![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Moved to Non-binary gender. This is, obviously, a difficult close, but there appears to be both a stronger showing of support for a move, and a stronger case for a shift in the applicable primary usage, with Non-binary gender being a well-discussed alternative to the proposed move target, and one drawing somewhat less opposition specifically due to to the adjectival and potentially ambiguous nature of "Non-binary". There was also some consideration to further extending this discussion, but there does not seem to be a great appetite for another relisting after nearly a full month. In time, all disputes must be settled, so that the next ones can be addressed. bd2412 T 01:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Genderqueer → Non-binary – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Usage of the term non-binary has overtaken genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I have a slight aesthetic preference for the term genderqueer, but we should follow common usage:
(Added on May 17, 2019) When the first RM discussion for this article was held, back in 2016, genderqueer may have been the more common term. It isn't any more. The word non-binary is now used more often: in media, academia, books, and society in general. The turning point? 2017, the year California started issuing non-binary birth certificates and TV star Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to Middle America.
You can see this dramatic shift in usage in the following chart. It compares the results in Google Scholar for "genderqueer people" vs. "non-binary people", year-over-year, from 2010 to present:
Date | Genderqueer | Non-binary |
---|---|---|
2010 | 25 | 0 |
2011 | 30 | 2 |
2012 | 45 | 5 |
2013 | 62 | 5 |
2014 | 88 | 30 |
2015 | 81 | 71 |
| ||
2016 | 147 | 135 |
| ||
2017 | 141 | 268 |
2018 | 203 | 471 |
| ||
2019 | 60 | 176 |
I've done a variety of searches with different phrasings and the same pattern holds. For example, in 2010 on Google Scholar, "genderqueer identity" gets 10 results and "non-binary idenity" gets 2. Fast forward to 2019, and "genderqueer identity" now gets 21, and "non-binary identity" gets 39.
Meanwhile, searching The Washington Post: in 2014, Genderqueer gets 5 results and "non-binary" gets 3. In 2018, "genderqueer" gets 8 and "non-binary" is mentioned, in the context of gender, in over 30 different articles.
I also searched books on Amazon, and, as you can see, in the past couple of years there were significantly more books released with non-binary in the title than genderqueer:
Book titles on Amazon.com (2017-2019)
|
---|
NON-BINARY in the title
BOTH in the title
GENDERQUEER in the title
|
Try doing some searches yourself! Think I'm wrong? Think my analysis is incorrect? Think I'm low-down yankee liar? Prove it!
One final note: below, you'll find a lot of good arguments on both sides. However, be aware of the age of what you're reading. For example, one big message below is mostly copy-pasted from last year's discussion. The sentence the repeated move proposals based on supposed offensiveness and faulty Google statistics is bordering on WP:Disruptive
is not a response to my nomination. I have not claimed that genderqueer is offensive and, unlike the possibly-sloppy work done by others in another discussion at another time, I've been very careful with my searches and very mindful of false positives. Note also the age of sources that are cited. A source from back in 2009, for example, can't tell you what is the
WP:COMMONNAME in 2019.
In the end,
WP:TITLE says Wikipedia describes current usage
. In current usage, non-binary dominates, and so it should be the title of the article.
Thanks for your consideration.
P.S. Although I would not mind the article being named Non-binary gender, you can read my argument for why Non-binary, on its own, best fulfills the five main criteria for article titles here. WanderingWanda ( talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: WanderingWanda's data has been thoroughly criticized and rebutted below. The above is more of the same. And, in the Survey section below, this "Additional statement" section has been criticized as an attempt to taint this move request. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Click on this for Legitimus's research
|
---|
|
Sources using the term genderqueer over the years (from 2009 to 2019), which make it clear that genderqueer is the most common term/main umbrella term.
|
---|
1. This 2009 "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volumes 1-2", from Sage Publications, page 402, states, "First widely used in the late 1990s, genderqueer is an identity adopted by individuals who characterize themselves as neither female nor male, as both, or as somewhere in between. [...] Genderqueer is an identity more frequently embraced by younger gender nonconforming people', ensuring that the crossing and blurring of gender lines will continue to become more visible and likely more accepted." The source goes on to cover the topic in depth, including taking note of expression, appearance and pronouns. 2. This 2012 "Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue" source, from Columbia University Press, page 115, states, "We are going to start out with genderqueer because the term is growing in popularity to describe, for the most part, people who feel that they are in between male and female or are neither male nor female." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 3. This 2013 "Gender Identity" source, from The Rosen Publishing Group, page 16, states, "Genderqueer' is a term growing in popularity. It refers to people who feel that they are neither completely male nor female but in between." 4. This 2014 "German Feminist Queer Crime Fiction: Politics, Justice and Desire" source, from McFarland, page 179, states, "The term genderqueer references practices and embodiments that do not exclusively inhabit the territory conventionally described as male or female or that fall outside of gender norms altogether." 5. This 2015 "What the Heck Is Genderqueer?" source from Slate states, "Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended to encompass individuals who feel that terms like man and woman or male and female are insufficient to describe the way they feel about their gender and/or the way they outwardly present it. The term genderqueer was originally coined in the 1990s to describe those who 'queered' gender by defying oppressive gender norms in the course of their binary-defying activism. Members of the genderqueer community differentiate themselves from people who are transgender (itself originally intended as an umbrella term), because that word has come to refer primarily to people who identify with the binary gender different from the one they were assigned in infancy." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 6. This 2015 "There's Transgender and Then There's Genderqueer" source from Newsweek states, "People who describe themselves as genderqueer often feel that the gender binary (boy OR girl, woman OR man) is too limiting to describe their experience of gender. [...] For many people, the concept of genderqueer remains something of an enigma. This is, in part, because 'genderqueer' means different things to different people. Some genderqueer people think of themselves as living between the binary genders; some as living outside the binary genders; and others reject the idea of binary gender altogether, seeing it as something to be challenged, stretched or played with. Genderqueer can enable individuals to flexibly explore their gender over time, experimenting and changing as they go, but it can also describe a steady sense of sitting somewhere in between the traditional binary boxes." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 7. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from Sage Publications, page 460, states, "The concept of being genderqueer is not currently well understood within most Western cultures. Genderqueer is a term that typically describes one of three gender identity categories: (1) an individual who feels their identity falls in between male and female, (2) an individual who may feel male or female at distinct times, or (3) an individual who rejects gender completely. The following terms may be used by individuals who feel that their gender identity falls somewhere in between male and female: gender variant, intergender, androgene, genderfluid and pangender (this list is constantly growing and changing, so these are several examples of a longer list). [...] Because there is a lack of popular culture understanding of genderqueer identity, most individuals who feel genderqueer do not have the terminology or the understanding of what is going on internally to communicate with others about how they are feeling regarding their gender identity." 8. This 2016 "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care" source, from Springer, page 8, states, "'Genderqueer'—an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of genders. This term can include those who feel like they fit outside of a gender binary of male vs. female, as well as individuals who consider themselves to have multiple genders or no gender at all." 9. This 2016 "Sex, Sexuality, Law, and (In)justice" source, from Routledge, page 27, gives a glossary listing; it states, "Gender queer: Used by individuals who reject categories of gender altogether and wish to claim a space outside the traditional gender binary." 10. This 2017 "Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 217, states, "An individual who identifies as genderqueer is 'a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is a combination of typical prescribed gender roles and/or expressions' (UCB, 2015, 'genderqueer'). [...] Genderqueer persons may also identify with terms such as bigender, androgynous, gender fluid, gender nonconforming, gender diverse, pangender, and/or nonbinary." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues.' 11. This 2017 "LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research" source, from University of California Press, page 22, states, "[G]enderqueer [is] an umbrella term for gender identities other than male or female." 12. This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 1934 states, "Genderqueer is a term that began to circulate within sexual and gender minority communities in the late 1990s and encompasses nonbinary gender expressions and identities. While gender is commonly conceptualized as feminine or masculine, with binary identities of women and men, genderqueer individuals defy and reconstruct these notions of gender and generate nonbinary gender identities and gender expressions. Being an umbrella term, genderqueer can take on different meanings for different individuals." The source goes on to address appearance/surgery issues and pronoun issues. 13. This 2018 "A Guide to Genderqueer, Non-binary, and Genderfluid Identity" source, from Psychology Today, states, "Defining Genderqueer (GQ): A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex. This may be in terms of their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and, most importantly, their gender identity. [...] GQ Umbrella Identities: Brace yourself, because the variety inherent among GQs has resulted in numerous additional labels within the framework of genderqueer. Here are a few of the common ones according to Giddins: Genderfluid: Identify as male, female, or nonbinary at different times or circumstances. Third-gender: "Hirja" in India or "Two-spirit" in Native American cultures. Amalgagender: Intersex people born with a mixed male/female anatomy. Demigender: A weak or partial connection to a certain gender (demigirl or demiboy). Bigender: Having two gender identities either simultaneously or switching between the two. 6. Pangender: Identifying with a vast range of different genders. 7. Agender: Lacking gender, genderless, or not caring about gender identity. 14. This 2018 "Everything you never knew about being genderqueer" source, from The Daily Dot, states, "Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER) defines 'genderqueer' as 'an identity commonly used by people who do not identify or express their gender within the gender binary.' Genderqueer people 'may identify as neither male nor female,' TSER explains, and 'may see themselves as outside of or in between the binary gender boxes,' if not dismissing gender altogether. In short, genderqueer describes gender identities that go against traditional expectations of what it means to have a gender. Genderqueer is an umbrella term, so when someone identifies as genderqueer, that could mean a variety of things. Some people consider themselves genderqueer and identify as cisgender, or with their gender assigned at birth. Others see themselves as genderqueer and prefer not to assign themselves to a specific gender identity. Because genderqueer carries a wide range of terms and phrases, there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to being genderqueer. [...] Some people may consider themselves genderqueer and identify with various other terms within the genderqueer umbrella. Here are just a few examples. Agender: Agender individuals are people who "do not experience having a gender," Hell Yeah, Agender! explains. Agender people may use a wide range of pronouns and experience no particular relationship with a gender identity. Bigender: Bigender people have two gender identities. Some bigender people experience their gender identities simultaneously, while others regularly transition from gender to gender. Some genderfluid people may identify as bigender too. Genderfluid: Term for individuals who 'have different gender identities at different times,' Nonbinary Wiki states. Genderfluid is an umbrella term and is used by people who identify both inside and outside the gender binary. Multigender: An umbrella term for people who 'have more than one gender identity,' be it at once or from time to time, as Nonbinary Wiki explains. Multigender identities include genderfluid and bigender. Nonbinary: Nonbinary is an umbrella definition for people who fall outside the gender binary and do not explicitly identify as 'male' or 'female.' For more information, read our guide to being nonbinary." 15. This 2019 "Transgressive: A Trans Woman on Gender, Feminism, and Politics" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 87, states, "Genderqueer, also known as genderqueer—nonnormative gender identity or expression. While genderqueer originated as an inclusive umbrella term, it is also considered by many to be an individual identity." 16. This 2019 "Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI): differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals" source, published in the International Journal of Transgenderism weighs the difference between three groups based on a genderqueer identity scale. There are a number of other new academic sources that also use the term "genderqueer" or "genderqueer and non-binary," all while prioritizing the term "genderqueer." Some new academic sources, when focusing on the gender meaning of non-binary, also use the terms "non-binary," "non-binary people" or "non-binary gender identities," but most use "genderqueer" or prioritize "genderqueer"...or make it clear that "genderqueer" is the main umbrella term. |
As an aside, some users in the past suggested that if this article were renamed it would be unclear how to distinguish it from " Third gender", but that is a red herring, because this article notes that "genderqueer", in the broad umbrella sense this article explicitly introduces itself as using, is synonymous with "non-binary", so any overlap or confusion [if it were real, would] already exist (and, apparently, has not caused us any actual problems).-sche ( talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
repeating your search, showing statistical bias towards non-binary
|
---|
If I'm not mistaken, these were your two searches:
is that correct? The problem here, is that while the second one always returns results about "genderqueer" as an identity, the first one has many false positives and therefore only sometimes returns results about "non-binary" as a gender identity. This skews your counters in favor of nonbinary, and taints your analysis. To visualize the problem, go to page 100 of the results for non-binary. This page of results, has a 60% false-positive rate, in these three categories:
That leaves four of ten results (#4, 5, 7, and 9) as valid entries on page 100 for this search. You'd have to spot check other pages in the first 100, maybe every 10, as it's likely that the false positive rate is lower towards the beginning of the results. However, it's also likely that it's worse, further out (pages 101- 1,570 of results) but we'll never know, because 100 pages is the maximum number of results that Scholar will return. A better way, would be to find narrower searches that are still valid for comparing the two expressions. For example, try these two searches:
return results that are much closer to each other, but note that the nonbinary search inevitably still contains some false positives, although only one on page 100 (still, a 10% rate, but maybe not typical). |
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide.( WP:NOT#DICDEF). However, for people looking for that kind of definition, we can add a Wikitionary link to the top of the page. 3. Information about the concept of "binary"? Well, sorry, but that's the opposite of what you searched for! If you searched for ugliness you wouldn't expect to be redirected to beauty, would you? However, we can add a hatnote that links to binary (and I went ahead and did this.) ... When we eliminate those other possibilities, what we're left with is one thing: the article about non-binary/genderqueer identity. That's why Non-binary has redirected to Genderqueer since 2012. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
— Dave the enby ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is an alt account, while claiming it's for a legitimate reason and that they've notified Arbcom. WanderingWanda ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
...changed their vote text without use of strike or underscore...Well, there was nothing to strike out. I wasn't really changing my vote, just adding a clarifying addendum. But I went ahead and moved my ranked preference down out of the survey section per your objection. I'll go ahead and remove the note about ranked preference from the top of the page as well. I've also added, for clarity, a bold note to the Additional Statement to make it clear that it's an addition-after-the-fact. (In other discussions I've seen additions to the nomination statement so I didn't think it would be controversial. The statement was, in part, a response to one voter who complained that my initial nomination was not adequate:
The nominator has not made a case for the need to change from the status quo...the onus is on the nominator to make a sound nomination, this should be closed.WanderingWanda ( talk) 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
SUPPORT As an individual who identifies as non-binary, I reject 'genderqueer' as a description of my gender identity. No statistical evidence supporting adoption of either term will change that! E3Nomad ( talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Some !votes in the #Survey section above are based on the assertion that nonbinary is more common than genderqueer. The truth is the opposite is the case. That some people think nonbinary is more common is not surprising to me, because comparing the results of two different search-engine queries is a tricky business, and has many pitfalls. Comparing nonbinary with genderqueer is a great example, because simply comparing the count of results, is like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that with extremely rare excpeptions, the term "genderqueer" always refers to a gender identity or gender-related issue. Whereas, the term nonbinary sometimes refers to gender issues, and sometimes refers to other things. So, if you simply compare search engine counts for the two terms, the search count for "nonbinary" will be inflated by other, non-gender meanings. But by how much?
Well, let's look at the usage of the term nonbinary on Google scholar, which returns pretty much nothing but reliable sources. Of the top 50 results in academic journals for the query "nonbinary", how many of these are about gender issues? As of today, here is the list:
Top 50 results on Google Scholar for nonbinary
|
---|
|
Answer: only one (#14) is about gender. The other forty-nine are about things like algorithms, computer code, sequences, and other things. If this trend holds, it means that only 2% of results for the search "nonbinary" have anything to do with gender. So, in comparing the search counts for "genderqueer" and for "nonbinary", you have to reduce the latter count by 98%, before comparing the tally with "genderqueer". This invalidates most of the ( good faith) !votes in the survey that were based on statements like "nonbinary is now more common than genderqueer", because their analysis of the data was incorrect. Mathglot ( talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
To avoid an apples-and-oranges search, I searched for the terms " nonbinary identity" and " genderqueer identity" to get a rough idea how they compare. The search counts in the millions on the first page of results are meaningless and can be ignored; the only way to find reasonably accurate figures for comparison, is by going forward to the last page of results, for each search. Doing so, we find that there are 157 "nonbinary identity" and 179 "genderqueer identity". These are raw counts: they do not exclude the count of pages on which both terms appear, and they are not filtered for non-reliable sources. If these figues remain proportionate after further filtering and analysis, that would mean that "nonbinary" has gained ground since last time there was an Rfc, but that "genderqueer" is still in the lead. If current trends continue, "nonbinary" will probably surpass "genderqueer" in popularity some time in the next few years. Mathglot ( talk) 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
but my argument is that non-binary is currently the preferred term.
•Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
•Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Wikipedia describes current usage. Then there's the section on name changes. It's focused more on official/"announced" changes, but perhaps its guidance could be thought to cover a situation like this, too:
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in " Use commonly recognizable names".
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
How long is "currently", anyway? A few months? A year? Five?Well, I don't know where the line is, exactly. I do think we have to be somewhat cautious. We don't want to change a title because of a temporary blip in usage. But at the same time, Wikipedia should be dynamic, not inert, and editors should be BOLD. After all, any change we make can be undone.
Don't be fooled by WanderingWanda's argument. Nothing has changed since that June 2018 move request. This is just more "move the article" reasoning based on nothing concrete.
I presented reasoned arguments and evidence, I'm not "fooling" anyone. Language can shift dramatically in a year and so can consensus.
It isn't true that "nothing concrete" was presented. I'd like to note how careful I was when I searched The Washington Post. Knowing that non-binary is sometimes used outside the context of gender, I looked at each individual search result to see whether the article was about gender identity. (The result, as noted, is that, for that particular paper and timeframe, non-binary gender was mentioned much more often than genderqueer.)
Google Ngram still shows "genderqueer" as the leader. So does this Google Trends link pointed to in the 2017 previous move discussion. Notice that it compares "non-binary gender" to "genderqueer." It doesn't go on "non-binary" without the gender aspect attached to the term.
Comparing genderqueer to the phrase non-binary gender is hugely flawed. The term non-binary is often (in fact usually) used to refer to gender without appending the word gender. That extra word is dramatically skewing the results. Let's try some apples-to-apples comparisons. For the past 12 months:
genderqueer people vs. non-binary people vs. nonbinary people winner: nonbinary people
am i genderqueer vs. am i non-binary vs. am i nonbinary winner: am i nonbinary
genderqueer actors vs. non-binary actors vs. nonbinary actors winner: non-binary actors
genderqueer trans vs. non-binary trans vs. nonbinary trans winner: nonbinary trans
Let's look at another mainstream source: http://www.bbc.co.uk. For 2018-2019, 12 articles used genderqueer. Meanwhile, dear lord a lot of articles talked about non-binary gender. By my count eighty-eight. (And yes, it was exausting going through all those articles.) A small sampling of quotes from the articles:
Sam Smith comes out as non-binary
, Caitlin Benedict came out as non-binary last year
, First non-binary person legally recognised in the US
, The non-binary artist battling transphobia with burgers
, Non-binary is a gender identity that doesn’t fit into the neat boxes
, 'My passport gender should be non-binary'
, we've actually created a non-binary category in mass participation road races and other events as well.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone, you say?The implication of the word is that I am being deceptive, even though I have done nothing but argue in good faith.
completely useless, alright, but you're the one that brought up Google Trends in the first place!
I, uh, did miss that the two posts were separate. My bad!I (not Mathglot) brought up Google Trends
WP:COMMONNAME specifically says thatYour media sources are not academic sources
major English-language media outletsare useful in
determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used. I'll also note that our goal is to chose a name that's
commonly recognizableand not necessarily the most 'academically correct' name.
Let's just look at recent stuff next. (Just going to keep it simple and look at non-binary vs genderqueer right now):
Google Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 3,340
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 4,240
Semantic Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 190
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 414
PubMed Central 2017-present
Winner: "genderqueer" "gender identity": 142
"non-binary" "gender identity": 114
Springer Link 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 245
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 334
3 out of 4 of the databases showed non-binary ahead of genderqueer, and when I narrow the PubMed results to the past year, non-binary squeaks ahead there, too:
PubMed Central May 2, 2018-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 60
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 68
The results from these academic databases is consistent with what I've seen at mainstream media sources BBC and The Washington Post, what LGBT expert Jacob Tobia has noted, and what I've seen with my own anecdotal experience.
There may be other legitimate reasons to oppose the move, but I don't see much room to doubt the idea that usage of the term non-binary has, in the past few years, overtaken usage of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 07:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
--
Here's another test:
Google Scholar, 2018-present, articles that mention genderqueer but NOT not-binary vs. the reverse:
"genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 1,170
Winner: "non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 4,260
Genderqueer gets trounced almost 4-to-1.
But now let's go back a few years...same test but date range 2009-2015:
Winner: "genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 3,330
"non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 2,710
Just a few years ago, genderqueer was beating non-binary. This is a dramatic recent societal shift. This is why I don't think it's constructive to argue against this move with cut-and-pasted old posts. Things are shifting too quickly to do that. Yeah, I get that Flyer and probably others think there have been too many RMs, and to be honest, if I noticed the last one was so recent I probably would've waited a bit longer before starting a new one. But we're here now, and we have to engage with the current evidence, rather than just assuming that what-once-was still is. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on the numbers I've cited, it's clear that academic sources now use the term non-binary more than genderqueer. But perhaps there's something we're missing by just looking at the raw numbers? Let's see. Here's a sampling of sources that use non-binary as the primary term to refer to non-binary/genderqueer individuals:
Academic sources
|
---|
Of course there are also still some academic sources that use genderqueer primarily. The point here is that non-binary has become the more common term, not that usage of genderqueer is completely dead:
Here are some interesting older articles. Even though they were published several years ago, back when the term genderqueer was the more common term, they treat genderqueer and non-binary as interchangeable, and do not indicate that one is more correct than the other (in fact, note that they list non-binary first, even though, if they were arranging the terms alphabeticaly, genderqueer would come first):
|
Digging into recent academic sources, there is nothing that contradicts my clear sense that: 1. Usage of non-binary has overtaken genderqueer in society and in reliable sources. 2. Non-binary is roughly synonymous with the term genderqueer 3. There is nothing incorrect about using non-binary in place of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's do some searches on Google Books. 2017-present.
Books with non-binary (and not genderqueer) in the title: around 5
Books with genderqueer (and not non-binary) in the title: 0
Other: around 7
Non-binary, gender non-conforming, or genderqueer describes a person whose gender identity differs from that assigned at birth but may...)
As of 2016, nonbinary gender identity labels include, but are not limited to, agender, androgynous, ambigender, bi-gender, gender fluid, genderless, genderqueer, intergender, neutral, mixed gender, multigender, and pangender.
After looking through books published in the last couple of years, it's even more clear that while genderqueer is still in use and still preferred by some sources, non-binary has become the dominant term. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Enough of the sources I listed indicate or essentially present "genderqueer" as the primary term....with all of the other non-binary identities subsumed under it. Except for one source so farA source doesn't have to say non-binary is the primary term to use it as the primary term. I listed five recently published books that put non-binary on the cover, not genderqueer. Each of those books made a choice to treat non-binary as the primary term. Most of the academic papers I cited used non-binary as the primary term, too. They didn't just use the word once or twice but made a choice to primarily refer to their subjects as non-binary.
there is scant academic usage for non-binary or non-binary gender when compared to the wealth that the term genderqueer has.Look at the numbers I came up with. I searched four different academic databases. Each one showed that non-binary is now used more often in academic papers.
A number of those Google Scholar sources are using 'genderqueer' interchangeably or alongside 'non-binary,' 'non-binary gender' and/or 'gender nonconforming'."Look at the search I did where I compared sources that used non-binary but NOT genderqueer vs. sources that used genderqueer but NOT non-binary. There are way more that used just non-binary than the reverse. Genderqueer used to be the primary term but it's not anymore. Things have changed since you first started looking at this issue. WanderingWanda ( talk) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
genderqueer has the richer history. That's another of way of saying, that even though genderqueer is no longer the common term, it was the common term for longer. But, per WP:TITLECHANGES, an article title
describes current usage. WP:NAMECHANGES also says
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. Now, obviously we're not talking about some "official name change" per se, but there was a change – society has shifted from preferring one term to the other – and I think the basic principle still applies. The word negro probably has a longer history than African American, but no one suggests African Americans should be moved to American negroes. (Note that the AA article mentions the word negro 27 times. It's no big deal for an article to go back and forth between two different terms!)
Genderqueer, also known as non-binary. It doesn't say Non-binary falls under the gender-queer umbrella or anything similar. Look at some of the sources I posted earlier. I quoted Psychology Today giving the following definition:
Nonbinary; Genderqueer: Umbrella terms for people who identify as not exclusively a man or a woman, or...etc. ( link). It presents the terms side-by-side, as completely synonymous and equal. (Actually, as noted earlier, you could argue that it's giving mild precedence to nonbinary, since it lists it first even though genderqueer would be first alphabetically.) Look at the International Review of Psychiatry quote ( link).
The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders.Side-by-side. Synonymous. No hierarchy. Look at this paper from the International Journal of Transgenderism. It talks about the history of the term genderqueer, then it talks about the history of the term non-binary.
The term "genderqueer" emerged in the 1990s...
The earliest use of terms referring directly to non-binary seems to be around 2000. Again, it presents the terms side-by-side, and doesn't say one falls under the umbrella of the other. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the context of governments granting legal recognition of non-binary gender, I see the word non-binary being used much more often than genderqueer:
The bill would authorize the change of gender on a new birth certificate to be female, male, or nonbinary.
See also:
Maine BMV to offer non-binary gender designation on driver’s licenses, ID cards...Upon receipt of a completed Gender Designation Form, the BMV will issue a sticker for the license or ID that will read: “Gender has been changed to X – Non-binary.”Main.gov
According to Alexandra Walden, public information officer at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles....“The Nevada DMV staff have been working diligently for quite some time in order to offer the nonbinary or ‘gender X’ option to Nevadans,”NBC
A judge in Oregon has granted a petition allowing a person to legally choose neither sex and be classified as nonbinaryThe New York Times
Nonbinary gender identity is not recognized by most states. Last June, Oregon became the first to recognize a nonbinary gender option on driver’s licenses. Since the bill passed, Washington, DC, and three more states followed suit: Washington, New York, and California, which became the first state to allow nonbinary residents to change their gender on all relevant legal documents, including birth certificates, to a gender-neutral option.VOX WanderingWanda ( talk) 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of...major English-language media outlets. It also says that looking at Google's
News Archiveis one way to help determine the best title. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The choice of article titles should put the interests of... a general audience before those of specialists.Mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience. And while academia now seems to prefer non-binary, the media seems to really, really prefer it. As noted, by my count (and doing my best to weed out false positives and duplicate articles etc), since 2018 the BBC has preferred non-binary to genderqueer by a whopping 8-to-1 ratio. (Note that WP:NEWSORG specifically lists the BBC as a good reliable source.)
One case? You think that is enough?It's one more case than genderqueer has! And sure, the fact that California lawmakers chose that specific word is significant, given how carefully researched and worded laws in general are. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I know how you can go and on; so I'd rather not keep debating you.*glances at giant wall-of-text you copy-pasted into the survey section* Ahem. Anyway, I'm presenting my arguments not just for you, but for the benefit of everyone who is participating in this discussion.
A news source using a term is not the same thing as a source commenting on the topic specificallySure, but WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should strongly consider the name that is
most commonly used. The usage discrepancy between non-binary and genderqueer in reliable sources matters, and to argue it doesn't goes directly against the title guidelines. WanderingWanda ( talk) 21:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The number of results per year for both terms has increased each year, with 22 for "genderqueer" and 19 for "nonbinary" in 2017. The "genderqueer" was consistently more frequent each year.(I don't know how accurate this is, but in the interview I cited with LGBT-focued author and journalist Jacob Tobia, the shift from genderqueer to non-binary is specifically tied to 2017.) Would be interested to see more up-to-date data from Legitimus if they pop in. WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 3#Requested move 4 June 2016, it was noted that "Genderqueer" is the WP:COMMONNAME when looking at page view statistics. We see that this is still the case. I notice that WanderingWanda brought up page view statistics at Talk:Trans, but not here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the run-up to the discussion that resulted in the Chelsea Manning article being moved to its current title, editors comprehensively gathered and listed on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request#Evidence as many sources as possible that used the old vs new name, so COMMONNNAME could be judged. Something similar was done before the recent (Northern) Macedonian RfC. Given that each "side" above thinks COMMONNNAME is on their side, I suggest we attempt such a thing at Talk:Genderqueer/Sources (feel free to suggest a better subpage name). We could sort the sources by type (e.g., as called for by WT:AT, other encyclopedias, academic books or textbooks, academic journals and articles, major organizations, and media outlets) and by decade (or year), split them by which name they predominantly use, and include short blurbs explaining whether they use one term exclusively or only predominantly, and whether they regard them as synonyms or one as a subset of the other. (I am suggesting this as something to work on over the coming months as a run-up to any future RfC/RM(s), because this one seems likely to reach no consensus due to disagreements over what the facts are. -sche ( talk) 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Timeline 1
|
---|
Google Scholar results, using the search
|
Well, doesn't get much clearer than that. Looks like 2017 was indeed the tipping point. WanderingWanda ( talk) 04:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Timeline 2
|
---|
|
Non-binary books (confirmed) (subtotal: 21)
|
---|
|
Non-binary books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 13)
|
---|
|
Genderqueer books (confirmed) (subtotal: 15)
|
---|
|
Genderqueer books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 7)
|
---|
|
I want to make it absolutely, 100% clear that I do not agree that genderqueer is an offensive word and I am not motivated by a personal dislike of the word. I like the word. It's by queer people, for queer people. It is not a slur and it has not become dated-to-the-point-of-offensiveness. For a fun overview of the word genderqueer I recommend this Youtube video. (Note that I don't know if the video counts as a super reliable source or whatever – I'm just posting it for editors' personal enrichment and enjoyment.)
My argument is just that non-binary has become more-used and more-well-known, and therefore I think it fits the spirit of WP:TITLE better. Non-binary was recently written into California's legal code, not genderqueer. Actor Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to a Middle American audience, not their genderqueer identity. Year over year, English language reliable sources, across all fields, are talking about non-binary people more and more and, meanwhile, discussion of genderqueer keeps falling farther and farther behind (and the shift, at this point, seems unlikely to be a temporary blip.) That's the beginning and ending of my argument. WanderingWanda ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Despite Flyer22 Reborn's assertion to the contrary, a lot has changed in the past year. In particular, millions of Americans now live in states where "non-binary" is recognized as a legal gender. The term "genderqueer" is almost never used in legal contexts, thus IMO it isn't an appropriate title for an article that has a substantial (and expanding) legal scope. "Non-binary" works much better for covering the cultural, sociological, and legal aspects of this article's scope. Kaldari ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)and you've noted that it doesn't say anything about "current" sources. BUT I'll note that the passage goes on to say:
as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.I take that to mean that looking at sources is just a means to an end, and that the most important thing is to find a name that adheres to the five criteria. The first two are "Recognizability" (the title someone is more likely to recognize) and "Naturalness" (the title somebody is more likely to search for), and I'd argue that more recent sources will give us a better idea of what's more recognizable/natural.
On reflection, this discussion between Flyer22 and myself should've happened on Flyer22's talk page rather than here. Collapsing. -WanderingWanda
|
---|
A note that
Flyer22 Reborn pinged SmokeyJoe, Legitimus, and Mathglot, three editors who all voted oppose in the last RM discussion.
Wikipedia:Canvassing says that
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal for a one-year moratorium on further RMs on this topic after the conclusion of this one.
First, I'd like to say that I'm pretty impressed at the civility and level of discourse in the discussion here, on all sides. I think everyone is taking their best shot, with the intent to improve the article in a pretty friendly manner. So, kudos all around.
One look at the size of this discussion, though, is enough to show how much editor time is being eaten up by this. In the interest of improving the encyclopedia as a whole, and not only this one article, can we all agree that whatever happens at the end of this RM, other attempts to initiate a move before a year has passed would be against community consensus? That way, we can all get back to what we were doing before this, and go improve other articles, without this Talk page sizzling at the top of all our Watchlists. Mathglot ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In a post at the observation of trends section below, -sche said,
[The] proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway.
I agree with -sche's comment, and wanted to add what motivated my bothering to add a proposal about this in the first place:
I think the regular editors have a pretty good handle on this, and there's no need for a "quiet time" proposal for that group. What concerns me, is well-meaning new editors, or those who have not edited here before, possibly with some WP:RGW motivation and unaware of previous history, storming in here with the brand, new, exciting, never-heard-of-before idea to change the name of this article. Once an RM is started, policy takes over, and you can't easily just shut it down.
The idea of having a proposal, would be to see if we can come up with a consensus ahead of time. If we can do that, then there is a policy-based way to support procedural closure of premature RMs, which otherwise would just be an endless time- and energy-suck from regulars and others who would prefer to be productive elsewhere, and not just link or rehash the same arguments again so soon. Mathglot ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not counting is not votes are not a democracy, etc. &c., but for anyone curious, the results of past RMs (by my quick count, counting nominators as supporters of moves) is:
A number of things are apparent, including that people like to propose moves when it's summer* and Mathglot's proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway, haha. Also, because there's consistently more support for "non-binary" (even though it does not rise to the level of consensus), and no consensus for "genderqueer", we can probably expect someone to file another RM next summer. (*Or is all this the work of the Australian-New Zealand Winter Cabal, ANZ∀∀C? ;) lol.) -sche ( talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I said this up above, but what about the title being " Non-binary and genderqueer" or " Genderqueer and non-binary gender"? Mathglot said up above: "I would have some WP:PRECISION issues with that, but if the consensus seems intractably divided right down the middle, something along those lines might be better than endless argument about it. Wasn't presented here at the outset, but why not see how this Rfc comes out, and that maybe propose that at some point if appropriate?" Paintspot Infez ( talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Genderqueer is a subset of non-binary.
“I would have preferred more options”: accounting for non‐binary youth in health research uses "we explicitly included non‐binary identities (eg, genderqueer)"
Genderfluid or attack helicopter: Responsible HCI research practice with non-binary gender variation in online communities uses "we are not sure whether queer in response to a gender question refers to non-binary gender (eg, genderqueer)" -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) updated in order to fix broken link; by Mathglot ( talk) 07:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to make the case in favor of just Non-binary. Some have argued its not precise enough; I disagree.
There is one name that fits all five criteria in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA best, and it's not Genderqueer or Non-binary gender or Non-binary gender identities...
...It's Non-binary.
WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, we've got a vote splitting issue on our hands. I'd like to kindly ask everyone to list your ranked preference for: Non-binary, Non-binary gender, and Genderqueer (and any other potential title you'd like to include.) Thank you in advance! Pings: Paintspot Infez, Mathglot, Equivamp, King of Hearts, Flyer22 Reborn, Johnuniq, Lyndaship, -sche, Doc James, SmokeyJoe, Unreal7, SnowFire, Mooeena, LokiTheLiar, Montanabw, feminist, BarrelProof, Netoholic, Ivanvector, Dave the enby, Kaldari, Sharouser, Rreagan007 WanderingWanda ( talk) 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS (plus any other options you want to add):
Genderqueer,
Non-binary,
Non-binary gender.
WanderingWanda (
talk)
11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ StraussInTheHouse: Can you clarify your close reasoning? I would not consider supporters of a move to Non-binary and supporters of a move to Non-binary gender to be in disagreement. Is the reasoning that 13 users for and 9 against does not represent a clear enough consensus? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Previous closure
|
---|
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ten users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary, three users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary gender or a similar natural disambiguator or noun-formed title, nine users support the retention of the current title, one user is neutral with regards to the aforementioned alternative proposal, and one user suggests a split. Both sides have cited statistics and case studies using reliable sources to make the argue using the same policy: that either non-binary or genderqueer is the common name. However, there does not appear to be consensus on that matter. This closure is without prejudice against renomination to assess whether consensus has been formed, nor does it preclude Non-binary being taken to Redirects for Discussion for a retargeting discussion per Netoholic's comment. I would, however, advise any future nominator to either list the discussion as a centralised discussion in order to gain input from users who may not ordinarily see it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
For more poor "support" votes from people at WP:LGBT?
And just a note that in addition to the #Additional statement section that WanderingWanda created, I also consider this notification by WanderingWanda at Talk:Transgender to have been made in bad-faith. Of course, WanderingWanda will point to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification where it states "the talk page of one or more directly related articles," as support for that notification. But WP:LGBT, which has already pulled in LGBT people, was already notified. And "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" obviously does not mean that many or all related pages should be notified. This topic has a lot of related pages, and each one will just bring in more and more LGBT editors of those pages. Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles. And if WanderingWanda wants to state that they weren't looking to pull in LGBT editors with the Talk:Transgender notification, I find that claim highly dubious. And before WanderingWanda points to this notification by me regarding another issue, I state that it is not the same. I alerted two talk pages, and noted that I would be doing so, because one (the Man article) is directly related to that matter and the other is about the topic (feminism). Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case, no need to [hash] out our problems with each other on this talk page.
Genderqueer and Non-binary are different terms. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8](remove xxx in the adress) -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Have to say I'm encouraged by the attempt on the part of several respondents to back their conclusions in this RM with data (sometimes, tons of it). However a glance at this long RM, makes it obvious that there's a lot of data here, sometimes telling apparently contradictory stories. Primarily for this reason, but also due to the sheer length of this RM, and the fact that it was already closed once and then reopened after an objection, I would like to request that this be closed either by an admin, or if not an admin, then an experienced closer who has some background in statistics, preferably with knowledge of search engines as well. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I just want to thank everyone who's participated in these discussions. I know it's been a bit frustrating and stressful for some of us, and even painful at times (when there have been differences or gaps in generation, communication styles, experience, etc). I want to acknowledge those who've put the most work into this, as they have most likely had to neglect other articles, projects, and even things like sleep. Thank you for sticking with it and seeing this through with a minimum of carnage. Cookies and rainbow barnstars all around. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wait, something tells me in a couple years we'll have to do this all over again with non-binary vs. nonbinary. :) This NYTimes article just popped onto my phone:
Which Box Do You Check? Some States Are Offering a Nonbinary Option
Non-binary still seems to be more popular overall, but eventually, as with email, I suspect the hyphen will fall by the wayside. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:screams: - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BD2412, I am requesting additional details from you about the close of the Requested move here. What was your procedure for weighing arguments and !votes, how much time did you devote to it, were you following the discussion from the beginning? I have some additional questions about the summary itself, below.
Background
The RM was closed at 01:02, 28 May 2019 in rev 899123728 (
diff,
permalink). Looking at your contributions around that time, (
50 contribs,
500 contribs) it looks to me like you devoted eleven minutes exclusively to the close, from 00:51 to 01:02. Prior to that, there was a mix of
AWB and manual edits
ending at 00:51, then nothing till the close at 1:02, followed by some archive and other cleanup. I'm not that familiar with
Autowiki Browser, but as I understand it, it automates most of the work, dropping you on a screen where you give a yea-or-nay indication, before moving to the next one. That is, it's not completely automated, and you have to give a manual response at some point. The point being, while you're busy with AWB, I assume you can't be evaluating an RM at the same time, right? Or have I missed something? (A point of confusion: in your original close, you tagged the archive bottom about 2/3 of the way through the discussion,
just above § 3.4.12; I'm presuming that was just an oversight of some sort. Explained by
-sche below and
elsewhere.)
Analysis
This Requested Move was one of the longest ones I have seen, and definitely the longest one I have participated in. There is a great deal of data there, and I found myself taking quite some time just to evaluate the arguments and especially the search results data of other users to determine if they were valid or not, and whether I needed to reply or not. In addition, I spent additional time developing my own experiments and results data, and adding them to the discussion, and so did other users. The Hemingway App rates the RM as "Good" (Grade 9) with 1600 sentences and 27,560 words, and estimates a reading time of 1:50:14. Given the sheer legnth of the RM and the amount of data, I don't understand how you were able to evaluate it in eleven minutes.
Summary
Your close summary is 113 words, and talks in vague words about being a difficult close, and this or that side having "a stronger showing of support". The middle part of the close summary dwelled on the choice of target (non-binary, vs non-binary gender). And the last third of it (two sentences) was basically, "we're all tired, time to move on". What struck me most about the summary was two things: the vagueness and generality of it, and the failure to address any of the data issues raised by various editors including results from a large number of search experiments of all kinds.
I was surprised that in your close summary, you made no comment about the previous close on this same RM by another closer on 11:24, May 16, 2019 ( diff, permalink). The previous closer, User:StraussInTheHouse, had followed the evolving discussion while it was going on. Following their original close, a reopen request was made a few hours later; after some discussion about it, SITH reopened it at 16:44. Their close summary was half again as long, provided some tally numbers, and some rationale for their close evaluation as no-consensus. Your close twelve days later had a different final result than theirs. It would seem like a good idea to have acknowledged a prior close, and to have spent a few words on what you saw differently from them, or what new information in the interim you found persuasive; but there was nothing like that in your summary.
I don't wish to relitigate or challenge the close, but I do want to understand how you went about it. (For those not familiar with User:BD2412, they are one of Wikipedia's top editors, with over a million edits to their credit.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Moved to Non-binary gender. This is, obviously, a difficult close, but there appears to be both a stronger showing of support for a move, and a stronger case for a shift in the applicable primary usage, with Non-binary gender being a well-discussed alternative to the proposed move target, and one drawing somewhat less opposition specifically due to to the adjectival and potentially ambiguous nature of "Non-binary". There was also some consideration to further extending this discussion, but there does not seem to be a great appetite for another relisting after nearly a full month. In time, all disputes must be settled, so that the next ones can be addressed. bd2412 T 01:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Genderqueer → Non-binary – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Usage of the term non-binary has overtaken genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I have a slight aesthetic preference for the term genderqueer, but we should follow common usage:
(Added on May 17, 2019) When the first RM discussion for this article was held, back in 2016, genderqueer may have been the more common term. It isn't any more. The word non-binary is now used more often: in media, academia, books, and society in general. The turning point? 2017, the year California started issuing non-binary birth certificates and TV star Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to Middle America.
You can see this dramatic shift in usage in the following chart. It compares the results in Google Scholar for "genderqueer people" vs. "non-binary people", year-over-year, from 2010 to present:
Date | Genderqueer | Non-binary |
---|---|---|
2010 | 25 | 0 |
2011 | 30 | 2 |
2012 | 45 | 5 |
2013 | 62 | 5 |
2014 | 88 | 30 |
2015 | 81 | 71 |
| ||
2016 | 147 | 135 |
| ||
2017 | 141 | 268 |
2018 | 203 | 471 |
| ||
2019 | 60 | 176 |
I've done a variety of searches with different phrasings and the same pattern holds. For example, in 2010 on Google Scholar, "genderqueer identity" gets 10 results and "non-binary idenity" gets 2. Fast forward to 2019, and "genderqueer identity" now gets 21, and "non-binary identity" gets 39.
Meanwhile, searching The Washington Post: in 2014, Genderqueer gets 5 results and "non-binary" gets 3. In 2018, "genderqueer" gets 8 and "non-binary" is mentioned, in the context of gender, in over 30 different articles.
I also searched books on Amazon, and, as you can see, in the past couple of years there were significantly more books released with non-binary in the title than genderqueer:
Book titles on Amazon.com (2017-2019)
|
---|
NON-BINARY in the title
BOTH in the title
GENDERQUEER in the title
|
Try doing some searches yourself! Think I'm wrong? Think my analysis is incorrect? Think I'm low-down yankee liar? Prove it!
One final note: below, you'll find a lot of good arguments on both sides. However, be aware of the age of what you're reading. For example, one big message below is mostly copy-pasted from last year's discussion. The sentence the repeated move proposals based on supposed offensiveness and faulty Google statistics is bordering on WP:Disruptive
is not a response to my nomination. I have not claimed that genderqueer is offensive and, unlike the possibly-sloppy work done by others in another discussion at another time, I've been very careful with my searches and very mindful of false positives. Note also the age of sources that are cited. A source from back in 2009, for example, can't tell you what is the
WP:COMMONNAME in 2019.
In the end,
WP:TITLE says Wikipedia describes current usage
. In current usage, non-binary dominates, and so it should be the title of the article.
Thanks for your consideration.
P.S. Although I would not mind the article being named Non-binary gender, you can read my argument for why Non-binary, on its own, best fulfills the five main criteria for article titles here. WanderingWanda ( talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: WanderingWanda's data has been thoroughly criticized and rebutted below. The above is more of the same. And, in the Survey section below, this "Additional statement" section has been criticized as an attempt to taint this move request. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Click on this for Legitimus's research
|
---|
|
Sources using the term genderqueer over the years (from 2009 to 2019), which make it clear that genderqueer is the most common term/main umbrella term.
|
---|
1. This 2009 "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volumes 1-2", from Sage Publications, page 402, states, "First widely used in the late 1990s, genderqueer is an identity adopted by individuals who characterize themselves as neither female nor male, as both, or as somewhere in between. [...] Genderqueer is an identity more frequently embraced by younger gender nonconforming people', ensuring that the crossing and blurring of gender lines will continue to become more visible and likely more accepted." The source goes on to cover the topic in depth, including taking note of expression, appearance and pronouns. 2. This 2012 "Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue" source, from Columbia University Press, page 115, states, "We are going to start out with genderqueer because the term is growing in popularity to describe, for the most part, people who feel that they are in between male and female or are neither male nor female." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 3. This 2013 "Gender Identity" source, from The Rosen Publishing Group, page 16, states, "Genderqueer' is a term growing in popularity. It refers to people who feel that they are neither completely male nor female but in between." 4. This 2014 "German Feminist Queer Crime Fiction: Politics, Justice and Desire" source, from McFarland, page 179, states, "The term genderqueer references practices and embodiments that do not exclusively inhabit the territory conventionally described as male or female or that fall outside of gender norms altogether." 5. This 2015 "What the Heck Is Genderqueer?" source from Slate states, "Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended to encompass individuals who feel that terms like man and woman or male and female are insufficient to describe the way they feel about their gender and/or the way they outwardly present it. The term genderqueer was originally coined in the 1990s to describe those who 'queered' gender by defying oppressive gender norms in the course of their binary-defying activism. Members of the genderqueer community differentiate themselves from people who are transgender (itself originally intended as an umbrella term), because that word has come to refer primarily to people who identify with the binary gender different from the one they were assigned in infancy." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 6. This 2015 "There's Transgender and Then There's Genderqueer" source from Newsweek states, "People who describe themselves as genderqueer often feel that the gender binary (boy OR girl, woman OR man) is too limiting to describe their experience of gender. [...] For many people, the concept of genderqueer remains something of an enigma. This is, in part, because 'genderqueer' means different things to different people. Some genderqueer people think of themselves as living between the binary genders; some as living outside the binary genders; and others reject the idea of binary gender altogether, seeing it as something to be challenged, stretched or played with. Genderqueer can enable individuals to flexibly explore their gender over time, experimenting and changing as they go, but it can also describe a steady sense of sitting somewhere in between the traditional binary boxes." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 7. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from Sage Publications, page 460, states, "The concept of being genderqueer is not currently well understood within most Western cultures. Genderqueer is a term that typically describes one of three gender identity categories: (1) an individual who feels their identity falls in between male and female, (2) an individual who may feel male or female at distinct times, or (3) an individual who rejects gender completely. The following terms may be used by individuals who feel that their gender identity falls somewhere in between male and female: gender variant, intergender, androgene, genderfluid and pangender (this list is constantly growing and changing, so these are several examples of a longer list). [...] Because there is a lack of popular culture understanding of genderqueer identity, most individuals who feel genderqueer do not have the terminology or the understanding of what is going on internally to communicate with others about how they are feeling regarding their gender identity." 8. This 2016 "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care" source, from Springer, page 8, states, "'Genderqueer'—an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of genders. This term can include those who feel like they fit outside of a gender binary of male vs. female, as well as individuals who consider themselves to have multiple genders or no gender at all." 9. This 2016 "Sex, Sexuality, Law, and (In)justice" source, from Routledge, page 27, gives a glossary listing; it states, "Gender queer: Used by individuals who reject categories of gender altogether and wish to claim a space outside the traditional gender binary." 10. This 2017 "Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 217, states, "An individual who identifies as genderqueer is 'a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is a combination of typical prescribed gender roles and/or expressions' (UCB, 2015, 'genderqueer'). [...] Genderqueer persons may also identify with terms such as bigender, androgynous, gender fluid, gender nonconforming, gender diverse, pangender, and/or nonbinary." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues.' 11. This 2017 "LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research" source, from University of California Press, page 22, states, "[G]enderqueer [is] an umbrella term for gender identities other than male or female." 12. This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 1934 states, "Genderqueer is a term that began to circulate within sexual and gender minority communities in the late 1990s and encompasses nonbinary gender expressions and identities. While gender is commonly conceptualized as feminine or masculine, with binary identities of women and men, genderqueer individuals defy and reconstruct these notions of gender and generate nonbinary gender identities and gender expressions. Being an umbrella term, genderqueer can take on different meanings for different individuals." The source goes on to address appearance/surgery issues and pronoun issues. 13. This 2018 "A Guide to Genderqueer, Non-binary, and Genderfluid Identity" source, from Psychology Today, states, "Defining Genderqueer (GQ): A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex. This may be in terms of their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and, most importantly, their gender identity. [...] GQ Umbrella Identities: Brace yourself, because the variety inherent among GQs has resulted in numerous additional labels within the framework of genderqueer. Here are a few of the common ones according to Giddins: Genderfluid: Identify as male, female, or nonbinary at different times or circumstances. Third-gender: "Hirja" in India or "Two-spirit" in Native American cultures. Amalgagender: Intersex people born with a mixed male/female anatomy. Demigender: A weak or partial connection to a certain gender (demigirl or demiboy). Bigender: Having two gender identities either simultaneously or switching between the two. 6. Pangender: Identifying with a vast range of different genders. 7. Agender: Lacking gender, genderless, or not caring about gender identity. 14. This 2018 "Everything you never knew about being genderqueer" source, from The Daily Dot, states, "Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER) defines 'genderqueer' as 'an identity commonly used by people who do not identify or express their gender within the gender binary.' Genderqueer people 'may identify as neither male nor female,' TSER explains, and 'may see themselves as outside of or in between the binary gender boxes,' if not dismissing gender altogether. In short, genderqueer describes gender identities that go against traditional expectations of what it means to have a gender. Genderqueer is an umbrella term, so when someone identifies as genderqueer, that could mean a variety of things. Some people consider themselves genderqueer and identify as cisgender, or with their gender assigned at birth. Others see themselves as genderqueer and prefer not to assign themselves to a specific gender identity. Because genderqueer carries a wide range of terms and phrases, there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to being genderqueer. [...] Some people may consider themselves genderqueer and identify with various other terms within the genderqueer umbrella. Here are just a few examples. Agender: Agender individuals are people who "do not experience having a gender," Hell Yeah, Agender! explains. Agender people may use a wide range of pronouns and experience no particular relationship with a gender identity. Bigender: Bigender people have two gender identities. Some bigender people experience their gender identities simultaneously, while others regularly transition from gender to gender. Some genderfluid people may identify as bigender too. Genderfluid: Term for individuals who 'have different gender identities at different times,' Nonbinary Wiki states. Genderfluid is an umbrella term and is used by people who identify both inside and outside the gender binary. Multigender: An umbrella term for people who 'have more than one gender identity,' be it at once or from time to time, as Nonbinary Wiki explains. Multigender identities include genderfluid and bigender. Nonbinary: Nonbinary is an umbrella definition for people who fall outside the gender binary and do not explicitly identify as 'male' or 'female.' For more information, read our guide to being nonbinary." 15. This 2019 "Transgressive: A Trans Woman on Gender, Feminism, and Politics" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 87, states, "Genderqueer, also known as genderqueer—nonnormative gender identity or expression. While genderqueer originated as an inclusive umbrella term, it is also considered by many to be an individual identity." 16. This 2019 "Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI): differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals" source, published in the International Journal of Transgenderism weighs the difference between three groups based on a genderqueer identity scale. There are a number of other new academic sources that also use the term "genderqueer" or "genderqueer and non-binary," all while prioritizing the term "genderqueer." Some new academic sources, when focusing on the gender meaning of non-binary, also use the terms "non-binary," "non-binary people" or "non-binary gender identities," but most use "genderqueer" or prioritize "genderqueer"...or make it clear that "genderqueer" is the main umbrella term. |
As an aside, some users in the past suggested that if this article were renamed it would be unclear how to distinguish it from " Third gender", but that is a red herring, because this article notes that "genderqueer", in the broad umbrella sense this article explicitly introduces itself as using, is synonymous with "non-binary", so any overlap or confusion [if it were real, would] already exist (and, apparently, has not caused us any actual problems).-sche ( talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
repeating your search, showing statistical bias towards non-binary
|
---|
If I'm not mistaken, these were your two searches:
is that correct? The problem here, is that while the second one always returns results about "genderqueer" as an identity, the first one has many false positives and therefore only sometimes returns results about "non-binary" as a gender identity. This skews your counters in favor of nonbinary, and taints your analysis. To visualize the problem, go to page 100 of the results for non-binary. This page of results, has a 60% false-positive rate, in these three categories:
That leaves four of ten results (#4, 5, 7, and 9) as valid entries on page 100 for this search. You'd have to spot check other pages in the first 100, maybe every 10, as it's likely that the false positive rate is lower towards the beginning of the results. However, it's also likely that it's worse, further out (pages 101- 1,570 of results) but we'll never know, because 100 pages is the maximum number of results that Scholar will return. A better way, would be to find narrower searches that are still valid for comparing the two expressions. For example, try these two searches:
return results that are much closer to each other, but note that the nonbinary search inevitably still contains some false positives, although only one on page 100 (still, a 10% rate, but maybe not typical). |
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide.( WP:NOT#DICDEF). However, for people looking for that kind of definition, we can add a Wikitionary link to the top of the page. 3. Information about the concept of "binary"? Well, sorry, but that's the opposite of what you searched for! If you searched for ugliness you wouldn't expect to be redirected to beauty, would you? However, we can add a hatnote that links to binary (and I went ahead and did this.) ... When we eliminate those other possibilities, what we're left with is one thing: the article about non-binary/genderqueer identity. That's why Non-binary has redirected to Genderqueer since 2012. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
— Dave the enby ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is an alt account, while claiming it's for a legitimate reason and that they've notified Arbcom. WanderingWanda ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
...changed their vote text without use of strike or underscore...Well, there was nothing to strike out. I wasn't really changing my vote, just adding a clarifying addendum. But I went ahead and moved my ranked preference down out of the survey section per your objection. I'll go ahead and remove the note about ranked preference from the top of the page as well. I've also added, for clarity, a bold note to the Additional Statement to make it clear that it's an addition-after-the-fact. (In other discussions I've seen additions to the nomination statement so I didn't think it would be controversial. The statement was, in part, a response to one voter who complained that my initial nomination was not adequate:
The nominator has not made a case for the need to change from the status quo...the onus is on the nominator to make a sound nomination, this should be closed.WanderingWanda ( talk) 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
SUPPORT As an individual who identifies as non-binary, I reject 'genderqueer' as a description of my gender identity. No statistical evidence supporting adoption of either term will change that! E3Nomad ( talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Some !votes in the #Survey section above are based on the assertion that nonbinary is more common than genderqueer. The truth is the opposite is the case. That some people think nonbinary is more common is not surprising to me, because comparing the results of two different search-engine queries is a tricky business, and has many pitfalls. Comparing nonbinary with genderqueer is a great example, because simply comparing the count of results, is like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that with extremely rare excpeptions, the term "genderqueer" always refers to a gender identity or gender-related issue. Whereas, the term nonbinary sometimes refers to gender issues, and sometimes refers to other things. So, if you simply compare search engine counts for the two terms, the search count for "nonbinary" will be inflated by other, non-gender meanings. But by how much?
Well, let's look at the usage of the term nonbinary on Google scholar, which returns pretty much nothing but reliable sources. Of the top 50 results in academic journals for the query "nonbinary", how many of these are about gender issues? As of today, here is the list:
Top 50 results on Google Scholar for nonbinary
|
---|
|
Answer: only one (#14) is about gender. The other forty-nine are about things like algorithms, computer code, sequences, and other things. If this trend holds, it means that only 2% of results for the search "nonbinary" have anything to do with gender. So, in comparing the search counts for "genderqueer" and for "nonbinary", you have to reduce the latter count by 98%, before comparing the tally with "genderqueer". This invalidates most of the ( good faith) !votes in the survey that were based on statements like "nonbinary is now more common than genderqueer", because their analysis of the data was incorrect. Mathglot ( talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
To avoid an apples-and-oranges search, I searched for the terms " nonbinary identity" and " genderqueer identity" to get a rough idea how they compare. The search counts in the millions on the first page of results are meaningless and can be ignored; the only way to find reasonably accurate figures for comparison, is by going forward to the last page of results, for each search. Doing so, we find that there are 157 "nonbinary identity" and 179 "genderqueer identity". These are raw counts: they do not exclude the count of pages on which both terms appear, and they are not filtered for non-reliable sources. If these figues remain proportionate after further filtering and analysis, that would mean that "nonbinary" has gained ground since last time there was an Rfc, but that "genderqueer" is still in the lead. If current trends continue, "nonbinary" will probably surpass "genderqueer" in popularity some time in the next few years. Mathglot ( talk) 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
but my argument is that non-binary is currently the preferred term.
•Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
•Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Wikipedia describes current usage. Then there's the section on name changes. It's focused more on official/"announced" changes, but perhaps its guidance could be thought to cover a situation like this, too:
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in " Use commonly recognizable names".
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
How long is "currently", anyway? A few months? A year? Five?Well, I don't know where the line is, exactly. I do think we have to be somewhat cautious. We don't want to change a title because of a temporary blip in usage. But at the same time, Wikipedia should be dynamic, not inert, and editors should be BOLD. After all, any change we make can be undone.
Don't be fooled by WanderingWanda's argument. Nothing has changed since that June 2018 move request. This is just more "move the article" reasoning based on nothing concrete.
I presented reasoned arguments and evidence, I'm not "fooling" anyone. Language can shift dramatically in a year and so can consensus.
It isn't true that "nothing concrete" was presented. I'd like to note how careful I was when I searched The Washington Post. Knowing that non-binary is sometimes used outside the context of gender, I looked at each individual search result to see whether the article was about gender identity. (The result, as noted, is that, for that particular paper and timeframe, non-binary gender was mentioned much more often than genderqueer.)
Google Ngram still shows "genderqueer" as the leader. So does this Google Trends link pointed to in the 2017 previous move discussion. Notice that it compares "non-binary gender" to "genderqueer." It doesn't go on "non-binary" without the gender aspect attached to the term.
Comparing genderqueer to the phrase non-binary gender is hugely flawed. The term non-binary is often (in fact usually) used to refer to gender without appending the word gender. That extra word is dramatically skewing the results. Let's try some apples-to-apples comparisons. For the past 12 months:
genderqueer people vs. non-binary people vs. nonbinary people winner: nonbinary people
am i genderqueer vs. am i non-binary vs. am i nonbinary winner: am i nonbinary
genderqueer actors vs. non-binary actors vs. nonbinary actors winner: non-binary actors
genderqueer trans vs. non-binary trans vs. nonbinary trans winner: nonbinary trans
Let's look at another mainstream source: http://www.bbc.co.uk. For 2018-2019, 12 articles used genderqueer. Meanwhile, dear lord a lot of articles talked about non-binary gender. By my count eighty-eight. (And yes, it was exausting going through all those articles.) A small sampling of quotes from the articles:
Sam Smith comes out as non-binary
, Caitlin Benedict came out as non-binary last year
, First non-binary person legally recognised in the US
, The non-binary artist battling transphobia with burgers
, Non-binary is a gender identity that doesn’t fit into the neat boxes
, 'My passport gender should be non-binary'
, we've actually created a non-binary category in mass participation road races and other events as well.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone, you say?The implication of the word is that I am being deceptive, even though I have done nothing but argue in good faith.
completely useless, alright, but you're the one that brought up Google Trends in the first place!
I, uh, did miss that the two posts were separate. My bad!I (not Mathglot) brought up Google Trends
WP:COMMONNAME specifically says thatYour media sources are not academic sources
major English-language media outletsare useful in
determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used. I'll also note that our goal is to chose a name that's
commonly recognizableand not necessarily the most 'academically correct' name.
Let's just look at recent stuff next. (Just going to keep it simple and look at non-binary vs genderqueer right now):
Google Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 3,340
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 4,240
Semantic Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 190
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 414
PubMed Central 2017-present
Winner: "genderqueer" "gender identity": 142
"non-binary" "gender identity": 114
Springer Link 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 245
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 334
3 out of 4 of the databases showed non-binary ahead of genderqueer, and when I narrow the PubMed results to the past year, non-binary squeaks ahead there, too:
PubMed Central May 2, 2018-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 60
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 68
The results from these academic databases is consistent with what I've seen at mainstream media sources BBC and The Washington Post, what LGBT expert Jacob Tobia has noted, and what I've seen with my own anecdotal experience.
There may be other legitimate reasons to oppose the move, but I don't see much room to doubt the idea that usage of the term non-binary has, in the past few years, overtaken usage of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 07:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
--
Here's another test:
Google Scholar, 2018-present, articles that mention genderqueer but NOT not-binary vs. the reverse:
"genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 1,170
Winner: "non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 4,260
Genderqueer gets trounced almost 4-to-1.
But now let's go back a few years...same test but date range 2009-2015:
Winner: "genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 3,330
"non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 2,710
Just a few years ago, genderqueer was beating non-binary. This is a dramatic recent societal shift. This is why I don't think it's constructive to argue against this move with cut-and-pasted old posts. Things are shifting too quickly to do that. Yeah, I get that Flyer and probably others think there have been too many RMs, and to be honest, if I noticed the last one was so recent I probably would've waited a bit longer before starting a new one. But we're here now, and we have to engage with the current evidence, rather than just assuming that what-once-was still is. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on the numbers I've cited, it's clear that academic sources now use the term non-binary more than genderqueer. But perhaps there's something we're missing by just looking at the raw numbers? Let's see. Here's a sampling of sources that use non-binary as the primary term to refer to non-binary/genderqueer individuals:
Academic sources
|
---|
Of course there are also still some academic sources that use genderqueer primarily. The point here is that non-binary has become the more common term, not that usage of genderqueer is completely dead:
Here are some interesting older articles. Even though they were published several years ago, back when the term genderqueer was the more common term, they treat genderqueer and non-binary as interchangeable, and do not indicate that one is more correct than the other (in fact, note that they list non-binary first, even though, if they were arranging the terms alphabeticaly, genderqueer would come first):
|
Digging into recent academic sources, there is nothing that contradicts my clear sense that: 1. Usage of non-binary has overtaken genderqueer in society and in reliable sources. 2. Non-binary is roughly synonymous with the term genderqueer 3. There is nothing incorrect about using non-binary in place of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's do some searches on Google Books. 2017-present.
Books with non-binary (and not genderqueer) in the title: around 5
Books with genderqueer (and not non-binary) in the title: 0
Other: around 7
Non-binary, gender non-conforming, or genderqueer describes a person whose gender identity differs from that assigned at birth but may...)
As of 2016, nonbinary gender identity labels include, but are not limited to, agender, androgynous, ambigender, bi-gender, gender fluid, genderless, genderqueer, intergender, neutral, mixed gender, multigender, and pangender.
After looking through books published in the last couple of years, it's even more clear that while genderqueer is still in use and still preferred by some sources, non-binary has become the dominant term. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Enough of the sources I listed indicate or essentially present "genderqueer" as the primary term....with all of the other non-binary identities subsumed under it. Except for one source so farA source doesn't have to say non-binary is the primary term to use it as the primary term. I listed five recently published books that put non-binary on the cover, not genderqueer. Each of those books made a choice to treat non-binary as the primary term. Most of the academic papers I cited used non-binary as the primary term, too. They didn't just use the word once or twice but made a choice to primarily refer to their subjects as non-binary.
there is scant academic usage for non-binary or non-binary gender when compared to the wealth that the term genderqueer has.Look at the numbers I came up with. I searched four different academic databases. Each one showed that non-binary is now used more often in academic papers.
A number of those Google Scholar sources are using 'genderqueer' interchangeably or alongside 'non-binary,' 'non-binary gender' and/or 'gender nonconforming'."Look at the search I did where I compared sources that used non-binary but NOT genderqueer vs. sources that used genderqueer but NOT non-binary. There are way more that used just non-binary than the reverse. Genderqueer used to be the primary term but it's not anymore. Things have changed since you first started looking at this issue. WanderingWanda ( talk) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
genderqueer has the richer history. That's another of way of saying, that even though genderqueer is no longer the common term, it was the common term for longer. But, per WP:TITLECHANGES, an article title
describes current usage. WP:NAMECHANGES also says
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. Now, obviously we're not talking about some "official name change" per se, but there was a change – society has shifted from preferring one term to the other – and I think the basic principle still applies. The word negro probably has a longer history than African American, but no one suggests African Americans should be moved to American negroes. (Note that the AA article mentions the word negro 27 times. It's no big deal for an article to go back and forth between two different terms!)
Genderqueer, also known as non-binary. It doesn't say Non-binary falls under the gender-queer umbrella or anything similar. Look at some of the sources I posted earlier. I quoted Psychology Today giving the following definition:
Nonbinary; Genderqueer: Umbrella terms for people who identify as not exclusively a man or a woman, or...etc. ( link). It presents the terms side-by-side, as completely synonymous and equal. (Actually, as noted earlier, you could argue that it's giving mild precedence to nonbinary, since it lists it first even though genderqueer would be first alphabetically.) Look at the International Review of Psychiatry quote ( link).
The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders.Side-by-side. Synonymous. No hierarchy. Look at this paper from the International Journal of Transgenderism. It talks about the history of the term genderqueer, then it talks about the history of the term non-binary.
The term "genderqueer" emerged in the 1990s...
The earliest use of terms referring directly to non-binary seems to be around 2000. Again, it presents the terms side-by-side, and doesn't say one falls under the umbrella of the other. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the context of governments granting legal recognition of non-binary gender, I see the word non-binary being used much more often than genderqueer:
The bill would authorize the change of gender on a new birth certificate to be female, male, or nonbinary.
See also:
Maine BMV to offer non-binary gender designation on driver’s licenses, ID cards...Upon receipt of a completed Gender Designation Form, the BMV will issue a sticker for the license or ID that will read: “Gender has been changed to X – Non-binary.”Main.gov
According to Alexandra Walden, public information officer at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles....“The Nevada DMV staff have been working diligently for quite some time in order to offer the nonbinary or ‘gender X’ option to Nevadans,”NBC
A judge in Oregon has granted a petition allowing a person to legally choose neither sex and be classified as nonbinaryThe New York Times
Nonbinary gender identity is not recognized by most states. Last June, Oregon became the first to recognize a nonbinary gender option on driver’s licenses. Since the bill passed, Washington, DC, and three more states followed suit: Washington, New York, and California, which became the first state to allow nonbinary residents to change their gender on all relevant legal documents, including birth certificates, to a gender-neutral option.VOX WanderingWanda ( talk) 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of...major English-language media outlets. It also says that looking at Google's
News Archiveis one way to help determine the best title. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The choice of article titles should put the interests of... a general audience before those of specialists.Mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience. And while academia now seems to prefer non-binary, the media seems to really, really prefer it. As noted, by my count (and doing my best to weed out false positives and duplicate articles etc), since 2018 the BBC has preferred non-binary to genderqueer by a whopping 8-to-1 ratio. (Note that WP:NEWSORG specifically lists the BBC as a good reliable source.)
One case? You think that is enough?It's one more case than genderqueer has! And sure, the fact that California lawmakers chose that specific word is significant, given how carefully researched and worded laws in general are. WanderingWanda ( talk) 20:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I know how you can go and on; so I'd rather not keep debating you.*glances at giant wall-of-text you copy-pasted into the survey section* Ahem. Anyway, I'm presenting my arguments not just for you, but for the benefit of everyone who is participating in this discussion.
A news source using a term is not the same thing as a source commenting on the topic specificallySure, but WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should strongly consider the name that is
most commonly used. The usage discrepancy between non-binary and genderqueer in reliable sources matters, and to argue it doesn't goes directly against the title guidelines. WanderingWanda ( talk) 21:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The number of results per year for both terms has increased each year, with 22 for "genderqueer" and 19 for "nonbinary" in 2017. The "genderqueer" was consistently more frequent each year.(I don't know how accurate this is, but in the interview I cited with LGBT-focued author and journalist Jacob Tobia, the shift from genderqueer to non-binary is specifically tied to 2017.) Would be interested to see more up-to-date data from Legitimus if they pop in. WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 3#Requested move 4 June 2016, it was noted that "Genderqueer" is the WP:COMMONNAME when looking at page view statistics. We see that this is still the case. I notice that WanderingWanda brought up page view statistics at Talk:Trans, but not here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the run-up to the discussion that resulted in the Chelsea Manning article being moved to its current title, editors comprehensively gathered and listed on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request#Evidence as many sources as possible that used the old vs new name, so COMMONNNAME could be judged. Something similar was done before the recent (Northern) Macedonian RfC. Given that each "side" above thinks COMMONNNAME is on their side, I suggest we attempt such a thing at Talk:Genderqueer/Sources (feel free to suggest a better subpage name). We could sort the sources by type (e.g., as called for by WT:AT, other encyclopedias, academic books or textbooks, academic journals and articles, major organizations, and media outlets) and by decade (or year), split them by which name they predominantly use, and include short blurbs explaining whether they use one term exclusively or only predominantly, and whether they regard them as synonyms or one as a subset of the other. (I am suggesting this as something to work on over the coming months as a run-up to any future RfC/RM(s), because this one seems likely to reach no consensus due to disagreements over what the facts are. -sche ( talk) 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Timeline 1
|
---|
Google Scholar results, using the search
|
Well, doesn't get much clearer than that. Looks like 2017 was indeed the tipping point. WanderingWanda ( talk) 04:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Timeline 2
|
---|
|
Non-binary books (confirmed) (subtotal: 21)
|
---|
|
Non-binary books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 13)
|
---|
|
Genderqueer books (confirmed) (subtotal: 15)
|
---|
|
Genderqueer books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 7)
|
---|
|
I want to make it absolutely, 100% clear that I do not agree that genderqueer is an offensive word and I am not motivated by a personal dislike of the word. I like the word. It's by queer people, for queer people. It is not a slur and it has not become dated-to-the-point-of-offensiveness. For a fun overview of the word genderqueer I recommend this Youtube video. (Note that I don't know if the video counts as a super reliable source or whatever – I'm just posting it for editors' personal enrichment and enjoyment.)
My argument is just that non-binary has become more-used and more-well-known, and therefore I think it fits the spirit of WP:TITLE better. Non-binary was recently written into California's legal code, not genderqueer. Actor Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to a Middle American audience, not their genderqueer identity. Year over year, English language reliable sources, across all fields, are talking about non-binary people more and more and, meanwhile, discussion of genderqueer keeps falling farther and farther behind (and the shift, at this point, seems unlikely to be a temporary blip.) That's the beginning and ending of my argument. WanderingWanda ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Despite Flyer22 Reborn's assertion to the contrary, a lot has changed in the past year. In particular, millions of Americans now live in states where "non-binary" is recognized as a legal gender. The term "genderqueer" is almost never used in legal contexts, thus IMO it isn't an appropriate title for an article that has a substantial (and expanding) legal scope. "Non-binary" works much better for covering the cultural, sociological, and legal aspects of this article's scope. Kaldari ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)and you've noted that it doesn't say anything about "current" sources. BUT I'll note that the passage goes on to say:
as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.I take that to mean that looking at sources is just a means to an end, and that the most important thing is to find a name that adheres to the five criteria. The first two are "Recognizability" (the title someone is more likely to recognize) and "Naturalness" (the title somebody is more likely to search for), and I'd argue that more recent sources will give us a better idea of what's more recognizable/natural.
On reflection, this discussion between Flyer22 and myself should've happened on Flyer22's talk page rather than here. Collapsing. -WanderingWanda
|
---|
A note that
Flyer22 Reborn pinged SmokeyJoe, Legitimus, and Mathglot, three editors who all voted oppose in the last RM discussion.
Wikipedia:Canvassing says that
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal for a one-year moratorium on further RMs on this topic after the conclusion of this one.
First, I'd like to say that I'm pretty impressed at the civility and level of discourse in the discussion here, on all sides. I think everyone is taking their best shot, with the intent to improve the article in a pretty friendly manner. So, kudos all around.
One look at the size of this discussion, though, is enough to show how much editor time is being eaten up by this. In the interest of improving the encyclopedia as a whole, and not only this one article, can we all agree that whatever happens at the end of this RM, other attempts to initiate a move before a year has passed would be against community consensus? That way, we can all get back to what we were doing before this, and go improve other articles, without this Talk page sizzling at the top of all our Watchlists. Mathglot ( talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
In a post at the observation of trends section below, -sche said,
[The] proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway.
I agree with -sche's comment, and wanted to add what motivated my bothering to add a proposal about this in the first place:
I think the regular editors have a pretty good handle on this, and there's no need for a "quiet time" proposal for that group. What concerns me, is well-meaning new editors, or those who have not edited here before, possibly with some WP:RGW motivation and unaware of previous history, storming in here with the brand, new, exciting, never-heard-of-before idea to change the name of this article. Once an RM is started, policy takes over, and you can't easily just shut it down.
The idea of having a proposal, would be to see if we can come up with a consensus ahead of time. If we can do that, then there is a policy-based way to support procedural closure of premature RMs, which otherwise would just be an endless time- and energy-suck from regulars and others who would prefer to be productive elsewhere, and not just link or rehash the same arguments again so soon. Mathglot ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not counting is not votes are not a democracy, etc. &c., but for anyone curious, the results of past RMs (by my quick count, counting nominators as supporters of moves) is:
A number of things are apparent, including that people like to propose moves when it's summer* and Mathglot's proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway, haha. Also, because there's consistently more support for "non-binary" (even though it does not rise to the level of consensus), and no consensus for "genderqueer", we can probably expect someone to file another RM next summer. (*Or is all this the work of the Australian-New Zealand Winter Cabal, ANZ∀∀C? ;) lol.) -sche ( talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I said this up above, but what about the title being " Non-binary and genderqueer" or " Genderqueer and non-binary gender"? Mathglot said up above: "I would have some WP:PRECISION issues with that, but if the consensus seems intractably divided right down the middle, something along those lines might be better than endless argument about it. Wasn't presented here at the outset, but why not see how this Rfc comes out, and that maybe propose that at some point if appropriate?" Paintspot Infez ( talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Genderqueer is a subset of non-binary.
“I would have preferred more options”: accounting for non‐binary youth in health research uses "we explicitly included non‐binary identities (eg, genderqueer)"
Genderfluid or attack helicopter: Responsible HCI research practice with non-binary gender variation in online communities uses "we are not sure whether queer in response to a gender question refers to non-binary gender (eg, genderqueer)" -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) updated in order to fix broken link; by Mathglot ( talk) 07:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to make the case in favor of just Non-binary. Some have argued its not precise enough; I disagree.
There is one name that fits all five criteria in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA best, and it's not Genderqueer or Non-binary gender or Non-binary gender identities...
...It's Non-binary.
WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, we've got a vote splitting issue on our hands. I'd like to kindly ask everyone to list your ranked preference for: Non-binary, Non-binary gender, and Genderqueer (and any other potential title you'd like to include.) Thank you in advance! Pings: Paintspot Infez, Mathglot, Equivamp, King of Hearts, Flyer22 Reborn, Johnuniq, Lyndaship, -sche, Doc James, SmokeyJoe, Unreal7, SnowFire, Mooeena, LokiTheLiar, Montanabw, feminist, BarrelProof, Netoholic, Ivanvector, Dave the enby, Kaldari, Sharouser, Rreagan007 WanderingWanda ( talk) 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS (plus any other options you want to add):
Genderqueer,
Non-binary,
Non-binary gender.
WanderingWanda (
talk)
11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ StraussInTheHouse: Can you clarify your close reasoning? I would not consider supporters of a move to Non-binary and supporters of a move to Non-binary gender to be in disagreement. Is the reasoning that 13 users for and 9 against does not represent a clear enough consensus? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Previous closure
|
---|
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ten users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary, three users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary gender or a similar natural disambiguator or noun-formed title, nine users support the retention of the current title, one user is neutral with regards to the aforementioned alternative proposal, and one user suggests a split. Both sides have cited statistics and case studies using reliable sources to make the argue using the same policy: that either non-binary or genderqueer is the common name. However, there does not appear to be consensus on that matter. This closure is without prejudice against renomination to assess whether consensus has been formed, nor does it preclude Non-binary being taken to Redirects for Discussion for a retargeting discussion per Netoholic's comment. I would, however, advise any future nominator to either list the discussion as a centralised discussion in order to gain input from users who may not ordinarily see it. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC) |
For more poor "support" votes from people at WP:LGBT?
And just a note that in addition to the #Additional statement section that WanderingWanda created, I also consider this notification by WanderingWanda at Talk:Transgender to have been made in bad-faith. Of course, WanderingWanda will point to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification where it states "the talk page of one or more directly related articles," as support for that notification. But WP:LGBT, which has already pulled in LGBT people, was already notified. And "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" obviously does not mean that many or all related pages should be notified. This topic has a lot of related pages, and each one will just bring in more and more LGBT editors of those pages. Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles. And if WanderingWanda wants to state that they weren't looking to pull in LGBT editors with the Talk:Transgender notification, I find that claim highly dubious. And before WanderingWanda points to this notification by me regarding another issue, I state that it is not the same. I alerted two talk pages, and noted that I would be doing so, because one (the Man article) is directly related to that matter and the other is about the topic (feminism). Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case, no need to [hash] out our problems with each other on this talk page.
Genderqueer and Non-binary are different terms. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8](remove xxx in the adress) -- Sharouser ( talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Have to say I'm encouraged by the attempt on the part of several respondents to back their conclusions in this RM with data (sometimes, tons of it). However a glance at this long RM, makes it obvious that there's a lot of data here, sometimes telling apparently contradictory stories. Primarily for this reason, but also due to the sheer length of this RM, and the fact that it was already closed once and then reopened after an objection, I would like to request that this be closed either by an admin, or if not an admin, then an experienced closer who has some background in statistics, preferably with knowledge of search engines as well. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I just want to thank everyone who's participated in these discussions. I know it's been a bit frustrating and stressful for some of us, and even painful at times (when there have been differences or gaps in generation, communication styles, experience, etc). I want to acknowledge those who've put the most work into this, as they have most likely had to neglect other articles, projects, and even things like sleep. Thank you for sticking with it and seeing this through with a minimum of carnage. Cookies and rainbow barnstars all around. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wait, something tells me in a couple years we'll have to do this all over again with non-binary vs. nonbinary. :) This NYTimes article just popped onto my phone:
Which Box Do You Check? Some States Are Offering a Nonbinary Option
Non-binary still seems to be more popular overall, but eventually, as with email, I suspect the hyphen will fall by the wayside. WanderingWanda ( talk) 18:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:screams: - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BD2412, I am requesting additional details from you about the close of the Requested move here. What was your procedure for weighing arguments and !votes, how much time did you devote to it, were you following the discussion from the beginning? I have some additional questions about the summary itself, below.
Background
The RM was closed at 01:02, 28 May 2019 in rev 899123728 (
diff,
permalink). Looking at your contributions around that time, (
50 contribs,
500 contribs) it looks to me like you devoted eleven minutes exclusively to the close, from 00:51 to 01:02. Prior to that, there was a mix of
AWB and manual edits
ending at 00:51, then nothing till the close at 1:02, followed by some archive and other cleanup. I'm not that familiar with
Autowiki Browser, but as I understand it, it automates most of the work, dropping you on a screen where you give a yea-or-nay indication, before moving to the next one. That is, it's not completely automated, and you have to give a manual response at some point. The point being, while you're busy with AWB, I assume you can't be evaluating an RM at the same time, right? Or have I missed something? (A point of confusion: in your original close, you tagged the archive bottom about 2/3 of the way through the discussion,
just above § 3.4.12; I'm presuming that was just an oversight of some sort. Explained by
-sche below and
elsewhere.)
Analysis
This Requested Move was one of the longest ones I have seen, and definitely the longest one I have participated in. There is a great deal of data there, and I found myself taking quite some time just to evaluate the arguments and especially the search results data of other users to determine if they were valid or not, and whether I needed to reply or not. In addition, I spent additional time developing my own experiments and results data, and adding them to the discussion, and so did other users. The Hemingway App rates the RM as "Good" (Grade 9) with 1600 sentences and 27,560 words, and estimates a reading time of 1:50:14. Given the sheer legnth of the RM and the amount of data, I don't understand how you were able to evaluate it in eleven minutes.
Summary
Your close summary is 113 words, and talks in vague words about being a difficult close, and this or that side having "a stronger showing of support". The middle part of the close summary dwelled on the choice of target (non-binary, vs non-binary gender). And the last third of it (two sentences) was basically, "we're all tired, time to move on". What struck me most about the summary was two things: the vagueness and generality of it, and the failure to address any of the data issues raised by various editors including results from a large number of search experiments of all kinds.
I was surprised that in your close summary, you made no comment about the previous close on this same RM by another closer on 11:24, May 16, 2019 ( diff, permalink). The previous closer, User:StraussInTheHouse, had followed the evolving discussion while it was going on. Following their original close, a reopen request was made a few hours later; after some discussion about it, SITH reopened it at 16:44. Their close summary was half again as long, provided some tally numbers, and some rationale for their close evaluation as no-consensus. Your close twelve days later had a different final result than theirs. It would seem like a good idea to have acknowledged a prior close, and to have spent a few words on what you saw differently from them, or what new information in the interim you found persuasive; but there was nothing like that in your summary.
I don't wish to relitigate or challenge the close, but I do want to understand how you went about it. (For those not familiar with User:BD2412, they are one of Wikipedia's top editors, with over a million edits to their credit.) Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |