Talk:Honour/Archive 1

Old talk

Someone should move the quotes to wikiquote, I would but I don't know how.

Important point: Not just the "British", but Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and almost all people who learn English elsewhere in the world use the "ou" spellings. They are standard in International English, not the American ones.

I know it means changing a lot of articles. But that's the fact of the matter, "ou" is the standard.

Now, honour without u is honor, kind of like Bush without u is still an attack on Iraq. So maybe this is really two different concepts, one in the USA without u, and one with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.82.218 (talk • contribs) 03:06, January 25, 2003 (UTC).

---

I had the wording "Attempts were made to preserve the integrity of an honor over time..." and this was changed to say "Holders of honors attempted to preserve...". I realize the wording was in the passive voice, but I used it here for a reason: it wasn't just the honor holder who made this attempt. If an honor escheated back to the king (due to lack of heirs or treason on the part of the holder or whatever) the king oftentimes gave out the honor as a unit to someone else. Or he might retain it as part of the royal demesne, but continue to administer it as a unit. If someone can find a good, simple active voice way to say this, but all means do so. Loren Rosen 04:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

as of 23rd December some of the mentions of honour in the article were spelt properly, others still as "honor". As this looks very scrappy, I have changed them all to "honour". i hope this is all right: I assume that the remaining "honor"'s were due to a lack of time and not a conscious decision.

A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.16.2 (talk • contribs) 20:52, December 23, 2003 (UTC).

True or false:

True or false:

If the Talk:George Washington page ever gets extremely large, it can be time to move the "Honors" part to separate pages:

1. List of honors of George Washington
2. List of honors of Thomas Jefferson
3. List of honors of Benjamin Franklin
4. List of honors of Andrew Jackson
5. List of honors of James Madison
6. List of honors of James Monroe
7. List of honors of Alexander Hamilton
8. List of honors of John Q. Adams
9. List of honors of Henry Clay
10. List of honors of James Polk
11. List of honors of Robert Lee
12. List of honors of Abraham Lincoln
13. List of honors of Theodore Roosevelt
14. List of honors of Franklin Roosevelt
15. List of honors of Woodrow Wilson

66.32.79.137 15:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

A silly way to begin an article

I have remmoved the following words from the introductory sentence:

(most variants of English, including Australian English, British English, Canadian English and New Zealand English) or honor (American English)

If consensus is to use the international spelling in this article, then just use the international spelling. A list of all the different variants of English unnecessarily clutters the article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:33, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's still silly! How can the first section be called "Honour, sex, and violence"? dab 20:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree should be changed soon and we need an honour/integrity portion as honour may mean something altogether diferent than the tone displayed ie; honorable. Paladine

Rather than refer to the spelling honour as British English, albeit true, it might be appropriate to refer to this spelling as Commonwealth English. The term International English is quite debated, but may be appropriate seeing as this spelling has been chosen as the most international here. In fact the article International English has a good discussion of what truly is international in this language. Gareth Hughes 00:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move to Honor

Votes

• Strongest object conceivable. - reverted changes violet/riga (t) 23:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Objection! - Read the top of the freaking talk page! Honour is more common. --Neo 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Ditto jguk 23:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object — this is a proposal that an article should be biased towards US readership, and is against policy. Gareth Hughes 23:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong objection. There is absolutely no reason to move the article. Jooler 23:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• *Chortle* Object — Matt Crypto 00:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object—In cases where neither US nor Commonwealth English have an obvious link with the topic, the article should remain consistent with that used by the originator.
• Object. This particular article is most sensible where it is. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object — the only nation-specific parts of the article deal with British feudal honours, so an insular spelling is appropriate here. -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object is trampling other peoples' orthography the new international standard too? adamsan 09:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Timrollpickering 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. zoney ♣ talk 10:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As Tim says, our style guide comes out against such modifications. I don't mind US spelling--if you check my edits and my Usenet posts you'll see I have always used it in preference to British. But the issue here is whether we let arguments over the spellings deflect us from writing an excellent encyclopedia (or, for that matter, encyclopædia, or encyclopaedia). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object of course - it should be left where it started, at honour, as should the spelling in the article itself, both in accordance with policy. [comments moved to discussion]-- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object against policy. Warofdreams 11:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object. "Honour" is the standard spelling outside the United States. -- Necrothesp 14:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Object —Michael Z. 2005-03-8 17:35 Z
• Object --Sketchee 22:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Object. James F. (talk) 23:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. (I had voted and commented earlier, but somehow it disappeared.) Jonathunder 23:47, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Please see the decision section below instead of voting

Discussion

It seems that some people do not honour the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English

If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)

...

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

This cuts both ways. I would object to color being moved to "colour" for the same reasons. Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM

• On the contrary. International spelling is becoming the American standard. And changing those occurrences is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on spelling. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  American English, popular throughout Latin America, Eastern Europe, and much of Asia, is just as "international" as British English; if anything, the trend is toward Americanisation. This is neither the place for trolling nor for placing votes. A.D.H. (t&m) 04:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

  Please see International English for the complicated arguments surrounding the standardisation of the English language. It is true that US English is being taken up by more students of English as a Foreign Language, but that most readers of English use Comonwealth English standards. Isn't the question really about needless disruption of this article? Gareth Hughes 14:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  There are 3 member states of the European Union for whom English (and more specifically the British variety) is an offical language, UK, Rep of Ireland and Cyprus. In order to teach English as a foreign Language (EFL) in the European Union you either have to be a citizen of one of the EU member states or you need to have a work permit. In order to get a work permit you have to demonstrate that no-one from inside the EU could do the same job. This pretty much means that no-one from North America can teach EFL in Europe. Thus it would seem to me that the EFL taught in Europe is by default almost exclusively British English. Jooler 21:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  ^That is a load of crap, pardon my English. I live in the EU, in Germany to be exact and before that in France. I have met many many EFL teachers here and a large minority were Americans or Canadians. Your statement is pure rubbish. Do you have any idea how many American have dual citizenship (US and EU) - millions. Not to mention the number who had grandparents who were born in the EU and are therefore entitled to work permits in most EU states. I have no idea of where you live but I have met many many Americans who live in the EU with work permits and not just in professional or specialists jobs.

Give me a break !!!! --84.153.21.247 20:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)Harold

• Partly right (at least according to our Wikipedia entries). English is not an official language of Cyprus (though it is widely spoken there). It is an official language, along with Maltese, in Malta. Additionally, in Europe, it is used officially in the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Gibraltar, jguk 23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

English is also one of the two official languages (alongside French) of the Council of Europe, and is one of the official languages of the United Nations. British spellings are normally used in those contexts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit history

• Hmm. On checking, this would seem to be how the article started. If so, perhaps we have been a little hasty... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been honour since Dec 2003. It's not how the article started that counts, it's what format major contributions followed (i.e. a sudden mass change of honour to honor throughout a well-developed article is not in line with this). But in any case, this only applies if the version of English to be used cannot be decided on other grounds. Compelling arguments include that in this case, apparently only the US uses "honour" (rather than all English versions based on US spelling). zoney ♣ talk 12:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The history doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. It may be that it was a duplicate article moved to replace an older article. Jooler 13:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, unless you can demonstrate what the whole story is, outside the history, that is all we have to go on. I can't see any evidence of article moves or article deletions. The change from "honor" to "honour" was done all at once by an anon, User:213.78.16.2, at 20:57, 23 Dec 2003, without any concurrent major contribution. Why is it acceptable that this anon's changes, against policy, are OK, whereas the recent changes back are not? Are we saying that it is OK for policy to have been broken for over a year - basically, that policy need not be followed if no-one finds out for long enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Any edit that survives for over a year is pretty stable. There's nothing to be gained by moving the poor article again. Either spelling is okay but the one we've got is "honour". Moving it again would only appease the spelling warriors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth spelling is always used in international organisations. --203.217.43.161 14:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Decision

After 6 days the decision has been taken to retain the current title. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changed instances of "honour" to "honor." Title remains British spelling. The article was first logged with U.S. spelling and should stay that way. Several subsequent edits showed clear bias in favor of variants, e.g. in 2003 this article read "Honour (most variants of English, including Australian English, British English and New Zealand English)."

This never needed to be put to a vote, IMO, the original author's variant should be retained, as long as it is an accepted spelling, which it was. 69.28.40.34 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What about education?

What about term 'honors' in education? This should be covered as well, at the very least as the see also or disambiguation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The clarification that has been added is, at best, inaccurate. Gifted students and honor students are two wholly different things. There may be considerable overlap, but they are not synonomous, and a redirect to the "Gifted Education" page for "honor student" is a disservice to users. There is more discussion connecting honors and gifted in this post than there is on the "Gifted Education" page. It may be best to create a brief page dealing with "Honors Education" or possibly insert the relevant information into an appropriate article.--143.88.201.212 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, there is a perfect page Honor student, so I fixed the link by changing from gifted education.--143.88.201.212 17:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Honour

Someone proposes merging "Changes in Honour" into the section of this article that talks about cultures of honour and cultures of law.

I would not approve of this merger if it means any replacement of the current text. The current text speaking about these matters is referenced to Montesquieu and Steven Pinker, and relatively neutral; the "changes" text is strongly Eurocentric, and speaks of the cultural benefits brought to European nobility by the concept of honour. The "changes" text would be more at home in chivalry anyways, which is already linked from here. The anthropological explanation involving security to person and property in the absence of a neutral third party devoted to law enforcement should definitely remain. Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

merge if

someone would be willing to contrast Cheneydo with Bushido in the article focused on how those outside the law (above, below - whatever) manage their affairs; otherwise do not merge. --Metarhyme 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

why only talk about insults?

Why does this article only talk abotu insults? I always thought that honor had more to do with keeping to your word. Or behaving honorably to others, like not stealing from a sleeping person, not cheating someone, etc. 67.165.96.26 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found the article on Honour system. Am I wrong? Does the usage of Honor refer mainly (or only) to the insult type? 67.165.96.26 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Honour is a form of individual or collective integrity, and as such the avenging of insults only represents one angle of interpretation. Cultural context must be taken into account. For instance, to the average Westerner "honour killings" are actually "pride" killings, since anyone who would murder their own female relative has no honour whatsoever.

People who accept Honour Killings see things differently, of course.

<Anonymous>

Spelling proposal

Hi there, I notice that in this article there is a lot of activity about spelling that could be better channeled into the subject itself. You may be interested in this proposal to put an end to the problem. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardisation

The article at the present time is titled Honour and is unlikely to change, given the above vote. Is there a consensus then to change all instances of Honor within the article (except for the American English definition) to Honour? I don't mind if either is the standard, however, one of them should be within the article. čĥàñľōŕď 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to MoS, these changes should be reverted. PizzaMargherita 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See my consensus in the Honorificabilitudinitatibus section below. Zchris87v 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honour killing

Article seems to make the claim that most honour killings are directed at females. From what I have heard it is the other way round but those against woman gain more press. Though it is possible that the vast majority of male deaths falls into a different subclass of murder. Any way citation is needed.

True. There are similarly many honour killings of males as of females. It does not garner any press attention (no doubt for populistic reasons, but whatever) but is a fact of life in most Near Eastern countries. Just a while ago a young boy was killed in Iraque on his own doorstep for being homosexual, without doubt an honour killing in the strictest sense. I could give some more German sources on the question, but I doubt it would help much. I'll look into it some more. --TheOtherStephan 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the article now contradicts itself on that issue. It says honour killings are "primarily against women," then goes on to state that the numbers are about equal. Twin Bird 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re."old Eastern worths"

is that British usage? Am. Engl. "values". As for one not tolerating insults in old Japan, see the "Hagakure". Taibaka, 26-5-06.

Re. an international standard in English, there is no international body that determines which spelling or usage is standard. There is British English, American English, and a number of regional Englishes. The British Empire dominated more areas, more colonies, and therefore British usage is the norm. right. This attitude is reflected when a Brit "corrects" an American's pronunciation of a common word. 27-5-06

It is grossly illogical to conclude that the British usage is more correct because the British Empire "dominated more areas." 69.28.40.34 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Honour is more common..."

I've seen this pop up several times around the page, and just want to point out that it's patently false. More countries spell it "honour," but the English-speaking population of the US is about equal to that of those countries combined. Even in India, the only English-speaking nation larger than the US, most people don't speak it very well. Twin Bird 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and think that the standard in spelling should be held to the that of the original author. In this case, the spelling was originally "honor," back to which I am now changing it. 67.185.99.246 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OR

I've tagged the article as possible original research. It mostly seems to me to consist of a hotchpotch of miscelaneous informtion, including some very contentious material, with almost no referencing. Come to think of it, I'm going to add a cleanup tag too. mgekelly 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish concept of honour

The following was removed from the article as cruft:

The Spanish concept of honra is explored in several works of the Spanish Golden Century. Some of the themes are whether peasants could have honour or it is limited to nobility. It is also linked to purity of blood: to be a New Christian (a Morisco or Jewish Converso) is very dishonorous. For nobles, even lowly hidalgos, one could lose honour by engaging in manual work, as the miserly Squire in Lazarillo de Tormes shows. An exception was the universal gentry claimed for the general population of Biscay.

Changed to honor

As has been the convention time and again, and indeed this is from another page:

"When the subject of an article is not obviously linked to one English-speaking nation, the usual Wikipedia convention is to follow the choice of the first editor." [1]

The earliest usage was of "honor," back to which it has been changed, save specific literary references and examples. Stop reverting it to the railroaded "honour" that occurred over a small period of time in December of 2003. 67.185.99.246 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a move to "honor." Shiggity 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the page. The best thing to do is to leave it alone, since there's nothing wrong with the current title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is it breaks the convention of using the first editor's selection. See original article, which was at Honor [2] until it was expanded upon and railroaded during [3] and the next few changes altered to "honour" without otherwise significant differences. Shiggity 20:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? It's not hurting anyone. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the fact that something was done in 2003 that you disagree with is no reason to add a page move to the history that in no way improves the encyclopedia. Unless there's a concrete disadvantage to having the page at "honour", this is just pointless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's not hurting anyone." You're right, encyclopedic text rarely "hurts" people.

"the fact that something was done in 2003 that you disagree with is no reason to add a page move" That's your opinion. My opinion is that convention and guidelines matter and they are the reason why Wikipedia is as accurate as it is. By moving it back to honor, where it was originally, we can uphold an easily-applied guideline. It's also courteous to the original editor. By leaving it as it is, we are saying that this guideline doesn't work and leaves the door open for unresolved editing wars--since if not this, then what should be the standard? And yes, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. That's why only the admins can move this kind of a page. Otherwise I'd just do it myself (but maybe that isn't the best way). Shiggity 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and we have a policy that says Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. What that means is that we don't do things for purely procedural reasons, and that guidelines don't exist for their own sake. It means we focus on the spirit of rules, and not on the letter. In this case, if the move had been reverted when it was first done, that would have made sense, but it's been over 3 years, so it's just as well to leave it where it is.

As for what the standard should be, I cited the Manual of Style below, where the convention about using the original author's choice is subsidiary to the convention about leaving well enough alone, if an article has been a certain way for a long time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to vote on this again when it has already been decided not to move it at least twice before - see [[4]]. All you are doing is wasting everybody's time with this again. Jooler 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing voting on it, I'm requesting a move from the administrator. I don't want to waste anyone's time listening to arguments about how "more nations in the world use Honour." Voting just encourages a lot of people posting about how they support the word they use in their own country. The move is requested because, for the third time, it breaks the convention of using the first editor's selection.

If you'd rather, we could instead vote on "whether the convention of using the first editor's selections given that they are otherwise correct should be upheld." Then if we all decide to do away with that convention and instead adopt some arbitrary standard, that's fine by me. However, using stet as a rule (keep it because it's there) is self-evidently fallacious since it's whatever correct version it is at the time you would be forced to accept. Shiggity 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What's self-evidently fallacious is citing bureaucratic reasons to move an article that's just fine where it is. The original page move was unnecessary, and any further page moves are unnecessary. The covention about going with the original author's style is there to prevent our wasting time on things like this. That's the spirit of the rule, and that's what I'm upholding by saying this is utterly trivial, and we shouldn't worry about it.

If you want "rules", check out WP:MOS#National varieties of English, where we read, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone." Since the change was made in 2003 and hasn't hurt anybody since then, we should leave well enough alone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and directly below that: "Follow the dialect of the first contributor." Again, the change didn't "hurt" anyone (nor do I know how such a thing would be done, induced epilepsy from flashing text?) but this has been in conflict since 2003, up to fairly recently. The fact alone that it underwent such spontaneous conflict--and continued to do so--seems reason enough to present this as a valid issue. Shiggity 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It says "if all else fails", to follow the dialect of the first contributor. If we agree to leave well enough alone, then all else hasn't failed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When I say "hasn't hurt anybody," I mean it hasn't made Wikipedia a worse encyclopedia, or made the information provided by the article any less correct. Neither spelling misinforms anyone in any way, especially since both alternatives are listed in the first sentence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But if there are those of us who disagree, then we are not leaving "well enough alone" since then the page isn't "well enough" to leave it. But as you are an admin, I forfeit my position. However, I still strongly disagree with this--and it looks like there was an edit war wherein the spelling kept being changed to "honour" and back, and the original contributor either gave up or stopped caring. Summarily, if you want your own dialect to proliferate, you have only to be stubborn enough to keep changing it! Sad that this very discussion page starts with "...I know it means changing a lot of articles. But that's the fact of the matter, "ou" is the standard." Right. That's the argument that got this page to where it is today Shiggity 21:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't walk away. First of all, my being an admin doesn't mean I don't listen to reason, or that I'm some kind of authoritarian. I only mentioned my being an admin to point out that you don't need to tell me how admins are related to bureaucracy here; I may well know about that.

Second, and on topic, there's going to be conflict at either spelling. If I move it to honor because of the original speller, when it's been stable at honour for three years, then three iterations of this argument into the future, someone's just going to move it back for some reason. Then we'll be two steps deeper into a move war that we helped along, rather than stopping. Unless there's a compelling reason to have it at one spelling or the other, it's better not to move it. Look at how many people opposed moving it above; do you really think it would be more stable at honor? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, I think the people above were opposed to it because they thought the US was sabotaging their conventions, instead of realizing that the article was originally at "honor."

Specifically, there is an objection (unsigned) that "In cases where neither US nor Commonwealth English have an obvious link with the topic, the article should remain consistent with that used by the originator," and another from Matt Crypto, "*Chortle* Object — Matt Crypto 00:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)" when he himself says "Wikipedia policy is generally not to choose sides on Brit vs American English, and to use whatever the first editor used for an article. — Matt Crypto 12:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)" [5].

Also there is irrelevant reasoning like that from Gareth Hughes, "this is a proposal that an article should be biased towards US readership, and is against policy."

But no, I think it would be less stable at "honor" because IMO, there are a bunch of active Wikipedians looking to quash American imperialism wherever they think they see it. The solution to this (still IMO) is less control, not more, like letting everyone and anyone move a page without permission from an admin. However, we don't have that, we have rules and control and thereby it may very well be best where it is, and so I'm certainly not going to pursue moving the page anymore. Shiggity 08:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have such a negative idea of how Wikipedia works. There are good reasons for not allowing any user to move any page around, and those reasons have got everything to do with the GFDL license. You're not prevented from moving pages because people want to control you and tell you what to do, it's because we're trying to stay on the good side of the law, and our licensing requires that the contributor history be kept accessible. Letting anybody move any page makes that impossible. If you can write better software, that allows for moving pages around at will while preserving a coherent edit history, then I encourage you to improve MediaWiki. Until then, we have to live with the current situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a software engineer. I will. Also, even though I'm pointing out what I think are flaws, Wikipedia is still a great resource. But on talk pages like this I'm going to mention what I feel needs changed or improved upon rather than what is already copacetic. Shiggity 08:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Hearing constructive criticism is always helpful. You might want to look into why the developers have, in the past, made page moves less accessible - there was a time when anonymous IP addresses could move pages - history is full of lessons. I think the most problematic cases are pages that have histories full of cut-and-paste moves, and forks that develop histories of their own. Those are really a pain to deal with and preserve anything like a coherent record of contributions. Maybe a radically different approach is required; I'd be interested to see a solution to the problem you're describing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus. Reopening this move is a pointless waste of time. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not a rule-bound bureaucracy, though it is hard to tell at times. 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the consensus is not to (re)open discussion about moving the page, could someone remove the entry from WP:RM? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If only we could have the page entitled "Honor/Honour" or "Honour/Honor" then we could end this debate. But then someone would start the argument over which one comes first. Maybe "Hono(u)r", then? Zchris87v 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Feudal honours

I just removed this section, as it doesn't belong in this article. It should probably have its own article or be merged into some other article. In the former case a disambiguation should be created. The way, the truth, and the light 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I implemented the former solution. If anyone disagrees, comment here. The way, the truth, and the light 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honorificabilitudinitatibus

I don't know the true breakdown of the word, but it was used by Shakespeare, and if the first part of the word is referencing the definition as we know it and not something else, wouldn't an unorthodox spelling seem noteworthy? On that note, the "international" spellings might be getting out of hand, as one page referenced the season of winter as "wintour", which is not and has never been a historical spelling. It seems like some people think adding "u" after every "o" is a way to "internationalize" the spelling. My general guideline is whether the specific example spells the word with or without the "u". For example, The Beatles received the honour of..., and The Ramones were honored by...I'm not sure if this is acceptable by Wiki guidelines. Back on topic though: is word noteworthy, as it possibly provides a spelling alteration over 400 years ago? Zchris87v 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're adding it to internationalize. They're adding it because that's how they spell it and so they want their spelling to be the published spelling. However, guidelines dictate (1) following the original author's spelling (something abandoned in this article), (2) leaving a stable article alone ('Honor' has been 'Honour' since 2003, when someone abruptly changed all instances of 'honor' to 'honour,' but it is 'stable' now), and (3) conforming to American English standards in an article about something American, and British English standards similarly, etc. Shiggity (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Judging by the template above, someone finally acknowledged that leaving this page at 'Honour' is a technical violation. However, WP:IAR is cited, apparently claiming that the violated rule "prevents...from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and to "ignore it." While I disagree strongly that moving this page to 'Honor' would prevent anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia directly, and think that the idea that it prevents anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia INdirectly is impossible to demonstrate, it really isn't worth the effort to convince someone to move a page already referenced by a redirect. Shiggity (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the header to be more applicable, using a better justification.

Jb17kx (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The word 'Honorificabilitudinitatibus' is not an English word, but a faux Latin word. The reason it is spelt with a 'u' is because it has entered English via the French word 'honneur.' The Latin origin of the word 'honour' doesn't contain a 'u' which is why it has been adapted in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.199.58 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Is anyone in favour of merging this with pride? I think they're dissimilar enough to warrant separate articles. Larklight (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make any sense... I'm going to remove the tag, as nobody has written anything on either of the talk pages in favour of a merge. Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Honour are quite different! Yes, they overlap at some points, but so does a roof an its supporting walls! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.142.253 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)