I am reading the the Chicago Manual of Style says no.
I am also reading that the AP Stylebook says no.
Another poster claims something called the Gregg Reference Manual (1992) days something different. I don’t have access to these references.
If there is some disagreement between the references, can you comment on which of these references is used more widely in general? Never heard of Gregg tbh.
In my usage, I capitalize it whenever it could be followed by a family name. So,
“I seem to remember President Trump is the forty-fifth president.”
Do you follow the same rule for capitalizing other titles, like Attorney General or Secretary of State?
The writingexplained.org site mentioned in the OP says that AP style says not to capitalize titles like those when they’re not used in front of someone’s name.
It really depends on which style guide you’re following.
I have always chosen on the basis of ‘general’ or ‘particular’.
A president of the United States- the President of the United States.
A chief of staff - the Chief of Staff
Like how General MacArthur was a general.
Don’t you capitalize it when you’re talking about the office as a entity, vs. a job title?
Like say… “In his capacity as President, Eisenhower achieved X, Y and Z.” as opposed to “Trump doesn’t act in a manner befitting a president”
No style question can be answered without also knowing the context of the writing. How formal is it? What styles are readers expecting? Why should you care?
Message boards like the Dope are colloquial, not formal. It doesn’t matter what styles you use or if you’re consistent in your choices.
If you’re writing for yourself, as in a blog, choose your own styles. Try to be consistent but please yourself.
Only when you are writing for somebody else should you bother to check what style guide they prefer. If they don’t have one, then default back to writing for yourself.
What’s important about having your own style guide is that it will feel natural to you. You’ll capitalize President when you think you ought to and you’ll do it every time without having to stop and look it up. I can’t sufficiently stress how important that is.
No one style is dominant over others. I’ve never seen a complaint that someone wasn’t properly following style. I’ve told this story before, but when I wrote my first book I was told to follow Chicago style. I rushed out and bought the expensive hardcover. Then I got a letter from the publisher listing their in-house fifty exceptions to Chicago style. Even by following style I wasn’t following style. In three decades nobody has ever said that my style was inconsistent.
BTW, I bought the 13th edition of the Chicago Manual. The most recent edition no longer follows those same styles. Now what? Answer: I don’t care. And neither should you.
The rule I grew up with is “Proper nouns take initial caps” (“proper” in the sense of having individual properties, so essentially the point above about particularity
I have a similar argument with the Guardian, whose designers decided capitals in the middle of a sentence made the page look untidy, or some such nonsense. It took some effort to persuade them that (in UK terms) the home secretary and the Home Secretary are not the same thing at all.
This is the rule I follow for most titles and similar identifiers. For example, in legal writing, “The Plaintiff’s evidence shows…” because you’re referring to a specific plaintiff. However, “A plaintiff’s burden of proof is…” because you are speaking of generic plaintiffs.
Generally lower-case, but upper-case if you are using it as part of a name.
“Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States.”
“The president welcomed the guests to the White House.”
“Speaking at the White House, President Trump said that he was delighted to welcome the guests.”
Our style guide says simply:
Moderator Note
Keep the political jabs out of GQ.
Basically, the answer is do what your style guide for whichever publication you’re writing tells you to do. If not writing for a publication with a style guide, just go with your own style. I grew up on AP style, but I most often try to hew to Chicago style in my written prose.
I, personally, will write “The president flew to China” on second reference or beyond, but I can see the logic in “The President flew to China,” when POTUS is being written about. It looks a bit dated and old-fashioned to me, but it’s valid. Some may even argue that it’s more respectful to write it that way.
To me it sticks out like a sore thumb and I believe it speaks to a certain ideological and cultural phenomenon that elevates the position of president to a level not in accordance with American values. That’s why I care, but I realize this is not a forum to argue over that point.
If by “doesn’t matter” you mean it doesn’t mean anything about where the person is coming from, I disagree. If someone came in referring to Obama as president obama, that is a clue to something about their ideology.
No problem here.
I do care, but that is beside the point. I believe there is an inconsistency in how people treat the title of president. Take the following illustration:
“President Trump is funny. The President is full of jokes. It is interesting to have a President that is a joker.”
“Congressman Ruppersburger is experienced. The Congressman has many years of service. It is nice to have a congressman with experience.”
Personally, I would only capitalize for the first usage. The second usage is understandable. The third is strange to me.
Ok I am aware of this practice in legal writing but you wouldn’t see it elsewhere, for example:
“There was a fire at the gas station. The Gas Station Attendant quickly put out the fire.”
I don’t even think most publications capitalize plaintiff when speaking about a specific plaintiff. For example:
“The plaintiff in the lawsuit is alleging gross negligence.”
Vs.
“The Plaintiff in the lawsuit is alleging gross negligence.”
The bottom one doesn’t look familiar to me.
Chicago is most widely used by publishers in the US. Under that style, titles are not capitalized unless it is used as part of a name, in place of a name, or when using the full title.
The president will be here tomorrow.
but
Tomorrow, President Carlisle will be here.
“You will be there tomorrow, President.”
The President of the United States will be here tomorrow.
One exception is for Speaker of the House. Speaker is always capitalized in that sense, because there may be many people speaking there, there’s only one Speaker.
The examples given by Chicago’s 16th edition:
the president; George Washington, first president of the United States; President Washington; the presidency; presidential; the Washington administration; Washington; Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, president of the Philippines; President Arroyo; Arroyo
the vice president; John Adams, vice president of the United States; Vice President Adams; vice presidential duties
the secretary of state; Hillary Clinton, secretary of state; Secretary of State Clinton or Secretary Clinton
the senator; the senator from New York; New York senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand (see 8.20); Senator Gillibrand; Senators Gillibrand and Schumer; Senator Mikulski, Democrat from Maryland (or D-MD)
the representative; the congressman; the congresswoman; Jesse Jackson Jr., representative from Illinois or congressman from Illinois; Congressman Jackson or Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL); Kay Granger, representative from Texas; Congresswoman Granger; the congresswoman or the representative; Representatives Jackson and Granger
the Speaker; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Speaker Pelosi (Speaker is best capitalized in all contexts to avoid conflation with generic speakers)
the chief justice; John G. Roberts Jr., chief justice of the United States; Chief Justice Roberts (see also 8.63)
the associate justice; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, associate justice; Justice Ginsburg; Justices Ginsburg and Stevens
the chief judge; Timothy C. Evans, chief judge; Judge Evans
the ambassador; Robert Holmes Tuttle, ambassador to the Court of St. James’s or ambassador to the United Kingdom; Ambassador Tuttle
the governor; Joe Manchin, governor of the state of West Virginia; Governor Manchin
the mayor; Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago; Mayor Daley
the state senator; Teresa Fedor, Ohio state senator; the Honorable Teresa Fedor
the state representative (same pattern as state senator)
the governor general of Canada; the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean
the finance minister; Pranab Kumar Mukherjee, finance minister of India; Mukherjee
the prime minister; the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former prime minister of Canada; Gordon Brown, the British prime minister
the premier (of a Canadian province); the Honourable Brad Wall
the member of Parliament (UK and Canada); Jane Doe, member of Parliament, or, more commonly, Jane Doe, MP; Jane Doe, the member for West Hamage
the chief whip; Nathi Mthethwa, chief whip of the African National Congress; Mthethwa
the foreign secretary (UK); the foreign minister (other nations); the British foreign secretary; the German foreign minister (not used as a title preceding the name)
the chancellor; Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany; Chancellor Merkel
the chancellor of the exchequer (UK); Alistair Darling; Chancellor Darling
the Lord Privy Seal (UK; always capitalized)
Other style guides differ. Some (particularly for newspapers in the UK) always capitalize even partial titles for the highest level of government. So the Queen, the President.
Best advice is to pick one style and stick with it.
Hmmm… looks like my understanding of Chicago does not quite line up with Chicago, itself.
This, at least, is patent nonsense. It might be such an indicator to you, but to most of us it would simply indicate that either the person didn’t care much about “proper” punctuation, or that they simply made a mistake. At least, that’s what I would think; I don’t know what president obama would think, but I doubt much he cares.
Well, if they consistently referred to “preseident obama” but otherwise capitalized other names, yes, you’d be right to assume a political slant for that. I’m not sure if this is on point to arguing about “the president” vs "the President.’
Ok thanks. Perhaps that’s why the capitalization sticks out like a sore thumb to me since most publishers are using Chicago.
I think the differences in opinion (WRT: The President, The Secretary of State, The Gas Station Attendant) arise because we want to capitalize at least certain titles when referring to individuals who are bestowed with that title.
We want to capitalize the former (President, Governor, Senator) because they are high titles and we feel the need to put forth some respect.
But imagine the following conversation:
P1: Who is Dave?
P2: Oh, he is the local chowderhead that is always going on about how aliens abducted him.
In that scenario, we would never consider writing “Local Chowderhead” because we don’t consider it a title or a proper noun for describing Dave.
I don’t think that “gas station attendant” qualifies as such a worthy title to capitalize it. There is no office of Gas Station Attendant, nor it is something that the guy would put on his business card. I’m not saying that he shouldn’t be proud of his work, but I’ll bet at the end of the day, he would rather be known by his name rather than the “title.”
Legal writing is a bit different. People who capitalize Plaintiff or Petitioner usually are representing the Plaintiff or Petitioner and looking to elevate that person’s status. Invariably, the other side does not capitalize those words.