This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/trump-honorifics-guardian-titles
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| In Trump’s age of aggro, can honorifics help us be more civil? | In Trump’s age of aggro, can honorifics help us be more civil? |
| (21 days later) | |
| Is it likely that more use of honorifics would help us push back against the coarse incivility of much contemporary public debate in Donald Trump’s age of aggro? The question occurred after a reader wrote to encourage the opposite, that the Guardian abandon all titles. “In this age of non-deference and gender neutrality is it not high time that the Guardian took this further and binned the titles of sir, dame, lord, lady, baroness and suchlike?” was the reader’s ambit claim. | Is it likely that more use of honorifics would help us push back against the coarse incivility of much contemporary public debate in Donald Trump’s age of aggro? The question occurred after a reader wrote to encourage the opposite, that the Guardian abandon all titles. “In this age of non-deference and gender neutrality is it not high time that the Guardian took this further and binned the titles of sir, dame, lord, lady, baroness and suchlike?” was the reader’s ambit claim. |
| How did the language of politics get so toxic? | |
| Leading newspapers differ on the issue. Honorifics persist in several UK dailies, and in the New York Times, whose standards editor, Philip Corbett, wrote last year: “Some readers (me included) like the tone of civility and seriousness the titles convey; others find them old-fashioned and stodgy. And still others are just confused.” | Leading newspapers differ on the issue. Honorifics persist in several UK dailies, and in the New York Times, whose standards editor, Philip Corbett, wrote last year: “Some readers (me included) like the tone of civility and seriousness the titles convey; others find them old-fashioned and stodgy. And still others are just confused.” |
| Honorifics are rare in the Guardian. Its style guide, in an entry alphabetically close to hoi polloi (“common people, the masses; ‘the hoi polloi’ is acceptable, even for speakers of ancient Greek”), says in part: “Use just surname after first mention, except in leader columns … As always, use common sense: in a story where two people have the same name (eg a court case about a husband and wife or brothers) it may be necessary to use Mr and Mrs or Ms, or forenames. In news stories particularly we should use the honorific if it sounds jarring or insensitive not to do so – for example, a woman whose son has been killed on active duty in Iraq should be Mrs Smith and not Smith … We need to use our judgment and be guided by the tone of the piece. | Honorifics are rare in the Guardian. Its style guide, in an entry alphabetically close to hoi polloi (“common people, the masses; ‘the hoi polloi’ is acceptable, even for speakers of ancient Greek”), says in part: “Use just surname after first mention, except in leader columns … As always, use common sense: in a story where two people have the same name (eg a court case about a husband and wife or brothers) it may be necessary to use Mr and Mrs or Ms, or forenames. In news stories particularly we should use the honorific if it sounds jarring or insensitive not to do so – for example, a woman whose son has been killed on active duty in Iraq should be Mrs Smith and not Smith … We need to use our judgment and be guided by the tone of the piece. |
| “Follow traditional Guardian style in leading articles (but not other comment pieces and columns on leader pages): use honorifics after first mention, unless writing about an artist, author, journalist, musician, criminal or dead person; use Ms for women on second mention unless they have expressed a preference for Miss or Mrs.” | “Follow traditional Guardian style in leading articles (but not other comment pieces and columns on leader pages): use honorifics after first mention, unless writing about an artist, author, journalist, musician, criminal or dead person; use Ms for women on second mention unless they have expressed a preference for Miss or Mrs.” |
| My inclination is to minimise honorifics. But as the style guide indicates, they have uses. Guardian policy is of course a matter for the editor-in-chief, but I would be interested in readers’ views – guardian.readers@theguardian.com. | My inclination is to minimise honorifics. But as the style guide indicates, they have uses. Guardian policy is of course a matter for the editor-in-chief, but I would be interested in readers’ views – guardian.readers@theguardian.com. |
| • In last week’s column about blasphemy I referred to a European court of human rights judgment about an Austrian case in which a woman was punished for criticising Muhammad, considered by Muslims to be the last of God’s prophets. A reader pointed out that although Muhammad is revered, it is Allah who is worshipped as God. The reader asked if I had accurately paraphrased the judges. Other readers may have wondered similarly. | • In last week’s column about blasphemy I referred to a European court of human rights judgment about an Austrian case in which a woman was punished for criticising Muhammad, considered by Muslims to be the last of God’s prophets. A reader pointed out that although Muhammad is revered, it is Allah who is worshipped as God. The reader asked if I had accurately paraphrased the judges. Other readers may have wondered similarly. |
| This is the relevant sentence in the judgment published in English: “The court notes that the domestic courts extensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation, namely that they had not been made in an objective manner aiming at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship.” | This is the relevant sentence in the judgment published in English: “The court notes that the domestic courts extensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation, namely that they had not been made in an objective manner aiming at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship.” |
| • Paul Chadwick is the Guardian’s readers’ editor | • Paul Chadwick is the Guardian’s readers’ editor |
| Media | Media |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Newspapers | Newspapers |
| Newspapers & magazines | Newspapers & magazines |
| comment | comment |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |