Talk:English honorifics

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthroponymy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there any Gender Neutral One? Yellow Onion 07:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mx and Mre have both been proposed. I think Mx is more common (which is the one I use). Spod mandel (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MX & M are both from the extreme leftist ideology. If we were to use this as actual fact we are not helping anyone with their mental illness. Gilderroot (talk)

I call NPOV! Where's the evidence?! Nobody has ever heard of this outside a very niche self-selecting group of people. calling it commonly accepted is inaccurate, it's not common at all, that is wishful thinking, or an attempt to train other people into aligning their world view with their own: the very definition of propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.118.33 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just discussing this over here: [1] and "Mistre"/"Mtr." was proposed. I definitely like "Mx." but how does one pronounce it? I suppose that "Mre." could serve as a suitable abbreviation of Mistre if it's already in use and there's isn't already a gender neutral spoken form. Rootneg2 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mx is pronounced kinda like 'Mix' but with the vowel sound as short as possible (similar to the lack of a vowel sound in Ms). Spod mandel (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also use 'Mx', and pronounce it in the same way as Spod. I like it because it suggests a mixture of male and female. --

talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly in British English, a female mayor is a Mayoress. so this entry is in dispute by me. 172.159.109.146 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Skellious[reply]

Do people actually use the title "doctor" if they hold a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree? I know they do not do that in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 07:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't English moved to using Ms. as the general address for women, rather than Miss? I thought Miss had been relegated specifically to girls. 75.156.144.80 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed there wasn't anything in the article about this practice. It's not used as formal address, but just a polite way of addressing folks. It's not used to placate or patronize either. I've used it and heard it used in regards to customers, teachers/professors, older family members, customers, employers, or just strangers in the street. The only reason I mention it is that its usage is rather different than what's mentioned in the article. I don't think I have the qualifications to add to this article, so I'm hoping someone can shoehorn this in somehow. Thanks. 99.3.44.167 (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking in the Canadian Honorifics article, I realized there was something lacking in this article regarding the legal system and courts, also politicians.

Judge: "Your Honor," "His Honor," "Her Honor," "The Honorable Judge _____."

When addressing a Senator or Representative in the United States Congress, or state legislature, regardless of sex: "The Honorable Sen. _____," "The Honorable Rep. _____." (Of course, some don't necessarily live up to the title, but nevertheless!)

Lytzf (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if we could come to a consensus on how the title "Mx" should be described.

My description "commonly accepted" was changed to "proposed" by an anonymous editor, and I don't think this change was constructive.

It seems to me that since the term is clearly "commonly accepted" (see the numerous citations I added to the article to support this), since it is included in several dictionaries it has moved beyond the stage of being "proposed". Note that the OED definition doesn't say that "Mx" is a "proposed" title, it simply says that it is a title, just as it does with "Mr", "Mrs", etc.

I've reverted the edit by the anonymous user since I don't think it was constructive, but if they still wish to make the change I invite them to discuss it here so we can reach

Mx should not be described or featured as an English Honorific. this is a term used by extereme Leftist to push an agenda. This term goes against basic biology. Gilderroot (talk) 9.52AM, 12/02/2019 (NZDT) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is supported by reliable sources documenting its use in both British and American English. Removing it because an editor considers it 'leftist' would be a clear breach of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Robminchin (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have used this title for nearly ten years, for myself and others who prefer it as well. It can be described as being pronounced as either "mix" or "mister" and is one of the most popular gender-neutral prefixes in English. It also has a page that can be used as reference, which includes more details about it. Averagecryptid(talk) 11:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't do a good job of differentiating between honorifics in UK English, American English, and other dialects of the language. I added the Template:Globalize to the article. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article comes across as very US centric. en.wikipedia.org is NOT the US Wikipedia site, its the English speaking wikipedia site, thus American bias should not be present in any article. --188.39.171.162 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is unclear namely is it about a. English Honorifics, used in Great Britain or; b. English language Honorifics used in the anglophone world? I suspect if this was clear the article would make more sense. As there is already a general article on Honorifics listing specific countries honorifics, it would probably be better to rename the article “British Honorifics” and have another article on “American Honorifics” as per the Canadian and Australian articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.47.2 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence makes it clear that the article is about honorifics in the English language. The

honorifics article similarly uses "Modern English honorifics' to talk about honorifics in English, and links through to this article as the main article on that topic. Robminchin (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Could do with a section (with ref to rank pages) describing the use of military ranks as honorifics Petecog (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of English, I have been using the more common titles listed in this article all my life, and yet I find this article to be poorly organized, at least in terms of its failure to emphasize what is more common and useful compared to what is rarer. Are there any non-native English speakers who find themselves confused by this article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in principle that it would be good to distinguish these somehow, there is unlikely to be a good, internationally-valid, source for which titles are more common and which are rarer. Without that, any such organisation would be original research and probably non-NPOV. There's also a question of what would be meant by 'common', e.g. people with the title 'Sir' are fairly rare in reality, but are relatively common in media stories. Robminchin (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a priest has a doctorate, a rank in the military and gets knighted, is there a prescribed order for these honorifics, such as Major Father Doctor Sir Toogoodtobetrue? 2.99.115.248 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of "Mx" here is very misleading. While it is apparently used somewhat in the UK by banks and agencies (along with dozens of other gender-neutral honorifics like Ind, Misc, Mre, Myr, Sai, and Ser), it's not common at all and could mislead readers into thinking it is.

More specifically, this article also has a very clear bias towards British, formal English. An example of this is the words "sir" and "ma'am"; in the US, especially the south, these aren't formal titles at all, and instead are used regularly in daily conversation, especially when referring to strangers or when referring to parents, elders, or superiors. This article should probably be reworked to:

• 1) Have a section on all modern gender-neutral modifiers.
• and
• 2) Regard British English as a variety of English, not the default. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references for Mx are to both UK and US dictionaries, which are reliable sources reflecting language use in those countries. Other gender-neutral titles that have gained a wide enough usage to be judged by dictionary editors to have entered the language should also be included. It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to decide what is actually in use or not, for that we rely on reliable third party sources. Robminchin (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of words in dictionaries. That doesn't make them words in common use. For example, "Latinx" is in the Mirriam-Webster dictionary and the Cambridge dictionary despite only being used by 3% of Latinos. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on experts in reliable publications, and they have decided that Mx is part of the language. That's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Merriam Webster have a blog post from August 2015 when they made Mx one of their "words we are watching", when they were wondering if it would become established in the US. By April 2016 it was well enough established for them to add it to the unabridged dictionary and in September 2017 to the online dictionary. Its entry there says it is now in the top 9% of words. This is clearly an established English honorific in both the US and the UK, as demonstrated by its inclusion in standard works of reference. Robminchin (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the top 9% of words used. It's in the top 9% for words looked up, likely because people don't know what this word is. Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]