal family and court?" - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BoBo, tell me, how do you preserve what varied anyway? Do we alternate every second title with an upper- or lower case letter? Really now, we are not destroying information. Where text is quoted or duplicated we should use whatever form was used... If that is quoting the actual French or actual translations or English of the time. Anything else is not a matter of preservation! We are conveying the information either way. We do not write for the past, we write about it. As I said before, we don't call Henry VIII "the Kynge". Charles 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... given what BoBo says... I think we do need to re-think this section of the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that this kind of things can easily be checked with Google books, e.g. this book form the 17th century, printed in the 19th, uses this style. (And it's the first old book that I found.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans, the book you link to is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It capitalizes the titles in the same way that the handwritten letters I referenced to earlier do. This should be evidence enough to demonstrate that the current Wikipedia standard is inaccurate. BoBo (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with BoBo. I've disliked our capitalisation of French titles intensely for a long time, but my complaints have always been shouted down. Proteus (Talk) 17:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without being any sort of expert, the capitalization in French is surely a political issue - whether a capital is used or not depends on the political stance of the writer. The current MoS formulation, following a Republican line, is way too emphatic. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an NPOV issue? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in English I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For me the capitalisation feels wrong, but this is because I've always used Chicago style and because the best history books use the non-capitalised style. "Rare was the great noble, who, like Henry, duke of Guise ..." (J. Russell Major, From Renaissance Monarchy to Absolute Monarchy); "La Rochelle's mayor, Alexandre de Haraneder, sieur de Roulraux ..." (S.Annette Finley-Croswhite, Henry IV and the Towns); "Nicolas de Neufville, seigneur de Villeroy" (N. M. Sutherland, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherien de' Medici); "his future governess, Françoise de Longuejoue, baroness of Monglat ..." (A. LLoyd Moote, Louis XIII), etc. These are books I have read recently. In more popular histories, one does however find capitalisation in such cases, I admit.

Because I have been ticked off about, even mocked about, my non-captalisation principles, and, more particularly, because people come along helpfully adding capitals (but never all of them), I have crumbled and started to go with the capitalisation crowd. And I accept that where capitalisation occurs on article titles, one feels rather obliged to use the same form when mentioning those individuals in other articles. But I would urge those arguing over this to stop short of becoming heated, because there is no one "correct" system, not in today's English, today's French, today's English translated from the French, or in historical French. Inconsistency rules. The best we can aim for here is consistency within each article. qp10qp (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was impressed by the evidence adduced by BoBo and Hans, so I decided to research how the current language of the MOS directive came to be. Before it resided on WP:MOS-FR#Noble titles, it was at Wikipedia:WikiProject France, where it had been moved in turn from Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board. It is there we must look to discover how the language was arrived at:

• The page was created by editor NYArtsnWords on March 5, 2006. In the original, short version of the relevant section it states, "Capitalization is currently chaotic" and declares, "It would be helpful if we could come to some sort of consensus which would fit with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Proper names." There is no claim that one style—lowercased or capitalized—is more correct or in any way superior.
• The most important change to the language is made, again by NYArtsnWords, on March 12, 2006. Here is where the claim appears that the lowercase style "is the correct form in French and is the form used in article titles on the French wiki." Here is where the claim appears that the capitalized style "is a Franco-English hybrid form." Significantly, NYArtsnWords adduces no evidence for the claims (though the form on the French wiki is obviously verifiable first hand), and there has been no discussion of the matter on the Talk page.
• Another major change to the language is made, once again by NYArtsnWords, on March 16, 2006. Here is where the claim appears that "the current (tenuous) concensus is that all articles with French titles using de should have the title in lowercase." In edit summary, NYArtsnWords identifies the change to the language as following "results of discussion." The referenced discussion took place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). The discussion does indicate a consensus that titles in French be lowercased; however no evidence at all is adduced, and the discussion is effectively guided by the unevidenced claim (made once again) that the capitalized style "is a Franco-English hybrid form."

In sum, I believe it has been demonstrated in the present thread that—at least for the historical period under discussion—the claim that the capitalized style is an improper hybrid and the lowercased style is more correct are patently false. Those statements should be struck; in the matter of lowercasing it might help to explicate that the style is correct in modern French but was not historically the standard. I would make these changes myself on the basis of the great weight of facts presented, but it might be better if it was done by a member of the project. The matter of the old, and apparently ill-founded, consensus is in your hands. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no right and wrong. But let me explain the thinking. If we say "King Charles", we capitalise because the title is combined with the name; but if we say "Charles, king of England, the title is in apposition to his name and therefore is used as a general title (other people have been king of England). I would not insist on this; but I would object if anyone insisted against it in the policy.qp10qp (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Qp has described good contemporary American English style. The problem in this case is that WP:MOS-FR states (at one point in bold) that things are right and wrong, when the evidence clearly demonstrates that those statements are false. They've been floating around Wikipedia for over two years; now they should be removed.—DCGeist (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the issue. It would be good if someone could write a little essay, explaining all the nuances (erk, not me) to editors. I think it is good that Wikipedia has an MoS, but I feel the MoS should obey the overall principle of the site, which is that all information be sourced. Any attempt to standardise language on Wikipedia runs the risk of making one alternative right and another alternative wrong, whereas in the real world of letters and publishing, variety may exist from one publishing house to another, from one usage guide to another, from one branch of written English to another. In honesty, we must describe and explain such variety rather than presuming to rubberstamp one vein of it. The latter would be original thought, would it not? qp10qp (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, I agree with DCGeist. The standand needs to be rewritten to allow both forms of capitalization with the qualification that modern French usage is different from the usage in the 17th and 18th centuries. Articles about pre-1830 French individuals probably should use capitalization and post-1830 individuals should not. The 1830 date is somewhat arbitrary in the sense that I don't actually know the date when the lower-case usage became commonplace. All I know at this point is that the senior line of the House of Bourbon used capitalization in their titles all the way up to King Charles X of France, who was deposed in 1830. BoBo (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's better not to even go that far, in my opinion. All we need to do is write names in a style acceptable in modern English. In this case (names and titles), the capitalisation is allowable—but old-style capitalisation (and spelling, punctuation) is generally out of date now, whether in French or English. qp10qp (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

←An interesting problem. Do the French make the case that a 20th-century "comte de Lyon" (I don't even know if there is a Count of Lyon) isn't capitalized because it's not a proper noun, the same way that a barber of Lyon wouldn't be capitalized? Several other possibly relevant things come to mind, all pointing in different directions:

• The principles behind WP:JARGON and Use English, namely, English is hard, and it doesn't work to try to force everyone to learn the special rules or special words that every small group knows. The application of this would, of course, piss the French off mightily, since fr.wikipedia.org is now the second largest Wikipedia, and since they have to learn our stupid rules and stupid words on a daily basis. But we toss foreign capitalization rules, diacritical marks and non-English spellings out the window all the time, even though this often puzzles and offends non-English speakers. People who haven't grown up speaking a language created by a melting pot of cultures and run by "cowboys" who aggressively resist standardization often don't understand that there is a strong tendency among English-speaking people to shout "No more!" every time someone tries to force us to learn something new.
• WP:NPOV: If there really are two sides to this story, then we are required to tell both sides.
• Free flow of information: if almost everything that is written about French titles is written by Francophiles, including English-speaking academics who have used lower case, then we impede the flow of that information in and out of the English Wikipedia if the capitalization has to be changed. (My understanding from BoBo is that this is not true, that many recent scholarly works do capitalize the titles ... are these works representative or exceptional?) If we allow capitals, then usually capitalization will win out, since that's what most of us are used to (whether we know anything about French titles or not). If that means that we offend just about everyone capable of writing the articles, then the articles don't get written.
• This seems like a potentially hard problem to me, but I hope I'm wrong. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We write about the past, not for the past. We are not bound to use forms of French (which varied) used in the past when writing now. We do not use Old English for Henry VIII when he was called "the Kynge" nor do we use a form of a title just because it was found in letters of the time and also because some authors have used it. BoBo has claimed that the use of lower case letters for French titles is a recent invention to suit the egos of scholars who wish to rewrite history. I believe BoBo says that to serve his POV. The Almanach de Gotha, the Holy Bible of European royalty (almost all sovereigns consulted it when considering a bride's eligibility) uses lower case letters in its 1910 edition, so it's not even a new invention as BoBo would like everyone to believe. And if he wants to talk about what's official and used, the Almanach de Gotha is basically watertight. We haven't anglicized French titles because we borrow them in their entirety. If we anglicized them (which we could), we would use "Duke" instead of "duc", "Count" instead of "comte", etc. But we don't in all cases. In the last ten years, any number of authors have used both, but that isn't to say authors are always correct. Where there are variants we record what we know independently to be correct which is the French usage, not English usage if it varies (which it has). Charles 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, your presentation would be more impressive if you did not personalize the dispute to the degree that you do. You should be especially careful not to mischaracterize the position of your opponent in a debate. Nowhere in the is thread, nor the two article threads where this dispute arose does BobBo claim that lowercase form might not reflect a style used in 1910. The facts remain: Capitalization is not a "French-English hybrid", but a style with a long, well-evidenced history of French usage. Lowercase is not "the correct form"; it is an acceptable form, just as capitalization is. Yes, our Manual of Style can reflect a preference here for one or the other, but that preference should be based on a consensus honestly arrived at after considering a large amount of available evidence and without browbeating those who disagree with us.—DCGeist (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with healthy disagreement but this issue was started with BoBo characterizing anything but following what people called themselves as inventions to suit the egos of history revisionists which is an unfair statement which accuses anyone who may disagree with him of the same. I apologize if that did offend anyone or it seemed too personal as that was not my intent, although that was ultimately how it came out. My summary argument is that usage does vary and if neither is wrong in English we should at least favour a consistency to avoid disputes. I point to things like the latest old Almanachs de Gotha (as an example that the lower case is not a recent invention) and also current French usage because those are definitive and don't vary. The wording shouldn't say one form is wrong but that one form is preferred. I do, however, protest the argument of using what was used way back in the 1700s, etc. Like I said, Henry VIII isn't "the Kynge" to us. Charles 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles (though I still cannot find any reference by BoBo to anyone's "egos".) On the matter of which, if either, style should be preferred here on the English-language Wikipedia in 2008, I happen to agree with your argument that the lowercase style is preferable.—DCGeist (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was on another page. I can bring it up if asked but won't before that because I don't think it will serve anything past what I've already said. Let's focus on the topic rather than the people since it is out of the way. Charles 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion just came to my attention. Let me say a few words, since my edits have been brought up.

1. It seems to me that this discussion would be more appropriate on the WP:MOS-FR talk page (and might perhaps be moved there?). My (recent) creation of the WP:MOS-FR page was meant as an attempt at encouraging discussion and clarification of these very problems. An RfC was made, although no one responded to it. As one can tell, there are very few people working on these things and my edits from 2006 have pretty much remained uncommented on for 2 years. The MOS-FR is under development and no one should construe anything on it as set in stone. I am concerned that the tone of the posts here is already heated. Relax and discuss.
2. BoBo, in their original post, mentions historical cases of capitalization. The French language, like any other, has changed much over the last two centuries. If one was to follow 19h century capitalization rules for English, the Wikipedia would look like Pynchon's Mason Dixon. Judging from the Academy Française's website (see for example http://www.academie-francaise.fr/immortels/index.html) or from such contemporary scholars of the Ancien Régime as François Bluche (editor of the Dictionnaire du Grand Siècle), or Arlette Jouanna and Jaqueline Boucher (editors of several dictionaries on the Renaissance) or by the conventions of the French Wikipedia - noble titles ARE NOT CAPITALIZED in current usage. I do think it's necessary to look at how the French Academy and the French Wikipedia do things: if it's reasoned consensus we are looking for, why wouldn't we go to people and sites whose job it is to think about these things.
3. DCGeist's archeology of the matter is correct - I am the source of the convention statements. If the expression "Franco-English hybrid" is the thing under attack, then by all means remove the line. I am truly sorry if that line has been taken as anti-English language POV; it was not my intention (in other words: it was not my intention to write on capitalization from a historical perspective, but only with regards to current French-language practice.). That unfortunate line notwithstanding, my point was: in contemporary scholarly work in French, this capitalized form is not used and that there is chaos in the wikipedia style. -NYArtsnWords (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

An addendum to the previous: With regards to titles of people before 1850, I have never seen a noble title (duc, comte, seigneur, etc.) capitalized in any modern French scholarly works on the 16th or 17th centuries, including:

• Arlette Jouanna, Jacqueline Boucher, Dominique Biloghi, Guy Le Thiec. Histoire et Dictionnaire des Guerres de religion. Paris: Laffont, 1998. ISBN 2-221-07425-4
• François Bluche. Louis XIV. Paris: Fayard, 1986. ISBN 2-01-013174-6
• René Pillorget and Suzanne Pillorget. France Baroque, France Classique. Vol II: Dictionnaire. Paris: Laffont, 1995. ISBN 2-221-08110-2
• Jean-François Solnon. La Cour de France. Paris: Fayard, 1987. ISBN 2-253-90439-2
• Lucien Bély. La France moderne 1498-1789. Paris: PUF, 1994. ISBN 2-13-047406-3

In addition, contemporary French versions of period works, such as Madame de Lafayette's La Princesse de Clèves, use the lowercase format (see Gallimard, 2000 ISBN 978-2-07-041443-7 and Garnier-Flammarion 1966 ISBN 2-08-070082-0). -NYArtsnWords (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My response to NYArtsnWords is simple. This debate shouldn't rely on anything modern French linguists, the Academie française or French Wikipedia are doing. Their discussions relate solely to how modern French is written. Unlike English, French is a highly regulated language. Any concentration on modern French usage confuses two separate issues. The issue in this debate is not the validity of modern French usage but how modern English articles should be written based upon ORIGINAL French usage. What is wrong with allowing English-speaking editors the right to choose which method of capitalization to use? I have offered the names of five well-known books in English on the French royal family which shows that there is no currently accepted English standard of translating French titles and styles. To impose one is dictatorial for no reason since it has been established that both methods have had weight at different times in French history.

I am also going to at this point include a quote from a response I gave to Dank55 on his talk page:

"As far as modern usage goes, I recognize that at some later point French usage changed. My assumption is that after the change certain English-speaking academics jumped on the band wagon to enhance their academic credentials. Academics are constantly trying to re-invent history in order to attract publishers and gain tenure. Unfortunately, I think at times this leads to an unnecessary revisionism. In this case, I see no reason why the original methods of capitalization can't be used. Rather than distorting the information, it makes it more authentic. An academic might insist on a new methodology, whether in France or an English-speaking country, but that doesn't make the new methodology in line with either the original circumstances or with the methodology employed in popular English-language biographies where most English-speakers will get their information." BoBo (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the proposal to copy the conversation to WT:MOS-FR and continue the conversation there, leaving this much text here to point people to the conversation if they want to join. Enough has been presented here for people to know whether they're interested or not. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I support that as well. Charles 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not support. It is my fear that any removal to the WT:MOS-FR page would serve only to isolate this debate to a apecific academic audience tilted toward accepted modern French usage and away from a general audience more representative of the majority of English-speakers not allied to a specific language. This debate, as I have said before, should not be a debate about the validity of modern French usage. This debate should be about how to write modern English articles. BoBo (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:AGF? Everyone here will see where the discussion is and may participate. What have you to fear? Charles 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, you have not been civil to me in the past when editing me on Prince du Sang. The addition of the question, "What have you to fear?" to your suggestion has an air of unwarranted sarcasm and dismissiveness associated with it that makes me especially wary of you. After a review of the WP:AGF article, I am also bothered by the following comment from GTBacchus:

"I've noticed a lot of interactions here in which one editor throws an AGF link at another as part of a response to some point in a dispute. The effect of this is often an escalation of ill will, and a further wandering from the constructive point at hand, because they end up arguing over whether one person was assuming good faith, and whether the other was assuming the assumption of good faith..." BoBo (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? It was I who suggested moving to a general discussion and I see nothing wrong with the edits at Prince du sang... You kept on reverting while pointing to a discussion you had already made your mind up on anyway. I said no one was going to listen there so throw it out where more people will see it. Wary of me? I beg your pardon but *that* is an unnecessary comment. I haven't any ill will, GTBacchus cannot speak for me and I have in mind to move the discussion to where it counts most, which is the most concise part of the MOS on the matter. Charles 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just proved my point about incivility. Can Charles make a unilateral decision like he is suggesting? I think it has to be a consensus decision and so far you only have two other supporters, both open opponents of mine. I suggest that you stop trying to intimidate me and leave this conversation in place for the next week or so so that others can comment. BoBo (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having taken the discussion this far here, it should remain. By all means add a notice at the other page. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not your "open opponent". I oppose your ideas which are shared by a few other people, so it's not about you. Please don't barb your comments about civility with more incivility. If you find me intimidating though there is something wrong! What can I possibly do, wish that your fingers get caught between your keyboard keys? :P Charles 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'Ello 'ello 'ello. What's all this then? Are you going to immortalise yourselves on WP:LAME about, of all things, the location for the discussion about capitalisation of French names? I have a French book from 1997 (Cornette: Chronique du Règne de Louis XIV) that seems to be using inconsistent spelling. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (ec)

Does the honour come with a user box or some sort of barnstar? :P I know there is the inconsistency but I think the issue is the inconsistency leads to arguments over what is used. We should develop a policy or clarify the MOS. Charles 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind whether this particular argument lives here or somewhere else, as long as we're agreed on the principle: people can come here and start style discussions if they're not getting a broad enough audience on the talk page of some other style guideline, and this is a good example of good things that can happen when they do, but OTOH, this is the talk page for WP:MoS, not WP:MOS-FR. WT:MoS already has 97 archives. Searching talk archives is already pretty hard, we don't need to make it harder by putting stuff on the wrong talk pages. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the unfortunate/incorrect/POV "Franco-English" line on WP:MOS-FR. The issue of consensus on French titles remains however.

There is no problem when using the English spelling of the titles with an "of" (Duke of..., Count of...) for those people known by their English forms... although one could imagine an infinite discussion about capitalization and the use of "of" in those titles (Pulling a book from a shelf: Capetian France 987-1328 by Elizabeth M. Hallam (London & New York: Longman, 1980. ISBN 0-582-48910-5) uses the lowercase "count of" and "duke of" throughout. I notice that Britannica online [ http://www.britannica.com/] appears to use lowercase and "de": "duke de", "count de" and "prince de").

The difficulty for French language titles on the English wiki: should contemporary French usage and the TCMOS be taken as guides? I am not sure that assuming "that after the change certain English-speaking academics jumped on the band wagon to enhance their academic credentials. Academics are constantly trying to re-invent history in order to attract publishers and gain tenure" is an effective way at arriving at consensus. English language usage is chaotic. A respected introduction on modern French history -- Gordon Wright's France in Modern Times (New York & London: Norton, 1987 ISBN0-393-95582-6) -- uses Duc d'Orléans, Duc de Broglie, Comte de Paris and Comte de Chambord. A respected overview of French literature -- Denis Hollier (ed) A New History of French Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1989. ISBN 0-674-61565-4) -- uses "marquis de", "prince de", "duc de".

The word "consensus" is key. The above discussion is an obvious example of why establishing a consensus and following a manual of style is helpful, if only to avoid losing oneself in endless discussion (or worse, edit wars) so that one may go back to writing/editing articles. NYArtsnWords (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the five books I have already listed, here is a sampling of books printed in English of French royalty or nobility that capitalizes French titles:

• Irene Mahoney, Royal Cousin, The Life of Henri IV of France, Doubleday, 1970;
• Peter Quennell, Memoirs of the Comte de Gramont, George Routledge & Sons, 1930;
• Hester W. Chapman, Privileged Persons, Four Seventeenth-Century Studies, Ebenezer Baylis and Son, 1966;
• Bryan Bevan, The Duchess Hortense, Cardinal Mazarin's Wanton Niece, The Rubicon Press, 1987;
• W.H. Lewis, The Sunset of the Splendid Century, William Sloane Associates, 1955;
• W.H. Lewis, Assault on Olympus, The Rise of the House of Gramont, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958;
• Joan Sanders, La Petite, The Life of Louise de la Vallière, Houghton Mifflin, 1959;
• Lisa Hilton, Athénaïs, The Real Queen of France, Little Brown and Company, 2002;
• Frances Mossiker, The Affair of the Poisons, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969;
• J. Christopher Herold, Love in Five Temperaments, Atheneum, 1961;
• Lucy Norton, First Lady of Versailles, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1978;
• Maria Kroll, Letters from Liselotte, The McCall Publishing Company, 1971;
• Nicholas Henderson, Prince Eugen of Savoy, Frederick A. Praeger, 1964;
• Jack Richtman, Adrienne Lecouvreur, Prentice Hall, 1971;
• Nancy Mitford, Madame de Pompadour, Harper & Row, 1968;
• Stanley Loomis, Du Barry, A Biography, J.B. Lippincott, 1959;
• Philip Mansel, Prince of Europe, The Life of Charles-Joseph de Ligne, Phoenix, 2003;
• John Hardeman, Louis XVI, Yale University Press, 1993;
• André Castelot (translated by Denise Folliot), Queen of France, Harper & Brothers, 1957;
• Frances Mossiker, The Queen's Necklace, Simon and Schuster, 1961;
• Alice Curtis Desmond, Marie Antoinette's Daughter, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1967;
• Philip Mansel, Louis XVIII, Blond & Briggs, 1981;
• Cynthia Cox, Tallyrand's Successor, Armand-Emmanuel du Plessis, Duc de Richelieu 1766-1822, Arthur Barker, Ltd., 1959;
• Marvin L. Brown, The Comte de Chambord, The Third Republic's Uncompromising King, Duke University Press, 1967.

Why have I listed so many? To show that the capitalization of French titles occurs in many, many English-language books up to the present day. Regardless of the argument about how the French court used capitalization, why should Wikipedia institute a policy that is not inclusive of a lot of the books that are the best way that the average English-speaker can gain information on French royalty? In addition, I think the case of the American translation of Castelot's book on Marie Antoinette is very instructive, regardless of what style Castelot actually used in his original French edition (which I haven't seen), the determination was made that the spelling should use capitalization for the titles in English. BoBo (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I love that the American Library Association review on Amazon of the Lisa Hilton book you mention uses the lowercase "marquise de Montespan". Like I said above, English language usage IS chaotic. There has never been any question that it isn't. If it wasn't chaotic, there would be no need for discussion of consensus. That is why a manual of style consensus is helpful, so that people don't edit war minor issues of capitalization forever. Without Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), things would be far more chaotic and one would never find anything. WP:LAME, mentioned in the comment above, is, despite its humor, a record of a lot of time spent on nothing. NYArtsnWords (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with you, NYArtsnWords, that English usage can be chaotic. But, with historical evidence to support its use by the French court itself, I think that the capitalization of French titles should not be banned from use on English-language Wikipedia. French Wikipedia can do what they want. That is a separate issue. BoBo (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we deal with inconsistencies, BoBo? Do we have articles on Henri, comte de Chambord or Henri, Comte de Chambord? Charles 04:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, I think you are essentially asking a software question. Why do names of articles need to be case sensitive? If they weren't, either method of capitalization could be used. BoBo (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article names usually reflect what the subjects are called. If it matters to you and others what the content within the article is, what should the articles themselves be called? If you want to use "Duc" in an article, shouldn't the holder of that title have the article title using "Duc" as well, and not "duc"? What is to prevent someone from an edit war either way if we don't have a style guide? In Chambord's case, one is a redirect to the other, they aren't the same page technically because the caps do matter. Charles 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From earlier in the conversation, "I agree with DCGeist. The standand needs to be rewritten to allow both forms of capitalization with the qualification that modern French usage is different from the usage in the 17th and 18th centuries. Articles about pre-1830 French individuals probably should use capitalization and post-1830 individuals should not. The 1830 date is somewhat arbitrary in the sense that I don't actually know the date when the lower-case usage became commonplace. All I know at this point is that the senior line of the House of Bourbon used capitalization in their titles all the way up to King Charles X of France, who was deposed in 1830." BoBo (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my primary concern has been that the facts be represented properly and as wide a range of evidence be adduced as possible. And I greatly admire the effort you've taken to do just that. However, the refined distinction you propose—capitalizing the titles of nobles who assumed their titles before 1830, lowercasing the titles of those who assumed their titles afterward—despite its historical grounding, is an odd sort of distinction to make in a style manual. Manuals of style tend not to call for different styles depending on the age of the item described and the style most prevalent at that point in history. That said, style manuals do sometimes call for fine distinctions based on nuances that are arguably analogous, and your well-evidenced argument is certainly not unreasonable.

Coming at this largely from the outside, I find the argument for applying the lowercase style in all cases stronger because (a) it agrees with preferred present-day French usage, (b) it parallels preferred present-day English usage, and (c) in applying one style generally it will improve consistency in a readily apparent manner (thus increasing the average reader's appreciation of our pursuit of professional-level quality) and decrease case-by-case arguments (thus making the average editor's life easier). Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify something, I too want Wikipedia to display professional-quality information. That is why I am introducing the idea that Wikipedia try not to discriminate against historically accurate presentations of French capitalization. By dividing the capitalization issue by date (1830?), I don't think the job of an editor will be made any more difficult. It seems easy to say different sets of rules apply pre and post a certain date. Any debate can be referenced to the date of the creation of the title or the date a person was born. In fact, there is already an article in development that lists the dates of the creation of certain titles, List of French peerages. BoBo (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no doubt that your proposal is just as amenable to professional-quality presentation as the alternative. That's why I carefully worded my version of the case for that alternative—"readily apparent", "average reader's appreciation." In this regard, I'm saying, the case does hinge on the matter of perception: Would the average reader recognize the logic behind the system you propose? It seems most unlikely, in the absence of explanatory sidebars that would be inappropriate. I'm afraid the average reader would be more likely to perceive simple inconsistency.—DCGeist (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I can't think of any professional-quality publication that makes such a differentiation between titles on the basis of date. Historically accurate is fine if you are reproducing a manuscript but in conveying information itself there is nothing gained by using a capital letter unless it is from a direct quote. It also seems easy to simply use the lower case letter across the board as is now down in French. Why do we have to create an even more artificial distinction? Again, we don't pick and choose the style of language we use based on date when writing article. I don't need to mention the "kynge" example again, I hope :-s Charles 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturellement, André Castelot uses lower case for titles in French, as do other French historians such as, Michel Antoine, Jean Castarède, Philippe Erlanger, Paul & Pierrette Girault de Coursac, Évelyne Lever, Jean-Christian Petitfils, Étienne Taillemine, Jean Tulard, Pierre Verlet, Jean de Viguerie, just to name a few. It irks me to have men & women of such erudition be given the epithet of "revisionists" just because they do not capitalize le roi de France or la comtesse du Trou. A question: if we are to use 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th century up to 1830 (why 1830? why not 1848 or 1870?) French Court's way of address, why is "Lis" in the article on the Fleur de Lis in English Wikipedia written with an "i" instead of a "y" since the "Fleur de lys" was the symbol of the French monarchy? Following this logic, when describing how Louis XVI was acclaimed before becoming unpopular (by the way, not by all his subjects), we should not write in French "Vive le Roi!" but "Vive le Roy!" On the other hand, if we want to stay so obtuse as to refuse the evolution of a language, why bother writing about anything outside the Anglo world? And why not pick a fight on the use in the same article of words being spelled the English way while others are spelled the American way? What is the proper English of English wiki? English? American? Australian? Canadian? Talk about inconsistencies! Frania W. (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree. But Père Anselme was by far the most respected and authoritative royal genealogist-biographer-historian during the reign of Louis XIV on the subject of titles appearing in print. In the third edition (1726, first edition 1692 -- exactly the same on this matter) Père Anselme's "Histoire Généalogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, des Pairs, Grands Officiers de la Couronne & de la Maison du Roy", page 154, the entry on the Sun King begins, "Louis XIV. du nom, roy de France & de Navarre, surnommé le Grand...". Titles are not capitalised in Anselme's published works, though he may well have capitalised them in private correspondence -- especially to royalty. His style is typical of information printed in media intended for a wider audience than one's personal correspondent. Whatever variation one may find in post 19th century popular biographers in English, or in princesses writing letters, an encyclopedia strives for accuracy, authenticity and professionalism in the printed word -- not in penmanship. Most 17th, 18th and 19th century works I have seen lower-case French titles when the words are not translated into English. Foreign titles are notoriously mangled by writers of popular history in English. That is understandable: such works are character- and content-driven. But people turn to an encyclopedia for clarity and accuracy in both form and content, and should not leave misinformed or bewildered. Wikipedia may encourage anarchy in choices of subject matter, and even in length of articles. But "individual expression" in the rules of grammar, format, and presentation within articles simply say that we are unprofessional, i.e., undisciplined, unsure, and unreliable. Adopting standards isn't saying that any other usage is wrong, but that readers can count on Wikipedia to handle similar things similarly from article to article. Of course, that assumes that people don't game the system by creating forbidden forks, as has been done with a French royal title in Prince du sang and Prince du Sang -- which have recently been made to direct the reader (needlessly) to different articles. FactStraight (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC):

I think it is interesting to watch the evolution in the argument of the people wedded to the lower-case scenario. First, the MOS directly stated in an absolutist manner that using capitals was incorrect as if only morons would use it. Now that it has been established as a historical fact, they have switched carts to the argument that it would lead to inconsistencies. I am more persuaded by that argument than the ones they previously used, but I dislike the elitist, academic aspect of the the argument that "only the best" academic works use the lower case system, completely overlooking the multitude of English-language books that I have listed as if they were "populist" drivel. I would not be opposed to still using the lower case system IF the MOS was further rewritten to show that there is quite a valid case for using capitals both historically and in popular literature, but that Wikipedia has chosen not to use capitals for consistency purposes - not for educational, academic and/or professional reasons. In addition, I think the forms of address - Monsieur le Prince or Madame la Duchesse - should remain in capitals because they do refer to specific people, while the generic titles of prince or duc when used in reference to any holder of that title remain lower case. BoBo (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a rather long section title, and my watchlist is about to capsize with repetitions of it. TONY (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While upper case vs lower case may be a vital case, I believe there is something more important in the writing of Wikipedia articles: balance within the article. For instance, why does the section "Family life" in the article on Louis XVI of France go on for over 30 lines (1/6th of the article) on the difficulty L.XVI & MA had consumating their marriage (American obsession with sex?), but says next to nothing on the accomplishments of Louis XVI? Hardly a word on the scientific projects, nothing on the creation of the meter, the decimal system, the reason for the creation of the guillotine, the abolition of torture - the list is long... Here is the fr:wiki link to Louis XVI (and I do not mean to imply that articles are better in the French wikipedia, but in this case, yes). http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_de_France

What I am trying to say is that here we are discussing a long-ago-dead-way-of-address in the French language for which we are incapable of giving the closing date, but are not addressing the real issue when writing an article: the truth.

As for the "elitist" vs "populist" approach, it seems to me that the "elitist" would be characterized by the use of Louis XIV's court manner of speech, while the "populist" would be the toned-down modern French. Frania W. (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania, while I understand your problem and sympathize, your complaint is easily taken care of. All you have to do is translate the parts of the French Wikipedia article you want to use and incorporate them into the Louis XVI article with proper sourcing (by the way, it has been my experience that many of the royalty articles in French Wikipedia aren't sourced at all). My problem is a little different. I have provided sourcing and there are still people who, although they can't deny its historical truth, don't want to deal with it. As long as you source your claims, you can incorporate what you want, I can't.

As far as your "elitist" statement goes, "elitism" is when one small group tries to enforce their cultural will upon a much larger group. You would be valid in the claim that the courtly manner of speech characteristic of Louis XIV's reign was "elitist" in comparison to the mass of French commoners at the time, but you would be incorrect to say that its use in modern English literature is "elitist". I have provided a variety of sources to prove that many popular English-language biographies use the capital case. It is not a minority over the majority scenario. It is not a dead issue either, I have provided the names of six books printed since 2000 that use capitals. If what you said was true, then there should be no popularly printed books in English that use capitals with French titles BoBo (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest the following revision of the present MOS:

Noble titles

Main article: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)

There is currently no standard convention for French noble titles and present-day English usage varies greatly. In Wikipedia articles, French noble titles are currently listed in two different ways:

• in English translation (Duke of, Count of...) for historical figures and royalty most well-known by their English forms.
  • while present-day English usage varies with regards to the capitalization of these titles^[1], editors should follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters).
  • while present-day English usage also varies with regards to the use of "of" or "de" after the titles^[1], the consensus on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) has been to use "of" when the English title is given.
• in French for other cases, maintaining the French title spelling (seigneur, chevalier, marquis, duc, comte) and the de.

Furthermore, in the second case—French titles in French form—capitalization is currently chaotic:

• in French with lowercase spelling: comtesse de, marquis de... (e.g. Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de Sévigné; Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet; Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme; François Hédelin, abbé d'Aubignac; Jean François Paul de Gondi, cardinal de Retz). This is the form used by The Chicago Manual of Style.
• in French with capital spelling: Comtesse de, Marquis de... (e.g. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu; Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon; Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney). This form was used at times by the French court in the past, and is often still found in English-language books about French royalty and nobility.
  

The consensus is that in order to prevent spelling inconsistencies within a single article or between different articles that the lowercase spelling be used.
The exception to this rule involves the style and form of address associated with the rank of specific members of the House of Bourbon. Certain members of the French royal family, the Fils de France, and their cousins, the princes and princesses du sang, were accorded a particular form of address. For example, Louis d'Orléans, Duke of Orléans was known at court as Monsieur le Prince because he was the First Prince of the Blood. His form of address should not be in lowercase (i.e. Monsieur le prince) because the style referred exclusively to him and no other royal or noble at the time.

BoBo (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure there’s much purpose to illustrating within a style guide all the inconsistencies in usage in either language; moreover, the result is confusing. I would recommend keeping it very simple, and it would seem to me that there are two main issues to resolve (keeping in mind that this is the English Wikipedia):

• First, is it satisfactory to require more than that usage should be consistent only within each individual article?
• Second, if uniformity is preferred, should French titles be left in French or translated into their English equivalent spellings? (In the latter case, where there is no equivalent, the French spelling would be used; however, “of” would still replace “de”.)

I would further recommend that for consistency and simplicity, capitalization of French titles (translated or not) should follow the MOS practice for English titles. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Vidame of (a French title) and the like simply do not work. Also, some people are rarely referred to by translated titles, such as the marquis de Sade (Marquess/Margrave of Sade?). Applying English practices to French titles is stylistically incorrect and also shows a lack of care. I would keep the MOS simple and state that French titles appended to the end of a person's name are either in the form X, Count of Y where English usage is appropriate (I would say mostly for members of the French royal house) or in the form X, comte de Y. Standalone styles without designations may be in the form M. le Comte but otherwise it is just comte (we say "the princess" in English as well, generally not "the Princess"). Charles 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobo - the use of "forms of address" seems to me to be a minor point; I doubt that any editor will use "Monsieur le Prince" in any place in an article other than in a subsection on, specifically, forms of address. Nevertheless, I see no reason why, if you want to add information on the pages of French nobles about how they were traditionally addressed, you shouldn't use the period capitalization if you reference it and put it in quotes. You might also consult Appellations des princes du sang on the French wiki.

I also strongly recommend that this discussion be copied to the MOS-FR talk page, as it may be useful to understand the conventions.- NYArtsnWords (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Forms of address" are relevant here because some who like to edit historical biographies are prone to maximize use of both titles and foreign phrases. We have gradually ratcheted down the number of WP bios with paragraphs begining "His Royal Highness The Prince George of Camelot, Duke of Cambridge, said...". But some would like to do the French equivalent, "The Fils de France inherited a château with a cour d'honneur..." or "Madame la Princesse was handed the cordon bleu by her dame d'atour..." This preciousness must be resisted, not only because it's bad writing, but because if we who care about contextualized usage of historical titulature don't ration it, we're inviting a backlash from deletists with vacuum cleaners and attitude to move in and dumb everything down. FactStraight (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion should be referenced, but not copied, or it will develop two continuations. I think consistency within articles should be mandated, but otherwise, as in so many areas, either style allowed, since both are clearly used in English WP:RSs. Isn't it that simple? Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is acceptable to set a standard for usage of the same foreign terms in all articles. Conceptually, encyclopedias seek to organize information in a way that shows as well as tells how that information is typically used. Pragmatically, if we don't set a standard each article's content becomes a battleground over trivial personal preferences. Some readers expect guidance from an encyclopedia concerning appropriate usage. Others, seeing none, assume the right to substitute their personal preference (Prince du Sang) for someone else's (prince du sang) every time they encounter it. This is inherently unstable. Others shouldn't have to spend so much time and energy over this issue. They can only be spared if we adopt a consensus on usage. FactStraight (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And consistency within individual articles overrides any particular rulings on how to write French names and titles; the style has to apply to all titles in an article, English, French, German, or whatever. So if we say "Henry, Prince of Wales", we say "Henry, Prince of Condé" (or "Henri, Prince de Condé"). If we say "Henry, prince of Wales", we say "Henry, prince of Condé" (or "Henri, prince de Condé"), etc. (Whether we use French or English versions of French names and titles is a matter of choice but should be as consistent as possible within articles, though it's rarely perfectly possible.) There's not one rule for the names and titles of French people and another for the rest of the world. 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The consistency is in applying the proper forms for a title in the language in which is it written. We would never speak of a "fürst" (it requires a capital letter), why would we use "Prince de"? Charles 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. French is different from German or Farsi: English readers are historically much more accustomed to seeing Henri, duc de Guise than "Heinrich, Herzog zu Braunschweig" as an untranslated term amidst English prose, if only because past English encyclopedias treated French as a lingua franca. Titles in the other Latin languages are less decipherable for averagely-educated English readers, and those in other languages entirely undecipherable. I understood that we were discussing only how French titles and styles are to be used. FactStraight (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree, Charles. The gist of the foregoing discussion is that there exists no consistent standard in either French or English “translation”, so I don’t know how one approach can be said to be “stylistically incorrect and also shows a lack of care” with respect to another. Where is there a respected style guide that holds extensive consensus on the issue. Furthermore, translation of foreign-language titles into English has precedent on Wikipedia (cf. WikiProject Germany). As for the Marquis de Sade (which I have hardly ever seen rendered “marquis de Sade” in English), a formula can be included in the MOS to cover such “well-known exceptions”. Personally, I’m agnostic about whether titles are translated or not, or capitalized or not, but I’d prefer simplicity (for the sake of non-specialist editors) and consistency (for its own sake – and since it’s jarring to the reader to click on a link only to be taken to a page that employs a quite different approach). To me, this is “stylistically correct and demonstrative of care”. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't apply English standards flatout to a language which isn't English. German is a little different than French with translation (although we never speak of the "Herzog of Anhalt"). French seems to go untranslated for any number of reasons (I personally think it is because it was the language of diplomacy) but German is usually translated or left in the full German. I still think that simplicity is to treat English titles as they are in English and French titles as they are in French (and have been used in English, which is not consistent). Simply replacing "de" with "of" and using the French titles still (capitalized, nonetheless) is tantamount to misleading readers, in my opinion. No Ducs of Berry or Comtes of Brissac for me. Charles 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, you and BoBo are at either extreme on this issue, but I suggest that the best place to be is in the middle. Wikipedia cannot enforce a single style when one doesn't exist in the real world. Although I have stated my preference for lower case, some books undoubtedly use upper. For example, my copy of Jean & François Clouet, by Etienne Jollet, published by Editions de Lagune, Paris, uses the form "Prince de" that you object to. All titles are rendered in the same way: Diane de Poitiers, Duchesse de Valentinois; Claude Goffier, Sire de Boisy; François de Vendôme, Vidame de Chartres, etc.

All we can do on Wikipedia is try to be consistent within individual articles, respecting the style that is used already, if there is one. One will never be totally consistent: do we ever want to say Catherine of Medici, for example? Or Anthony of Bourbon? Certain nonsenses are inevitable—but we can take consolation from the fact that this is also true in published books, where, for example, Catherine de' Medici has one son called Francis and another called François. qp10qp (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The French Academy though is the only body which governs French usage. If we favour consistency if it all possible why wouldn't we look toward what is used in French if England is all over the place? I'm not particularly concerned with the particule at the moment, we aren't discussing names themselves. This is about titles. Should we reproduce inconsistencies? Charles 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, I am against any reference to the Académie française and the its accepted version of "correct" usage. This debate should not be about how modern people in France capitalize. It should be solely about how modern English articles are written that incorporate past forms of French titles and styles. To incorporate modern French usage, as I have said before, conflates two separate issues that should in my opinion be delinked. BoBo (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I reject that in its entirety. We are not writing FOR the past but ABOUT the past. We don't have to abide by past "rules" which weren't rules at all. To separate the issues only misleads and serves to confuse others in this discussion. Charles 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll support a short-and-simple version of BoBo's revision: "While present-day English and past French usage vary, for the sake of consistency, articles with French titles and styles should use the lowercase." FactStraight (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure you realize, FactStraight, that I only suggested my revision in order to allow consistency within a single article or between different articles. If the consensus is that such consistency is only necessary within a single article, I would prefer not enforcing any capitalization rule across the range of English Wikipedia articles on French royalty and nobility because I do not think the lowercase system is historically accurate in all cases within the pre-1830 time frame we have been discussing. BoBo (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is accurate today though according to the French academy. We aren't writing in English of the time either. Spellings change but we are still conveying the same information. You speak as if every single title was either written one way or the other. I imagine plenty were written both ways. Charles 11:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Charles: not only in the past "every single title was either written one way or the other", but even family names had different spellings. The name of Charles Claude Flahaut de La Billarderie, comte d'Angiviller comes to my mind, where in the 17th & 18th centuries, "Angiviller" could be Angeviller, Angiviller, Angevillier, Angivillier, Angevilliers, Angivilliers. Other examples of the variations on spelling of family names in the 17th & 18th centuries: d'Angenne/d'Angennes; de Montausier/de Montauzier, André Le Nostre/Le Nôtre, François Mansard/Mansart.

RE the translation of "de" into "of": instead of Charles de Gaulle, shouldn't we write Charles of Gaulle? Mon Dieu! Frania W. (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania, I must respectfully disagree with you on the idea that inconsistent French spelling in the past somehow impacts a discussion of the capitalization of older French titles and styles in modern English. You are making reference to the spelling of the names of the appanages that were used in the creation of the titles, not the titles themselves. As far as I can tell, the actual spelling of the titles prince, princesse, duc, duchesse, comte, comtesse, etc. has not varied in the last 400 years, but the capitalization has. It doesn't make any difference if the spelling of the name Berry in Duc de Berry has changed over time because the debate is not about the capitalization of the word Berry, but is rather about the capitalization of the word Duc, which has not changed spelling during the same time frame. BoBo (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BoBo, this is the second time you try to "trip me" on what I wrote: The first time was on my "elitist" vs "populist" comment which I made in jest because I found hilarious that the "elitists" were now "populists" and vice versa. However, you seemed not to have caught l'esprit of my words and, instead, went on a long classroom style (yawn) explanation of the word "elitism/elitist". Thank you. However, a patronizing attitude is not sought after in the world of Wikipedia. And, probably unbeknownst to you, I could spell & explain to you the word "elitist" in quite a few languages. The point I was making, which prompted your last tongue-lashing, was in answer to the comment Charles made about the changes in spelling. By the way, in the 15th century, "comte" used to be spelled "conte". I have under my eyes a text from original early 15th century (reproduced in typing by the Sorbonne) in which you can see the chaotic spelling in French writing, which did not stop at the close of that century, and was still reigning at the time of Louis XIV. One of the reasons the Académie française was created was to put down some rules for the "literate" French (a tiny percentage of the population of France at the time of Louis XIV) who took quite a bit of liberty with spelling and did not give much of a hoot about grammar. Following, and courtesy of the Sorbonne, are excerpts from the Chronique 1407-1424 http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/morchesne/chapitre21/#453note:

Celle annee, la veille de Saint Clement, fut tué a Paris le duc d’Orleans Loys, frere germain du roy.

L’an mil CCCC VIII fut la bataille du Liege de Jehan duc de Bourgongne et de l’evesque du Liege contre les Liejois.

Celle annee trespassa madame d’Orleans, la femme dudit feu duc Loys d’Orleans.

Item le roy party de Paris pour aler a Tours et au retour en mars fut fait le traictié de Chartres sur la mort dudit feu duc d’Orleans entre Charles duc d’Orleans, les contes de Vertus et d’Angolesme, ses enfans, et le duc de Bourgongne Jehan.

Mil CCCC et IX. Montagu, le grant maistre d’ostel du roy, fut decapité a Paris.

Mil CCCC X. Jehan, premier duc de Berry, le duc et les enfans d’Orleans, le duc de Bourbon, le conte d’Alençon, le conte d’Armaignac et le conte de Richemont et autres furent a grant compaignie a Vicestre452 ; depuis poursuirent le duc de Bourgongne jusques a Mondidier, puis s’en retournerent a Saint Denis et a Saint Cloud pres Paris, et fut la bataille de Saint Cloud.

Mil CCCC et XI. Le siege fut miz a Estampes par Loys duc de Guienne, daulphin de Viennoiz, et par le duc de Bourgongne et les gens du roy ; et furent prins le conte de la Marche et autres au Puiset en Beausse par ceulx de la partie d’Orleans.

Frania W. (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania, I am sorry you feel I am trying to "trip" you. All I have been trying to do is "narrow" the context of this debate so that it doesn't go off into a million different directions. Although I am impressed with your research, I would like to point out that from the beginning I have restricted my conversation to the reign of the House of Bourbon from 1589 to 1830, primarily because my main concern has always been the titles and styles during that period. I carefully phrased the heading to this section using the phrase, "from 1589 to 1830," because of my interest in the courts of Louis XIV through Charles X. I even specifically restricted the time frame in my last comment to 400 years to ensure the accuracy of my statement. I respect your erudition, but please do not try to pull this debate into the 1400's, a time period I have not commented on. Your "slippery slope" technique only serves to distort and not address my two main points: 1) The actual capitalization of French titles and styles during the Bourbon period, and 2) its acceptable use in modern English literature. BoBo (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we make that distinction and be constrained by limits which you seek to impose? You cannot restrict conversation in such a way. Should I say please do not comment to restrict this to such a specific time frame? Really now, you are making things more complicated than they have to be and it is getting tiresome. My interest, and Frania's, and many others', is to find a solution for all French titles. I'm sorry if you do not share that POV but we are not going to be limited by the whims of a single user. Charles 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

BoBo, I knew when I threw in the 15th century Chronique, that you would bring up the 1589-1830 span of time & I almost added a paragraph to this effect but judged my comment long enough as it was. The voyage into the 15th century was not meant to be a “slippery slope” but an interesting illustration of the evolution of the French language from that time until the end of the 16th century. I am pretty sure that if I had the time I could find a few texts dating back to Henry/Henri IV whose language & court manners were a far cry from those of his grandson Louis XIV. I understand very well your two main points & your tough fighting to have your view implemented, but I happen not to agree with you & I believe that my points are as valid as yours. The 1589-1830 period you chose is leakage free at either end. There was much left over from the two centuries before the reign of Henri IV that could still be found during the reign of Louis XV & beyond.

If you change the rules of Wikipedia for that period, how are you going to enforce them? Do you know how many read wiki rules & regulations before editing a sentence, specially when they see what they know to be a mistake, even if it is not one, according to your point of view? If all of us here reach a consensus, and you go ahead with the changes you want to make, do you think that a non-initié walking into a Bourbon article is going to abide by the new ruling? He or she is going to make the change to what he or she thinks is correct & you’ll revert, and so on until someone brings up the subject again & starts the very same discussion as if this one never happened. It is hard for me to imagine a ruling just for one period. I see it as “burdening the beast”. Frania W. (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In the article on Ancient Rome, are the numbers written in Roman numerals because that is the way the Romans wrote?

Frania, I basically have promoted the idea that there should be no "capitalization police". It is due to the shortcomings of the software that Charles earlier pointed out that has forced this awkward situation where a standard needs to be put into place to guarantee consistency in a single article and consistency between articles, although it seems that there are editors out there who feel only consistency within a single article is necessary. If there were no "capitalization police", the edit wars you describe probably wouldn't happen.

I would like to address another issue at this point which I realize might seem a digression. I realize from your comments about the Marie Antoinette article and your exchanges with Charles that you hold Antonia Fraser in low regard. I hope that you are not so opposed to my line of reasoning because Fraser promotes the same use of capitalization that I do in her writing. I merely have sought to use her books as proof that there is no established, standard way of translating the capitalization of French titles and styles into modern written English. I have made no comments about her quality as a historian. I have provided many examples of other biographies of French royalty written in English that support the use of capitalization I do, independent of Antonia Fraser. BoBo (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not point out "software shortcomings". That is what you call them. Do not mislead people into believing I said that. Don't put people down by calling them "capitalization police" if you do not want to easily be put down yourself. I speak for myself, but also imagine Frania feels the same, in saying that your POV isn't so important that we would use Fraser to nullify it, the opposition is in that you are proposing a bizarre, asymmetric and at times nonsensical way of dealing with capital letters. What about examples that can be found both with caps and without them? Do you deny the sources do not exist "countering" almost each and every example you provided using caps which do not use caps? Charles 06:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Charles, let me quote an earlier exchange in the conversation:

"Charles, I think you are essentially asking a software question. Why do names of articles need to be case sensitive? If they weren't, either method of capitalization could be used. BoBo (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"

"Well, the article names usually reflect what the subjects are called. If it matters to you and others what the content within the article is, what should the articles themselves be called? If you want to use "Duc" in an article, shouldn't the holder of that title have the article title using "Duc" as well, and not "duc"? What is to prevent someone from an edit war either way if we don't have a style guide? In Chambord's case, one is a redirect to the other, they aren't the same page technically because the caps do matter. Charles 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"

You specifically bring up a software issue to prove your point that consistency is needed, because,"in Chambord's case, one is a redirect to the other, they aren't the same page technically because the caps do matter."

Second, your statements are growing increasingly hysterical for no good reason. By saying, "you are proposing a bizarre, asymmetric and at times nonsensical way of dealing with capital letters," when I have shown 1) the method of capitalization I propose was indeed used by members of more than one Bourbon court, and 2) it is used in many modern English books on French royalty and nobility seems to me to point to a logical inconsistency on your part and not mine. Any possible revisions to the current Wikipedia policy I have suggested have been my attempts to compromise with your clearly held belief that somehow modern French usage, which Qp10qp proves with his Clouet example is itself inconsistent, should reign supreme in English-language translation. As I have said before, your only argument so far that I think has any validity is the consistency one.

Third, you needn't jump so quickly to Frania's defense. She comes across as a highly intelligent person who is perfectly capable of explaining her own position on Antonia Fraser and how modern English has no set of capitalization rules concerning French titles and styles like modern French does.

Fourth, you are bordering on ad hominem attack, and I would suggest your future responses not be so derogatory. BoBo (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a software issue, I just think you have issues with it. You have not shown that each individual only used one system of capitalization. Everything else you say, including what you say about Frania, to me is an attempt to sidestep around the issue and discredit others. This conversation (the one on one bit with you) is over because as far as I am concerned. You gloss over or entirely ignore the fact that the capitalization you are proposing itself was never consistently used. If you imagine at all that it is somehow "better" I'd like to see some real, worthwhile evidence. Ignoring the use of lowercase letters doesn't make them go away, for all of your quoted Fraser material and the like. That being said, the only reasonable policy would be to pick a side and endorse it (preferably the lowercase because it is the only thing that has anything said for it) for the sake of avoiding issues like capitalizing a letter. Charles 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The tone is rising, not good in such a discussion & will take us nowhere. In my opinion, phrases like "your statements are growing increasingly hysterical" (from the Greek word for uterus, hystera) are out of place, and more so when addressed to a man. Frania W. (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

←Okay guys. We don't want people taking WP:MoS off their watchlist because of long off-topic conversations. This stuff is relevant to Use English and WT:MOS-FR, and maybe some of the past discussions there will be helpful. You won't bring additional eyeballs or points of view into the discussion by continuing to discuss it here; in fact, the longer this gets, the less likely people are to read it. Like the bartender said, "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created a section: WT:MOS-FR#French titles. Charles 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)