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

English Language High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Gender studies High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Citing a 2003 edition (at least two editions behind) is not reasonable. This needs to be replaced by citation to the current edition (2022), the wording in which has very likely changed on this, since it is evidence-based.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:SOFIXIT. DuncanHill ( talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I've updated to the 2016 edition, which (still) verifies the claim. I'll check the 2022 edition if I can find it. Woodroar ( talk) 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The chief objection to singular they seems to be "it is not grammatical." But there is precedent for such a change. Originally, "you" was exclusively plural, with "thou/thee" being used to indicate the second person singular. Early Modern English began losing this form, with it disappearing in Modern English by around 1750 (outside of rural dialects and some religious communities.) We have used "you" in both a singular and plural sense for centuries with very little in the way of confusion. I would be happy to write this out with references for the article, but I am not sure where it would best fit in. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Good idea. Maybe an addition or note near the beginning of the " Inflected forms and derivative pronouns" section, where there is a reference to "singular you"? Funcrunch ( talk) 17:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, excellent. I will have that done this weekend. TechBear | Talk | Contributions

This article is massively violating MOS:DLIST by abusing the <dd>...</dd> element (wikimarkup :) as a visual indentation mechanism, producing all kinds of bogus list markup in the rendered result, which is a major accessibility problem. That markup is only for use inside description lists AKA definition lists AKA association lists (despite the fact that we regularly abuse the shit out of it on talk pages for visual indentation; our articles have accessibility guidelines to comply with that our talk pages do not.

Doing this:

is wrong. This is even worse, since it creates two different kind of broken lists at once:

All of the examples that are actual quotations should probably be done with {{ blockquote|1=Quoted text here|author=Author Name|source=Other source details}}

Examples that are not quotations should be formatted with {{ block indent|1=Example text here}}.

For cases where there are groups of introductory statements followed by one or more illustrative examples, presently mis-coded as stuff like:

the proper markup is:

since that is a valid DLIST.

If one or another of those example entries in such a list needs to be a block quotation itself, use {{gbq}}, a version of {{ blockquote}} designed to work inside DLIST markup.
Edit: That is no longer necessary; WP:TemplateStyles are now used by {{ glossary}} to adjust display of {{blockquote}} inside a d-list, so the old {{gbq}} CSS-tweaking wrapper for {{blockquote}} has been made obsolete and no longer exists. If for some reason {{glossary}} is not wanted to be used, and the {{blockquote}} display in situ is producing an undesirable amount of vertical whitespace, this can be adjusted with custom CSS as {{blockquote|1=[Quote text here]|style=[CSS here]}}, but it's simpler just to wrap the d-list with {{glossary}}.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC); updated: 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Fixed the lion's share. —  Remsense 聊 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Normally I would object to using plurals where singular is appropriate but then I thought of the following. What is plural? It appears that in English we don't add s for just more than 1, we also add s for less than 1. For example I have 1 orange. I have 1.1 oranges. I have 0.9 oranges. Note we don't say I have 0.9 orange. We use a plural construct for some reason. Now we can argue than if a bit of skin drops off you, you are no longer 1 Fred, but potentially 0.99999999999 Freds... if you can use 0.9 oranges because the complete orange is not present, why cant you use Freds when not complete Fred is present? If you can now use such plurals and of course as humans we are never the full human we were a moment ago given skin sheds all day long as dust, it should be justifiable to refer to part of a Fred as they. Its not singular, it is less than 1. 120.21.231.181 ( talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The sentance In the early 21st century, use of singular they with known individuals emerged for people who do not exclusively identify as male or female makes it sound as if the only people to use they/them pronouns are trans and/or non-binary. As people frequently use Wikipedia to find information or correct people do other editors think this should be changed? It also suggests that non-binary identities started in the 21st century, even if we ignore non-binary identities before the term was coined I believe this is inaccurate as the term gained popularity in the 1990's. I'd suggest

In the late 20th century, the use of singular they with known individuals started to become more common as a personal pronoun

EnbyEditor ( talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I like the suggested edit. Perhaps, we could add at the end of the sentence ", especially among people who do not exclusively identify as male or female." or something similar to acknowledge that it is primarily used by us queer folks. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me. "In the late 20th century" will be unsourced, but it's not more unsourced than the current "In the early 21st century". It would help if someone could find a source that gives a timeline. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The early 21st century is sourced in the article body (not the lede) with a reference to the OED, whose earliest citation for they in this sense is 2009, and American Speech, which reports a citation from 2008. Both the 2009 citation and the 2008 citation frame this use of they as a neologism, and the authors of the American Speech column describe it as "genuinely new", writing in 2016. Earliest citations are not proof of earliest usage, of course, but I'd like to see some evidence for the late 20th century or at least some source suggesting it before putting it in the article. AJD ( talk) 20:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I believe this OED page implies this is the case towards the end there, but I find the wording confusing so I'll try to find a better source tomorrow when I'm not so tired EnbyEditor ( talk) 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree; I don't think that article says anything suggesting that the sense of they that we're discussing here was used before the 21st century. AJD ( talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree, I think my suggestion removes the idea that primarily queer people use singular they as their pronouns EnbyEditor ( talk) 20:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply