19 January 2012
I am the subject of the "Venkatraman Ramakrishnan" entry. I was touched when offered a knighthood by the British government, and accepted it in the same spirit that I accepted the Padma Vibhushan conferred by the Indian government a year ago. However, before accepting, I ascertained that the use of the title "Sir" is entirely optional. I am not comfortable with titles so I do not use it. Please do not add it when describing me.
Riboman (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26 July 2012
Titles: As I said above, I checked with the OFFICIAL authorities about whether the use of the title was compulsory. They assured me it was purely optional. I do not use it. Now somebody who appears to have no interest in the ribosome or indeed science has made it his business to amend my page and stick on the title. I hope that he will respect my wishes. There is absolutely no requirement that knights are required to be addressed or referred to as "Sir." All of the organizations I belong to, including Trinity College, have respected this. Further, I hope that people will respect the policy on living persons in Wikipedia. I hope other Wikipedians will weigh in on this. Thanks.
Unbecoming responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, I have no interest in "the ribosome or indeed science". Thank you for your apparent opinion that this does not entitle me to edit this page - which is of course utter rubbish. However, I do have an interest and an expertise in the British Honours System. While there is naturally no requirement to use a title in everyday life and many knights and dames choose not to do so, there is a need for an encyclopaedia to be accurate and to record an individual's formal style. When one is knighted one accepts that one is thereafter a knight and that a prenominal title can be used. If one does not accept this or one is "uncomfortable with titles", one should probably not accept an honour that one is fully aware comes with a title. There are plenty that don't. Wikipedia is bound by fact, not the opinions of its subjects about their articles, which are immaterial. However, as I really cannot be bothered to argue further about this with an editor who may or may not be the subject of the article in question (after all, we have no proof either way), I shall leave it at that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an active wikipedian in scientific editing and a follower of ribosome structures, I'd like to comment that I believe the current name of this article (without "Sir") is indeed the appropriate one. It seems that Ramakrishnan himself (as riboman) directly edited the article to remove the title he does not like to use; however, if he had asked me to do that I certainly would have. The article very clearly documents his knighthood, which fulfills the encyclopedic necessity for correctness and completeness. As far as the article name for living persons, in the other cases I've been involved with or seen discussions on, such questions are decided by what is the name in common usage (which of course usually follows the subject's own wishes), such as whether or not a woman's maiden name should be included. Within the scientific community, no one refers to Venki as "Sir" without a laugh or an apology! Dcrjsr (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking about the name of the article! We're talking about the first line of the article, which almost invariably includes the full official name of the individual. I've already put my point of view, which is if an individual chooses to accept the honour of knighthood they should not reject the honour of the title it carries. If you don't like the title, have the decency to refuse the honour and not insult the sovereign and country that gives it to you. Your attitude is even worse, since it implies that the honours my Queen and country gives are worthy only of a "laugh or an apology". Tell that to the many, including in the scientific community, who use their knighthoods with pride. However, I've also said I can't be bothered to argue the toss with people who hold this attitude. Not worth it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the storm in a teacup, I would like to clarify a few facts. Firstly, I have made it very clear that I felt both touched and honored to have been awarded the knighthood. Yes, it is traditional for people awarded it to use the title, but it is a mistake to confuse the honor of a knighthood with the right that comes with it to use the title. Not only am I uncomfortable with titles, but I am also a US citizen, whose constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 forbids titles. Precisely because of these issues, I sought a clarification prior to accepting it. I was assured by the officials in charge that I did not have to use the title and there would be no conflict with US laws. Given the clarification, I felt it would be insulting to decline the honor, and a disservice to the organizations and colleagues who have supported my work over the years. Thus I certainly do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone, let alone an entire country that I admire in many ways and where I live entirely by choice. However, I think it is important to distinguish between what is traditional and what is obligatory and not jump to conclusions. [unsigned, edit by Riboman, and accidentally removed, maybe. Restored by Drmies.]
Thanks for the clarification! I think it is indeed less clear between competing arguments about the first-line usage. Presumably the OTRS request will be discussed with knowledgeable editors in the biography-of-living-persons group. However, as a further comment, there is a big difference between feeling truly honored by an award and valuing it deeply, which IMHO it's pretty clear that he does, versus casual usage of a title that reminds other people about it all the time and implies that you should be treated differently because of it (which was so blatantly true not very far in the past). Dcrjsr (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Riboman, I am sorry it took me six years to run into the above discussion, and I wish to offer you my apologies--better late than never... On the bright side, a few more conscientious Wikipedia editors have been keeping an eye on your article to keep it clean; I just noticed some content that was degrading and insulting and have scrubbed that from the history. If you have any concerns, you can always try to use the {{Admin help}} template--instructions are at Template:Admin help (sorry, I can't explain it better). Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team has more information on other ways to redress issues. Thank you, and again, my apologies for this late, late response. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
