Names

I agree with you, for earlier I asked what titel is important enough to make it such a big part of a name. And by collecting them in a project you can always see who' who. But some people also want Presidents, Generals, Admirals etcetera mentioned first, before the genealogical aspects of someone's live.

none of the recipients would like Nobel Prize Winner at the end of their name, adding Dr. when appropriate is a good thing

What about the Title, "Nobel Laureate?
eg. Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel

Prof. Yigal Burstein, can you comment?

The Nobel Prize is so unique, that it deserves to be added to the name.

One cannot compare it with Generals, Admirals, etc. I would accept Presidents, Prime ministers as well.

The winner gets it for its own achievements - the highest possible honors in the respective fields. More respectable than a mere hereditary nobility title that we add so frequently - Lord, Duke, Viscount, Rabbi etc (no disrespect)
The Nobel foundation calls it - The Nobel Prize in XXXX for (year) and this is what I believe should be used in Geni as well.

Chief Rabbi, Cardinal, are of course not hereditary titles - but we add them.

I disagree. Unlike generals, dukes, etc., a Nobel Prize does not define the person. Martin Luther King Jr. is a Nobel Prize winner, but it doesn't define him. We don't go around calling him, Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Prize winner.

Poet Laureate is a title too and people add it and Nobel Prize is more prestigious and rare.

A matter of personal taste, perhaps. I agree with Victar. I don't see where it's necessary or relevant to add a title that is a personal award (as opposed to a nobiliary title or knighthood). A prize doesn't become part of the name.

I'm also not fond of "Explorer", "Gunfighter", "Immigrant", etc., but I'd argue they aren't wrong, so I don't remove them.

It's subjective. For MLK, I'd rather see "Civil Rights Leader" than any specific honor, such as the Nobel Prize.

I'm with Justin & Victar on this. Sometimes in the display name it is helpful for Geni purposes to add something like "immigrant," but to define someone purely by an award, no matter how prestigious, in essence is reductionist. In other words, if they are an otherwise obscure person, or with a name that is common, the additional title is useful. Otherwise - not so much.

Prof. Yigal Burstein, would you mind sharing your thoughts with us again?

I am not convinced.

If Geni abolishes all titles - I will reluctantly accept.

Here an example where it is really RIDICULE to add a suffix like this, for this man is in a prestigious project-page-paragraph already with all the glamour and glance of sun & moon to be honored as a good poltician or mayor-mediator. We all know that for some people that is just a question of enough money to be elected to sit on the highest chair in the -white-black-red-green- house or to be able to give enough parties to have a abundance of acquaintances. In Holland, Europe we call that 'good networkers with a broad 'kennissenkring' like people nowadays collect in Facebook....

... but do YU happen to know if he lived, encouraged & loved as a prudent, wise and careful father or lover for his contemporarians and as god's best representor of h'Omo Sapiens during his short life on earth?

Stephanus van Cortlandt, Mayor of New York City

With kindly regards of a -not so prudent & wise- daughter of mankind, -jMu-

@JMU, people who hold an official office, ex. Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the USA, are followed by a title in there name.

Prof. Yigal Burstein, as you know, Geni never abolishes anything. The best we can do is work together to come to some compromise.

better to place it in there SUFFIX, i think....

@JMU, you might be interested to know that I live on Van Cortlandt land and that the street next to mine is called Van Cortlandt Street.

but when you use the ABOUT ME for a clean and not coloured Curriculum VITAE like we are used to use to get a proper job, it is clear enough how and by whom he/she got that honour, don't you think?

And a CV with references is even better to get a honoured job in SCIENCE, where you only fail or succes with good fellows to work with together, like ALL noble Noble-Prize-winners admit the first second they hear they got that prestigious price..... Like the winners of a OSCAR, good scientists are the first and last to KNOW, not THINK the can be succesful only by the credits TAX-payers knew to collect to sustain prestigious universities...

...and film funds.

Off the top of my head, I'd say that a Nobel Peace Prize is more prestigious and rarer than a knighthood - so if you include the latter, it's illogical to exclude the former.

Except that one involves a change to your name, form of address, and official precedence at royal functions, while the other does not ;)

Yes, but for those whose countries aren't monarchies, these may not be the most salient issues. :-)

So, like good republicans we eschew the use of titles, keeping our names simple and unadorned ;)

good idea, Justin, especially in our democracy where we have quite a very good, liberal queen -Beatrix- who I myself adore by the way she is doing her profession as our community mediator above a governement driven by modern a/o ancient -sometimes even religious- poltical motivations...
And my confidence in Willem Alexander and his Argentinian wife Maxima is even greater: he got a very good education by his German father Claus and is interested in worldwide important issues, like Watermanagement, OIympic Sports as a way to overcome nationalities by some modern kind of patriottism and if I had the chance to vote for them: I would be an orangiste.... -with orange hair, but that is of no influence in these, ofcourse. -jMu-

So as I'm working on the Knights of the Garter at the moment my attention has been drawn to this discussion. It is the accepted form that a Knight of the Garter has the initials KG after his name. Can I clarify that some in this thread are saying we should NOT add KG as a suffix?

I would think you SHOULD Terry. I haven't seen a genealogical site that does not include KG.

Hard to make "rules" isn't it. :)

:-) meaning: everyone has his own motivations to be enthousiastic about this mutual-global-international-genealogic-platform. I would not mind, for I added already so often 'baron, graaf, jhr. jkvr. landgraaf, etc. in the suffix-place.... If not for myself its to overcome all communications with people that are doing merges for me in good collaboration & co-operation. It not my job to change a historical grown way to distinquish -nl: onderscheiden- people of different social classes. But my own opinion is still: once in our coffin, it of no matter how born, but how lived..... succes with this discussion, I stay curious about different opinions about matters like these. jeannnete, from Holland, Europe.

Terry, I think you'll have to use your own judgement. For what it's worth, if I see Knight as a suffix I think the man was probably a Knight Bachelor. So, to me it seems necessary, if he has the prefix Sir, to put the postnominal initials that show he belonged to an order.

That's a long way of saying that if it were me, I would put KG in the suffix of all knights who were members of the Garter (or any other order). On the other hand, I probably wouldn't put postnominal initials for every order - just the highest one.