![]() | 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 2 |
Good; I see no reason not to have this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Sexist language is a huge problem on Wikipedia, and modern English needs to rely heavily on neutral wording. The sexes are equal in the modern world, so sexist language is as archaic as "ye" and "whilst". — Deckill er 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please write your comments at MOS talk; I've copied the text above to that place. Tony 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've marked my proposed changes in boldface. The move of the "Please consider" sentence is intended to start the section off with a request – which is what it is – rather than "is not concerned with editors' beliefs". Since that latter statement is then followed by an intent concerning the effect on some people's "beliefs", a little clarification is required, which I've attempted to add. I attempted to clarify that "using he or she" means using the formula "he or she" and not "'he' or 'she'". I have also softened the final sentence to avoid indicating a preferential usage ("may still be used"), leaving it up to the editor unless the subject has a known preference. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please consider the use of gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision. The use of gender-neutral language is not a statement about editors’ beliefs, but is intended to minimize or avoid language that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes, such as:
This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations, the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (“If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished”).
There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic male and female pronouns, among which are:
Other generic usages can sometimes be avoided; for example, by using operated or staffed (instead of manned), people or humanity (man), layperson (layman), business people or business owners (businessmen). In these cases, ensure that the basic meaning is preserved. Where the gender of an individual subject is known, either gender-specific or gender-neutral suffixes may still be used, although the subject’s preference, if known, should be followed ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman").
[Reindent] Could we please keep the comments in this subsection restricted to the proposed changes outlined above? The main MOS talk thread is the place for discussions of "political correctness". I'd really like to get feedback on my proposed changes to the draft. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We now read:
In the spirit of amity, fraternity, blah blah, I'm willing to go the extra kilometre not to offend self-styled "purists". But project pages too should I think avoid counterfactual assertions. And I see no evidence that the "grammatical validity" of singular they is "widely disputed". I even looked at that singular they article, and indeed got the first impression that there was some grammatical objection to it, but after a slightly closer reading this impression evaporated.
So how about:
-- Hoary 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
PS (i) I don't even know what "grammatical validity" means. I took this to mean "grammatically acceptable". (ii) I'm increasingly getting the impression that even the guidebooks to "correct" writing have given up on this one. -- Hoary 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OR:
- using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”), although the grammatical correctness of this widely used option is disputed.
Tony 10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with saying "stylistically" rather than "grammatically" is that those who've voiced opposition identify the problem as one of grammar. SamBC( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Can I say that I don't think much of this detail is going to survive. The reality is that the objections are so vehement that we're going to be reduced to a couple of very mild sentences about GNL. That's the only way this is going to get through unless there's a sudden, voluminous rush of support for the full text. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
These are the only issues I could see spelled out:
Are there any other problems with this essay? I see that the first has been removed, and I have hidden the second with HTML comments. ← BenB4 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for me to make modifications to this essay directly, or should they be discussed here first? -- Dan East 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is constructive to make references to an editor's POV. It doesn't matter why an editor decides to utilize or apply GNL, as long as the end result adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. I've reworded the essay in an attempt to indicate that GNL in and of itself does not indicate biased POV. -- Dan East 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Businessman does not imply business owner. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09 5 October 2007 (GMT).
Wikipedia:Use modern language#Gender neutrality is covering a lot of the same ground as (often in more clarity and detail than) GNL. A merger would make sense and help GNL be a little more substantial. It could be helped in other ways in that regard by possibly importing a few more points from the related Meta page. The MODLANG section merger could also resolve some serious issues I'm having with the current wording of GNL, which is too wishy-washy and permissive. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just been quietly rewording a few articles to avoid using this sort of thing and instead to use they (or a name) where possible; would it be worth mentioning something about it in passing here?
On the other hand, we de-facto discourage it already - I've found only four cases in the main namespace so far, and half of those seem to have been typos for 'his' - this is after going through 350 pages. It's very unusual to have a situation where we can't rework the text to use conventional English forms - Leslie Feinberg might be one, where we use 'ze' in the sentence stating they prefer that mode of address, but evade it everywhere else in the article.
Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, couldn't find anything on a cursory search - has anyone discussed whether we should opt for a preferred term? I always found chairperson ungainly and was much pleased with an expert on gender's use of the succinct and monosyllabic chair. Any thoughts (apart from the usual moan on instruction creep which I will preemptively acknowledge) :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a preference of actor versus actress for a female? I have seen actor used for either. Thanks, Alanraywiki ( talk) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of opposition to anything more than the single sentence Jimbo approved -- so lets keep this an {{ essay}} until the MoS discussion settles. The examples and advice don't make good proscriptive material. Is there a reason the entire page should be a proposal? ← BenB4 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In line with all this, I've changed the tag to {{how-to}}
, as that seems to possibly meet Radiant!'s concerns, or will make the purpose of the page clearer. It still doesn't seem quite right, but hopefully someone can find a better tag.
SamBC(
talk)
11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this discussion has somehow moved from "Is gender-neutral-language common practice on en.wp?" to "Is singular they correct, incorrect, or evil?". The latter is a debate which has repeatedly shown potential to cycle ad infinitum, both sides are currently represented, if someone wants to change "validity" to something more correct then they can, but can we drop it and get back to the question of the tagging of this page? SamBC( talk) 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style guidelines on gender-neutral language state, "Please consider using gender-neutral language where it can be done without loss of neatness and precision."
Can anyone name an example of a time where it cannot be done without loss of neatness and precision?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we, or should we, have a policy on pronouns and animals? It seems to me that the best approach is to use he or she when gender is known or obvious, and it when gender is unknown. Thus, The wolf protects its lair but The hen protects her young. Barnabypage ( talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
“The grammatical validity of [the singular they] is frequently disputed, although it is widely used in informal writing and speech.” This seems to imply that informal writing is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Shouldn’t encyclopedias be formal? — Frungi ( talk) 06:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We are having a discussion about "one" as a gender-neutral pronoun on WT:MOS#One_vs._you. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A recent debate on WT:MoS reached no conclusion one way or the other about whether or not the singular they is proper in encyclopedic writing. In light of this, it seems a bit extreme to say "it is unsuitable for Wikipedia" as the current text does. How do you all feel about "Wikipedia advises editors to seek other solutions before employing the singular they"? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A thought from Bryan Garner ( Garner's Modern American Usage, 2nd ed., p. 717):
I'm not sure there's an answer to the suitability of the singular they, but I think gender-neutral language should not call attention to itself to the detriment of the article; perhaps this is one additional consideration for WP editors. It seems to me that this fits well with the current wording.
Garner, incidentally, is a proponent of the singular they, given its long historical usage, and sees his fellow Americans as the primary obstacle. Nonetheless, as an attorney, he recognizes that persuading the judge is everything, and that consequently, the writer's viewpoint matters less than the reader's. JeffConrad ( talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of singular they, especially in forms other than they or their, but I wonder if the current wording isn't a bit severe, as was suggested under Singular they. Might it make more sense to recast the issue in terms of reader perception rather than “right” or “wrong”? Perhaps “its grammatical validity is frequently disputed at many levels” could be replaced with something to the effect of “many readers find the lack of number agreement between they and a singular antecedent” unacceptable.
The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 5.204, may afford some help, as well as citable source for finding alternatives to singular they when feasible:
Would it be worth adding a Further reading section and including works such as Garner’s Modern American Usage and Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage? Both devote several pages to avoiding gender bias, and describe many methods for doing so. Chicago describe the problems well enough but are less helpful in solving them. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've indicated, I think the version prior to Tony1's edits was somewhat biased against singular they; I think it's now gone the other direction. As Chicago mention, there are many, especially Americans, who object to the usage. Perhaps something in between unsuitable and the current wording would be the best way to say it. Perhaps it would also help to add something to the effect of “, especially in
American English” to the end of the second sentence.
JeffConrad (
talk)
12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ships, sailing boats, (steam) railway locomotives and cars are often referred to colloquially (by owners and fans) as "she". I was just wondering whether there is any specific guideline regarding such usage within Wikipedia articles, or whether this page just sweeps up this usage too. Since I have already changed "she" to "it" as 'not enyclopaedic' in a number of articles, it would be good to have a specific reason to quote in the edit summary. -- EdJogg ( talk) 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The article suggests a number of ways to avoid using generic gendered pronouns, one of which is to write "he or she" instead of just one or the other. I've been having an extended disagreement with a Wikipedia editor who claims it is not acceptable to place a female pronoun before a male one, even though switching the pronouns does not alter the meaning of a phrase or make it more difficult to comprehend. Always placing the male pronoun first is simply a different type of the "unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes" that the gender-neutral writing policy seeks to correct. Before I change the page to reflect this, does anyone have input? Helsabott ( talk) 21:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"He or she" as suggested in the essay isn't all-inclusive or truly gender-neutral - it excludes anyone whose identity isn't accurately or entirely expressed by just one of "male" and "female" (this can but does not necessarily include people who are genderqueer, androgyne, bigender, agender etc). I feel this should be noted - something like "though this is not inclusive of people who identify outside the gender binary", or possibly "who do not identify as one of male or female"? Kaberett ( talk) 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This project says that we should use gender-neutral language when it can be done with clarity. However, this project needs examples of times when it cannot. Go to Talk:Antichess and it reveals an example of such a time. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Now the discussion at Talk:Antichess has been expanded (with only 2 Wikipedians ever posting anything) and it suggests that instead of:
The Manual of Style guidelines on gender-neutral language states, "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."
The statement can say:
"It is recommended, but not required, that you use gender-neutral language, but if you do, it absolutely must be done with clarity and precision."
This variant of the statement is more consistent with the discussion at Talk:Antichess appears to suggest. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
An example is not an explanation, but may be used to illuminate an explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(from Talk:Antichess)
Do you think WP:GNL's introductory statement should change to: Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable; if you use gender-neutral language, please make sure it has clarity and precision. (It currently reads "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Georgia guy ( talk) 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in this guideline says:
This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations ("All men are created equal"), the titles of works (A Man on the Moon), or cases where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school ("If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished").
I would like to know if it makes sense to expand this sentence to include titles of URL's. Titles of URL's are often mentioned in references. To clarify what the title means, please do not confuse titles of URL's with URL's themselves. An example of a URL is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language&action=edit§ion=new
An example of the title of a URL is:
Editing Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language (new section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
With the chairman article, the talk page says that there's consensus to have the article at its gender-specific title and ignore gender-neutral language. Any thoughts about when GNL does not apply?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
From the essay:
Pluralising (not "A player starts by taking up his position", but "Players start by taking up their positions"), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural.
Problematic, agreed! I edit lots of games articles, including game rules, and language such as "Players start by taking up their positions" is something I would automatically reject, since it is inherently confusing, implying to the reader that each player may have or control *more than one position*. Game rules need to be precise, confusion is bad, very bad. The gender-neutral effort in examples like this introduces imprecision (and confusion). Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's review the statement being discussed:
Pluralising (not "A player starts by taking up his position", but "Players start by taking up their positions"), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural.
Do you notice the phrase "can be", as opposed to the word "is"?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything's fine. There are other options besides pluralization. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
“the winning objective of the players is to lose all their pieces”? Personally, I would say “the player’s objective is to lose all his pieces,” but I believe mine is a fringe view on GNL: to oversimplify, it doesn’t matter unless it matters. — Frungi ( talk) 20:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we need discussion on whether singular they should be acceptable as a last option, that is, if there are no other good options that avoid gender-specific language. I say it should. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
We are all in luck, I am free and have agreed to mentor the troublesome user User:Georgia guy on proper Wiki-etiquette and collaboration. Thank you. Roxette Fanatic ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. It does not say:
Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable, please retain whichever one was used in the first non-stub version of the article to prevent edit wars.
Ihardlythinkso appears to agree more with the latter statement. Which version of the policy do you support?? Also, please note that Ihardlythinkso is someone who is uncivil and doesn't want me to know it; I initially didn't notice it for a while, but after a while I found out myself this statement, and it was hard work. (Alternately, Ihardlythinkso is someone who is uncivil but pretends to be civil.) Georgia guy ( talk) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's examine this statement located in the previous section of this page:
If I recall previous discussion on the matter, it’s not a use of the “generic he”; it’s that the hypothetical players Black and White are male. (the speaker is Frungi.)
Now, I'm trying to understand why this is not "gender-generic he".
In many situations, people talk about metaphorical people, who are not technically real, but who personify concepts. The pronouns we use to refer to them by gender are as if they were real people of their assigned gender, regardless of what pronouns would refer to the people or things we're talking about them in place of.
An example is Mother Nature. She is not a real person; she is a character people talk about in place of nature. Nature is inanimate; normally we would refer to nature as "it". But when we talk about the metaphorical person Mother Nature, we would use "she".
According to the above statement, "White" and "Black" are also metaphorical people; they represent the 2 sides of a chess game, and are male regardless of the actual people playing chess; and the chess world talks about these metaphorical people, not the actual people playing chess, when saying statements like "White moved his king to e4."
An analogous statement is that when we watch Disney movies, we refer to the characters, not the actors playing the characters, when we talk about quotes from the movies. For example, we say:
The Queen from Snow White says, "Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all??"
not
When playing her role of the Queen in Snow White, Lucille La Verne says, "Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all??"
although the latter is what's literally happening. Any better analogies?? (Please remember that what I'm trying to do is understand what the quote of Frungi means when he says that it is not "gender-generic he". Georgia guy ( talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Look at this sentence (from the project page itself):
The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations ("All men are created equal"), the titles of works (A Man on the Moon), cases where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school ("If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished"), or the occasional event of a woman preferring a masculine term ("From 1998 to 2000, she (refers to Esther Dyson) was the founding chairman of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.")
Any thoughts on how to categorize the phrase Man overboard?? Is it in a fifth category that GNL does not apply to?? What can this category be named?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The phrase is "man overboard!", so changing it for another one wouldn't reflect the actual term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaBUru38 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 May 2013
Is there any easy way to tell whether any particular woman in Wikipedia belongs in this category?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Except for the troubles with "they" as singular, this whole section is irrelevant. Gender is a grammatical term.
"They" as singular, therefore, rightly is a problem of gender (well, one of number, but that the singular is grammatically male: and this is where the problem lies making analogies to other languages which have grammatical gender where English generally does not).
But mostly, when people are talking about gender, they mean sex (whether an organism is male or female, both or neither). Wikipedia MoS is just plain wrong to call it gender. Of course sexism is unacceptable, that's not at issue, and language neutrality is good. The crux of the problem is the confusion of gender and sex. The article should be called sexist language, simple as that. Again, I emphasis I omit "they" from that statement, as it is about gender.
I don't really know why I bothered to support this as it is WP:SNOWBALL. Still, I got it off my chest.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No: the biological sciences use "sex"; the social sciences use "gender". Tony (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Just which technicality is it that proscribes "they" in Each politician is responsible for their constituency?
If I may recycle an example from p.494 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (highly recommended, and a snip at just ₤125); perhaps those who demur at "singular they" would care to provide a superior alternative to their in Let me know if your father or your mother changes their mind. And which are these style guides that disallow singular they? I daresay those old codgers Strunk and White tut tut over it, but they're beyond a joke.
Listen, kids: If singular they was good enough for Jehovah, that settles the matter. (Or if you insist, here's a follow-up.) Yes, singular they is good. -- Hoary 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the singular they clause yesterday, because it was generating too much opposition and was threatening to capsize the whole proposal. After hearing the ABC Radio program on it ( transcript), I believe that it's not, in many cases, technically wrong. But there's too much prejudice against it on WP (despite the fact that it appears all over the place), and I suggest that it be dealt with later, after this proposal is shepherded through. Removing the singular they clause is a compromise, and compromise is going to be required to get this through. Tony 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Marskell: You like the singular they—great. No I don't. (My earlier comment Yes, singular they is good. was A Joke.) I don't like it and I don't dislike it; just as I don't like or dislike singular you. I recognize it as a fact of standard English.
So it seems that my earlier message didn't get through. Right then, I'll rephrase it: the proposition that The singular they remains technically incorrect is horseshit. If you want, you can mollify WP's considerable population of adoring readers of the newspaper columns of ignorant or senile "language mavens" by omitting mention of this oh-so-shocking ingredient of standard English (as demonstrably spoken by the Supreme Being, no less). But don't expect me for one to agree to any proposed guideline that recycles such egregious ignorance of language. -- Hoary 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Adeptzare3 ( talk) 05:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC): THE SINGULAR THEY IS COMPLETELY GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT!!!!!
I've noticed we still use "(businessman)" and "(salesman)" to disambiguate articles. It seems to be counter to this page's policy. Not sure where to bring it up for discussion though. Thoughts? EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have a (de-facto?) policy of referring to transsexuals by their preferred-gender pronouns, even when describing events before they transitioned (see Renée Richards for an example of this) and regardless of whether they actually complete SRS. I have no problem with that but think we should perhaps codify it somewhere. What to do with transgender or androgynous people is sometimes less clear, especially in the case of performers who adopt a persona different from their biological sex. In DWV (group), for example, we refer to Willam Belli as "he" but to Matthew Sanderson (aka Detox Icunt) and Vicki Vox as "she". Without more research (or OR), I don't know how to find out their preferences. The Ru Paul article says that s/he is OK with either pronoun, and WP has gone with "she". I would like to see some more guidance, in either MOS:GNL or this essay. Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 04:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How should spaceflight-related articles deal with gender-neutral language when existing terms have deep historical roots, and the WikiProject Spaceflight project is, like much of Wikipedia, heavily peopled with male editors? Discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Use_of_gender-neutral_language_in_spaceflight-related_articles. N2e ( talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting for an RfC about the scope of
WP:CITEVAR and whether it can be used to prevent changes to problematic ref IDs, such as cases where women researchers are disrespectfully referred to by short forms of their first names, as in <ref name=barb>
instead of <ref name="Rischkowsky">
for an author named Barbara Rischkowski, in an article where a male author is referred to by surname. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My main goal in writing Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Precision and clarity was to help people understand what precision and clarity means, with practical examples rather than abstract concepts. If anyone has ideas about how to improve these, then please be bold! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have looked around to see if there exists a template for tagging non gender-neutral language in articles but can't seem to find one. Does anyone know of one? Obviously fixing the article is preferable to drive by tagging but some people don't feel confident rewording passages and it may be challenging for a user who's first language is not English. I assumed there'd be a tag similar to the reference and notability tags that could provide a warning like "the following section may not follow Wikipedia Policy on gender neutral language. Please reword to avoid unnecessary gender specific phasing." Thanks for any help Storeye ( talk) 03:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct? Answer that after you read the discussion. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Although there's a template at the top of the essay saying it's an essay and not a policy, the essay is giving too much weight to what it means, pointing towards the idea that it's a policy. Any way to alter the essay so that it doesn't give so much weight to its meaning as if it were a policy?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2015 (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 2 |
Good; I see no reason not to have this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Sexist language is a huge problem on Wikipedia, and modern English needs to rely heavily on neutral wording. The sexes are equal in the modern world, so sexist language is as archaic as "ye" and "whilst". — Deckill er 21:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please write your comments at MOS talk; I've copied the text above to that place. Tony 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've marked my proposed changes in boldface. The move of the "Please consider" sentence is intended to start the section off with a request – which is what it is – rather than "is not concerned with editors' beliefs". Since that latter statement is then followed by an intent concerning the effect on some people's "beliefs", a little clarification is required, which I've attempted to add. I attempted to clarify that "using he or she" means using the formula "he or she" and not "'he' or 'she'". I have also softened the final sentence to avoid indicating a preferential usage ("may still be used"), leaving it up to the editor unless the subject has a known preference. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please consider the use of gender-neutral language where this can be achieved in reasonably tidy wording and without loss of precision. The use of gender-neutral language is not a statement about editors’ beliefs, but is intended to minimize or avoid language that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes, such as:
This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations, the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (“If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished”).
There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic male and female pronouns, among which are:
Other generic usages can sometimes be avoided; for example, by using operated or staffed (instead of manned), people or humanity (man), layperson (layman), business people or business owners (businessmen). In these cases, ensure that the basic meaning is preserved. Where the gender of an individual subject is known, either gender-specific or gender-neutral suffixes may still be used, although the subject’s preference, if known, should be followed ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman").
[Reindent] Could we please keep the comments in this subsection restricted to the proposed changes outlined above? The main MOS talk thread is the place for discussions of "political correctness". I'd really like to get feedback on my proposed changes to the draft. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We now read:
In the spirit of amity, fraternity, blah blah, I'm willing to go the extra kilometre not to offend self-styled "purists". But project pages too should I think avoid counterfactual assertions. And I see no evidence that the "grammatical validity" of singular they is "widely disputed". I even looked at that singular they article, and indeed got the first impression that there was some grammatical objection to it, but after a slightly closer reading this impression evaporated.
So how about:
-- Hoary 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
PS (i) I don't even know what "grammatical validity" means. I took this to mean "grammatically acceptable". (ii) I'm increasingly getting the impression that even the guidebooks to "correct" writing have given up on this one. -- Hoary 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OR:
- using the singular they (“Each politician is responsible for their constituency”), although the grammatical correctness of this widely used option is disputed.
Tony 10:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with saying "stylistically" rather than "grammatically" is that those who've voiced opposition identify the problem as one of grammar. SamBC( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Can I say that I don't think much of this detail is going to survive. The reality is that the objections are so vehement that we're going to be reduced to a couple of very mild sentences about GNL. That's the only way this is going to get through unless there's a sudden, voluminous rush of support for the full text. Tony 01:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
These are the only issues I could see spelled out:
Are there any other problems with this essay? I see that the first has been removed, and I have hidden the second with HTML comments. ← BenB4 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for me to make modifications to this essay directly, or should they be discussed here first? -- Dan East 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is constructive to make references to an editor's POV. It doesn't matter why an editor decides to utilize or apply GNL, as long as the end result adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. I've reworded the essay in an attempt to indicate that GNL in and of itself does not indicate biased POV. -- Dan East 13:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Businessman does not imply business owner. Rich Farmbrough, 10:09 5 October 2007 (GMT).
Wikipedia:Use modern language#Gender neutrality is covering a lot of the same ground as (often in more clarity and detail than) GNL. A merger would make sense and help GNL be a little more substantial. It could be helped in other ways in that regard by possibly importing a few more points from the related Meta page. The MODLANG section merger could also resolve some serious issues I'm having with the current wording of GNL, which is too wishy-washy and permissive. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just been quietly rewording a few articles to avoid using this sort of thing and instead to use they (or a name) where possible; would it be worth mentioning something about it in passing here?
On the other hand, we de-facto discourage it already - I've found only four cases in the main namespace so far, and half of those seem to have been typos for 'his' - this is after going through 350 pages. It's very unusual to have a situation where we can't rework the text to use conventional English forms - Leslie Feinberg might be one, where we use 'ze' in the sentence stating they prefer that mode of address, but evade it everywhere else in the article.
Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, couldn't find anything on a cursory search - has anyone discussed whether we should opt for a preferred term? I always found chairperson ungainly and was much pleased with an expert on gender's use of the succinct and monosyllabic chair. Any thoughts (apart from the usual moan on instruction creep which I will preemptively acknowledge) :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a preference of actor versus actress for a female? I have seen actor used for either. Thanks, Alanraywiki ( talk) 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a lot of opposition to anything more than the single sentence Jimbo approved -- so lets keep this an {{ essay}} until the MoS discussion settles. The examples and advice don't make good proscriptive material. Is there a reason the entire page should be a proposal? ← BenB4 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In line with all this, I've changed the tag to {{how-to}}
, as that seems to possibly meet Radiant!'s concerns, or will make the purpose of the page clearer. It still doesn't seem quite right, but hopefully someone can find a better tag.
SamBC(
talk)
11:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this discussion has somehow moved from "Is gender-neutral-language common practice on en.wp?" to "Is singular they correct, incorrect, or evil?". The latter is a debate which has repeatedly shown potential to cycle ad infinitum, both sides are currently represented, if someone wants to change "validity" to something more correct then they can, but can we drop it and get back to the question of the tagging of this page? SamBC( talk) 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Manual of Style guidelines on gender-neutral language state, "Please consider using gender-neutral language where it can be done without loss of neatness and precision."
Can anyone name an example of a time where it cannot be done without loss of neatness and precision?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we, or should we, have a policy on pronouns and animals? It seems to me that the best approach is to use he or she when gender is known or obvious, and it when gender is unknown. Thus, The wolf protects its lair but The hen protects her young. Barnabypage ( talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
“The grammatical validity of [the singular they] is frequently disputed, although it is widely used in informal writing and speech.” This seems to imply that informal writing is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Shouldn’t encyclopedias be formal? — Frungi ( talk) 06:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We are having a discussion about "one" as a gender-neutral pronoun on WT:MOS#One_vs._you. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A recent debate on WT:MoS reached no conclusion one way or the other about whether or not the singular they is proper in encyclopedic writing. In light of this, it seems a bit extreme to say "it is unsuitable for Wikipedia" as the current text does. How do you all feel about "Wikipedia advises editors to seek other solutions before employing the singular they"? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
A thought from Bryan Garner ( Garner's Modern American Usage, 2nd ed., p. 717):
I'm not sure there's an answer to the suitability of the singular they, but I think gender-neutral language should not call attention to itself to the detriment of the article; perhaps this is one additional consideration for WP editors. It seems to me that this fits well with the current wording.
Garner, incidentally, is a proponent of the singular they, given its long historical usage, and sees his fellow Americans as the primary obstacle. Nonetheless, as an attorney, he recognizes that persuading the judge is everything, and that consequently, the writer's viewpoint matters less than the reader's. JeffConrad ( talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of singular they, especially in forms other than they or their, but I wonder if the current wording isn't a bit severe, as was suggested under Singular they. Might it make more sense to recast the issue in terms of reader perception rather than “right” or “wrong”? Perhaps “its grammatical validity is frequently disputed at many levels” could be replaced with something to the effect of “many readers find the lack of number agreement between they and a singular antecedent” unacceptable.
The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., 5.204, may afford some help, as well as citable source for finding alternatives to singular they when feasible:
Would it be worth adding a Further reading section and including works such as Garner’s Modern American Usage and Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage? Both devote several pages to avoiding gender bias, and describe many methods for doing so. Chicago describe the problems well enough but are less helpful in solving them. JeffConrad ( talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've indicated, I think the version prior to Tony1's edits was somewhat biased against singular they; I think it's now gone the other direction. As Chicago mention, there are many, especially Americans, who object to the usage. Perhaps something in between unsuitable and the current wording would be the best way to say it. Perhaps it would also help to add something to the effect of “, especially in
American English” to the end of the second sentence.
JeffConrad (
talk)
12:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ships, sailing boats, (steam) railway locomotives and cars are often referred to colloquially (by owners and fans) as "she". I was just wondering whether there is any specific guideline regarding such usage within Wikipedia articles, or whether this page just sweeps up this usage too. Since I have already changed "she" to "it" as 'not enyclopaedic' in a number of articles, it would be good to have a specific reason to quote in the edit summary. -- EdJogg ( talk) 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The article suggests a number of ways to avoid using generic gendered pronouns, one of which is to write "he or she" instead of just one or the other. I've been having an extended disagreement with a Wikipedia editor who claims it is not acceptable to place a female pronoun before a male one, even though switching the pronouns does not alter the meaning of a phrase or make it more difficult to comprehend. Always placing the male pronoun first is simply a different type of the "unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes" that the gender-neutral writing policy seeks to correct. Before I change the page to reflect this, does anyone have input? Helsabott ( talk) 21:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
"He or she" as suggested in the essay isn't all-inclusive or truly gender-neutral - it excludes anyone whose identity isn't accurately or entirely expressed by just one of "male" and "female" (this can but does not necessarily include people who are genderqueer, androgyne, bigender, agender etc). I feel this should be noted - something like "though this is not inclusive of people who identify outside the gender binary", or possibly "who do not identify as one of male or female"? Kaberett ( talk) 15:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This project says that we should use gender-neutral language when it can be done with clarity. However, this project needs examples of times when it cannot. Go to Talk:Antichess and it reveals an example of such a time. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Now the discussion at Talk:Antichess has been expanded (with only 2 Wikipedians ever posting anything) and it suggests that instead of:
The Manual of Style guidelines on gender-neutral language states, "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision."
The statement can say:
"It is recommended, but not required, that you use gender-neutral language, but if you do, it absolutely must be done with clarity and precision."
This variant of the statement is more consistent with the discussion at Talk:Antichess appears to suggest. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
An example is not an explanation, but may be used to illuminate an explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(from Talk:Antichess)
Do you think WP:GNL's introductory statement should change to: Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable; if you use gender-neutral language, please make sure it has clarity and precision. (It currently reads "Please consider using gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Georgia guy ( talk) 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in this guideline says:
This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations ("All men are created equal"), the titles of works (A Man on the Moon), or cases where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school ("If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished").
I would like to know if it makes sense to expand this sentence to include titles of URL's. Titles of URL's are often mentioned in references. To clarify what the title means, please do not confuse titles of URL's with URL's themselves. An example of a URL is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language&action=edit§ion=new
An example of the title of a URL is:
Editing Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language (new section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy ( talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
With the chairman article, the talk page says that there's consensus to have the article at its gender-specific title and ignore gender-neutral language. Any thoughts about when GNL does not apply?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
From the essay:
Pluralising (not "A player starts by taking up his position", but "Players start by taking up their positions"), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural.
Problematic, agreed! I edit lots of games articles, including game rules, and language such as "Players start by taking up their positions" is something I would automatically reject, since it is inherently confusing, implying to the reader that each player may have or control *more than one position*. Game rules need to be precise, confusion is bad, very bad. The gender-neutral effort in examples like this introduces imprecision (and confusion). Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 00:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's review the statement being discussed:
Pluralising (not "A player starts by taking up his position", but "Players start by taking up their positions"), although this can be problematic where the text needs to emphasize individuals, or where it creates a need to switch regularly between singular and plural.
Do you notice the phrase "can be", as opposed to the word "is"?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything's fine. There are other options besides pluralization. Hyacinth ( talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
“the winning objective of the players is to lose all their pieces”? Personally, I would say “the player’s objective is to lose all his pieces,” but I believe mine is a fringe view on GNL: to oversimplify, it doesn’t matter unless it matters. — Frungi ( talk) 20:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we need discussion on whether singular they should be acceptable as a last option, that is, if there are no other good options that avoid gender-specific language. I say it should. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
We are all in luck, I am free and have agreed to mentor the troublesome user User:Georgia guy on proper Wiki-etiquette and collaboration. Thank you. Roxette Fanatic ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. It does not say:
Either gender-neutral language or generic he is acceptable, please retain whichever one was used in the first non-stub version of the article to prevent edit wars.
Ihardlythinkso appears to agree more with the latter statement. Which version of the policy do you support?? Also, please note that Ihardlythinkso is someone who is uncivil and doesn't want me to know it; I initially didn't notice it for a while, but after a while I found out myself this statement, and it was hard work. (Alternately, Ihardlythinkso is someone who is uncivil but pretends to be civil.) Georgia guy ( talk) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's examine this statement located in the previous section of this page:
If I recall previous discussion on the matter, it’s not a use of the “generic he”; it’s that the hypothetical players Black and White are male. (the speaker is Frungi.)
Now, I'm trying to understand why this is not "gender-generic he".
In many situations, people talk about metaphorical people, who are not technically real, but who personify concepts. The pronouns we use to refer to them by gender are as if they were real people of their assigned gender, regardless of what pronouns would refer to the people or things we're talking about them in place of.
An example is Mother Nature. She is not a real person; she is a character people talk about in place of nature. Nature is inanimate; normally we would refer to nature as "it". But when we talk about the metaphorical person Mother Nature, we would use "she".
According to the above statement, "White" and "Black" are also metaphorical people; they represent the 2 sides of a chess game, and are male regardless of the actual people playing chess; and the chess world talks about these metaphorical people, not the actual people playing chess, when saying statements like "White moved his king to e4."
An analogous statement is that when we watch Disney movies, we refer to the characters, not the actors playing the characters, when we talk about quotes from the movies. For example, we say:
The Queen from Snow White says, "Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all??"
not
When playing her role of the Queen in Snow White, Lucille La Verne says, "Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all??"
although the latter is what's literally happening. Any better analogies?? (Please remember that what I'm trying to do is understand what the quote of Frungi means when he says that it is not "gender-generic he". Georgia guy ( talk) 16:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Look at this sentence (from the project page itself):
The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations ("All men are created equal"), the titles of works (A Man on the Moon), cases where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school ("If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished"), or the occasional event of a woman preferring a masculine term ("From 1998 to 2000, she (refers to Esther Dyson) was the founding chairman of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.")
Any thoughts on how to categorize the phrase Man overboard?? Is it in a fifth category that GNL does not apply to?? What can this category be named?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The phrase is "man overboard!", so changing it for another one wouldn't reflect the actual term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaBUru38 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 May 2013
Is there any easy way to tell whether any particular woman in Wikipedia belongs in this category?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Except for the troubles with "they" as singular, this whole section is irrelevant. Gender is a grammatical term.
"They" as singular, therefore, rightly is a problem of gender (well, one of number, but that the singular is grammatically male: and this is where the problem lies making analogies to other languages which have grammatical gender where English generally does not).
But mostly, when people are talking about gender, they mean sex (whether an organism is male or female, both or neither). Wikipedia MoS is just plain wrong to call it gender. Of course sexism is unacceptable, that's not at issue, and language neutrality is good. The crux of the problem is the confusion of gender and sex. The article should be called sexist language, simple as that. Again, I emphasis I omit "they" from that statement, as it is about gender.
I don't really know why I bothered to support this as it is WP:SNOWBALL. Still, I got it off my chest.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
No: the biological sciences use "sex"; the social sciences use "gender". Tony (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Just which technicality is it that proscribes "they" in Each politician is responsible for their constituency?
If I may recycle an example from p.494 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (highly recommended, and a snip at just ₤125); perhaps those who demur at "singular they" would care to provide a superior alternative to their in Let me know if your father or your mother changes their mind. And which are these style guides that disallow singular they? I daresay those old codgers Strunk and White tut tut over it, but they're beyond a joke.
Listen, kids: If singular they was good enough for Jehovah, that settles the matter. (Or if you insist, here's a follow-up.) Yes, singular they is good. -- Hoary 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the singular they clause yesterday, because it was generating too much opposition and was threatening to capsize the whole proposal. After hearing the ABC Radio program on it ( transcript), I believe that it's not, in many cases, technically wrong. But there's too much prejudice against it on WP (despite the fact that it appears all over the place), and I suggest that it be dealt with later, after this proposal is shepherded through. Removing the singular they clause is a compromise, and compromise is going to be required to get this through. Tony 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Marskell: You like the singular they—great. No I don't. (My earlier comment Yes, singular they is good. was A Joke.) I don't like it and I don't dislike it; just as I don't like or dislike singular you. I recognize it as a fact of standard English.
So it seems that my earlier message didn't get through. Right then, I'll rephrase it: the proposition that The singular they remains technically incorrect is horseshit. If you want, you can mollify WP's considerable population of adoring readers of the newspaper columns of ignorant or senile "language mavens" by omitting mention of this oh-so-shocking ingredient of standard English (as demonstrably spoken by the Supreme Being, no less). But don't expect me for one to agree to any proposed guideline that recycles such egregious ignorance of language. -- Hoary 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Adeptzare3 ( talk) 05:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC): THE SINGULAR THEY IS COMPLETELY GRAMMATICALLY INCORRECT!!!!!
I've noticed we still use "(businessman)" and "(salesman)" to disambiguate articles. It seems to be counter to this page's policy. Not sure where to bring it up for discussion though. Thoughts? EvergreenFir ( talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have a (de-facto?) policy of referring to transsexuals by their preferred-gender pronouns, even when describing events before they transitioned (see Renée Richards for an example of this) and regardless of whether they actually complete SRS. I have no problem with that but think we should perhaps codify it somewhere. What to do with transgender or androgynous people is sometimes less clear, especially in the case of performers who adopt a persona different from their biological sex. In DWV (group), for example, we refer to Willam Belli as "he" but to Matthew Sanderson (aka Detox Icunt) and Vicki Vox as "she". Without more research (or OR), I don't know how to find out their preferences. The Ru Paul article says that s/he is OK with either pronoun, and WP has gone with "she". I would like to see some more guidance, in either MOS:GNL or this essay. Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 04:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How should spaceflight-related articles deal with gender-neutral language when existing terms have deep historical roots, and the WikiProject Spaceflight project is, like much of Wikipedia, heavily peopled with male editors? Discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Use_of_gender-neutral_language_in_spaceflight-related_articles. N2e ( talk) 19:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting for an RfC about the scope of
WP:CITEVAR and whether it can be used to prevent changes to problematic ref IDs, such as cases where women researchers are disrespectfully referred to by short forms of their first names, as in <ref name=barb>
instead of <ref name="Rischkowsky">
for an author named Barbara Rischkowski, in an article where a male author is referred to by surname. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My main goal in writing Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Precision and clarity was to help people understand what precision and clarity means, with practical examples rather than abstract concepts. If anyone has ideas about how to improve these, then please be bold! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have looked around to see if there exists a template for tagging non gender-neutral language in articles but can't seem to find one. Does anyone know of one? Obviously fixing the article is preferable to drive by tagging but some people don't feel confident rewording passages and it may be challenging for a user who's first language is not English. I assumed there'd be a tag similar to the reference and notability tags that could provide a warning like "the following section may not follow Wikipedia Policy on gender neutral language. Please reword to avoid unnecessary gender specific phasing." Thanks for any help Storeye ( talk) 03:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct? Answer that after you read the discussion. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Although there's a template at the top of the essay saying it's an essay and not a policy, the essay is giving too much weight to what it means, pointing towards the idea that it's a policy. Any way to alter the essay so that it doesn't give so much weight to its meaning as if it were a policy?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)