Talk:Chair (officer)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

chairman → chair in the article body

I'd like re-iterate my stance that the body of the article should primarily use the word chair, regardless of whether the title winds up being chairman or chairperson or something else. 1. There is broad (though not unanimous) agreement that chairman is not a gender neutral term (and this is backed up by various evidence including an expert usage panel, analysis of Google ngrams, and various style guides.) 2. Chair seems to be the most common gender neutral alternative to chairman. 3. The only reason the title is not likely to become chair is because that would require a parenthetical disambiguation, and there is disagreement about whether that would be appropriate. Obviously, disambiguation is not something we have to worry about in the article body.

As far as I know, this kind of title-body mismatch isn't against any guidelines. Furthermore, perhaps we could think of it as less of a mismatch and more of an abbreviation. Lots of articles do not repeat the full title over and over again: an article about a person is likely to just repeat the last name, an article about The Academy of so-and-so is likely to mostly refer to it as the academy, etc. I'll also note that the article actually slips back and forth between chair and chairman in a few places as it is.

I'm going to go ahead and implement this change per WP:BRD. (I won't change any instance of the word when it's referring to a specific person or company.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• The first line should state the alternate terms in the order of commonality. The Chairman#Terminology already explains the distinctions and so there is no need to have an exhaustive recapitulation of that in the lead. In the body of the article, where there is no specifically sourced use of a term, the most common and gender-neutral term "chairman" should be used as a default. Where a specific person/body/use is mentioned, we should use the term found in the connected source (or predominance if there are multiple sources supporting a specific statement) per WP:VERIFIABILITY. As such, I oppose the broad use of "chair" as a default throughout as it would be POV insertion not supported by sources or common use. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support the use of "chair" interchangeably with "chairman" in the article. There is no rule that says we can't use "chair" and I'm not persuaded by assertions about POV or V. Our article itself discusses (with many sources) the "chair" v. "chairman" issue, and states that "chair" is commonly used. For example, Google and HP use "chair" instead of "chairman", and they're both cited in our article. Leviv ich 03:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  The rule that says we can't use "chair" broadly is WP:VERIFIABILITY, a foundational policy on Wikipedia. Most sources use "chairman", it is accepted by all to be the common term, making any broad use of "chair" WP:UNDUE. Even if you don't think "chairman" is gender-neutral (which it clearly is due to near omni-present usage), it still is the general term we must use. Sometimes, being neutral means using terms or concepts that individual editors might detest. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Netoholic, I think you should explain your position again because we haven't read it enough times. Leviv ich 04:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Happy to. If I could make a request, let's replay this move discussion as many times as possible on this page, and let's spread it to others like journeyman, master craftsman, doorman, showman, marksman, milkman, helmsman, and any place else you -man haters would like to try again. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, a broader policy discussion on the acceptability of -men in modern wikipedia society might not be a bad idea. I mean, I don't see any -women in article titles stirring up all this fuss. Safrolic (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  I believe that discussion was already had, and the consensus reached is documented at MOS:GNL. Leviv ich 04:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Did you notice that the article helmsman refers to it as the "helm" in the body? When's the last time you asked someone what they did for a living and the said, "I'm a journeyman" or "I'm a marksman". Showman and milkman are dead professions. The reason it's not "milkperson" is because there are no "milk carriers" and haven't been for over fifty years. Helmsman is called the "helm" or "helm officer", a craftsman is an "artisan", and a doorman is now known as a "porter", even in the United States. Meanwhile, we have mailman -> mail carrier or postal worker, fireman -> firefighter, policeman -> police officer, waiter/waitress -> server, stewardess -> flight attendant, cameraman -> camera operator, businessman -> businessperson, councilman -> council member, clergyman -> pastor or minister, anchorman -> anchor, crewman -> crew member, longshoreman -> stevedore, garbage man -> trash collector, weatherman -> meterologist, foreman -> supervisor, maintenance man -> janitor or custodian, salesman -> salesperson, workman -> worker, deliveryman -> delivery driver, layman -> layperson, man hours -> labor hours, manpower -> workforce, headmaster/headmistress -> principal, groundsman -> groundskeeper or gardener... gender-neutral language is the new normal. It's been the trend for decades. But none of that matters, because this discussion is only about "chairman", and not any other -men. Leviv ich 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I've reviewed your list, and I see why you didn't wiki-link any of them. You say "we have... (these examples)... gender-neutral language is the new normal" (implying that your examples are explicit cases of Wikipedia "gender neutral" handling), bur most of your "examples" are just observably false: waiter/waitress redirect to waiting staff (not "server"), councilman redirects to councillor (not council member), clergyman actually redirects to clergy (not separate topics like pastor or minister), anchorman redirects to news presenter (not anchor), crewman exists (crew member redirects to it), garbage man actually redirects to waste collector (not trash collector), weatherman is a DAB and meterologist redirects to the field of study,foreman (DAB) exists as construction foreman and shop foreman, maintenance man doesn't even exist, salesman redirects to the broader topic sales (not salesperson which actually redirects to retail clerk - an odd disparity between the two), workman is a DAB (worker redirects to workforce), deliveryman redirects to delivery (commerce) (as does delivery driver), layman/layperson are redirects to a religious article (odd handling), man hours exists as man-hour, manpower is at human resources (workforce is different), headmaster is at head teacher (principal is a DAB), groundsman actually redirects to the broader groundskeeping topic. Overall, your list of "examples" are not that at all - just guesses on your part that miss more often than they hit. The reasons for specific handling of any of those varies quite a lot - redirecting to fields of study or fields of work, standing as genuine WP:COMMONNAME terms, never having any earnest naming discussion, or in other ways that probably have not been through any sort of "gender neutrality" discussions at all. I am at a total loss as to why you would misrepresent Wikipedia's handling of these terms in this blatant way to try and make your claim. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn’t talking about Wikipedia. I was talking about the English language. I can see how "we have" would be confusing, but I meant, "We have [in English]...it's been the trend [in English] for decades." Leviv ich 13:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Even if this is ultimately kept at the current title (which is being discussed at move review), we should strive to use gender-neutral language, despite whatever regional variations there may be at play here. – bradv🍁 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  MOS:GNL is a guideline. It is secondary to foundational policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Either way, gender neutral language is not a violation of NPOV or V – that's a preposterous proposition. I support using "chair" throughout the body of this article, even it the title is not changed. – bradv🍁 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose change for now. If the article changes title then it should follow the title. So long as the existing title is retained it looks strange to avoid actually using the common name for the subject of the article. Springee (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  I second that. If you are going to base the article text on "chair", that's what the title should be, not "chairman" or "chairperson". I would defer this until resolution of the RM situation. Jmar67 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  I third that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Use of chair throughout body per nom. —В²C ☎ 05:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Wait until the MRV is decided. As it currently stands, these edits are disrupting the article, because we're not sure what to use where. We should wait until the title stabilizes before reducing the use of "chairman". ONR (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Springee. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support—"chair" has been common as far back as my memory goes. This is hardly an SJW "PC run amok"-ism. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: parliamentary authorities distinguish between the "chair" as a role in a meeting and "chairman" as the person who fills it. They are not the same idea. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note: If the article title stays at "Chairman" or is changed to Chairperson, arguably, that is WP:NATURAL disambiguation of "Chair". That is, the article could be "Chair (role)" or "Chairperson" or "Chairman", but can't be "Chair" because that's ambiguous with Chair. But if the article was "Chair (role)", there would be no dispute as to whether we could use "Chair" throughout the article. So, there is no requirement to use the full disambiguated title to reference the article topic throughout the article. I don't see why that should depend on whether the disambiguation is parenthetic or natural; it should apply either way. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Response to Jmar67's question below (from the RM discussion): Please explain why you would want to do that. The primary term used in the article should match the title. 1. I believe chair is the most-used gender-neutral alternative to chairman. 2. I don't see an issue with an article using a shortened form of the title in the body. The Metropolitan Museum of Art article often uses the term The Met. African Americans often uses black. Transgender uses both transgender and trans. Albert Einstein often refers to him as just Einstein. Etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. I don't consider "chair" to be an abbreviated form of "chairman/chairwoman/chairperson" but rather a separate, independent term. I can only reiterate that it would be very strange to use "chair" as the primary term in the article if the title is not "chair (disambiguation)". Jmar67 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  You might update your post above to clarify that my question was posed in the RM discussion. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding this edit: the move discussion reflects a consensus that chairperson is a gender neutral equivalent, citing WP:V here seems like a very wikilawyer-y reason to oppose the changes. Several editors above expressed good faith reservations about making this change before finishing the move discussion, but that discussion is now finished, and it seems incredibly implausible to think that the results of this discussion would play out any differently. Nblund ^talk 22:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:V is a core policy. Take for example this line: Companies with both an executive chairperson and a CEO include Ford,[1] HSBC,[2] Alphabet Inc.,[3] HP,[4] and Apple.[5]. Apart from the HP one (that I can't verify because the link is incorrect/broken), all of these sources say the title is "chairman". This is failed verification. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a core policy, but I've looked pretty hard and I can't find the part that prohibits the use of synonyms. Nblund ^talk 23:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That is here WP:STICKTOSOURCE: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Use of "chairperson" is not a synonym because it the well-cited problem (Ehrlich and King, 1994, p. 63 of meaning or implying that the office is occupied by a woman. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The gender of the subject is not relevant here. This is why we use gender neutral language. If we were writing a section comparing chairmen to chairwomen, then we would use gendered terms. – bradv🍁 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you see the irony in citing a policy that does not contain the term "synonym" to support a claim that Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of synonyms? The terms "summarized" and "rephrased" are actually a recommendation to use different words with the same meanings. Regarding gendered meanings of "chairperson": It's well established that "chairperson" (and "chair") are commonly used gender-neutral terms for this subject. There's no reason to think this would apply any differently here. Surely there are more important windmills for you to tilt at.Nblund ^talk 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Netoholic, the notion that use of "chairperson" (or "chair", which would be more pertinent to this discussion) implies occupation by a woman is dated. I note that source is from a quarter of a century ago. --В²C ☎ 23:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I linked the way I did so you could view the citations. As recently as 2018, this concern over "chairperson" has continued to be cited as valid. There is no valid reason to deviate from the sources. The sections do not have to use a questionable synonym when you can just use the word the sources do in the context the sources are being used to verify. The current title of the page is not open license to Newspeak the word "chairman" out of existence - it is after all established that "chairman" remains the most common name in the sources. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:GNL would be the primary reason. I think that's an interesting point about the linguistics. It was even more interesting the first time you brought it up, in the move discussion that was just closed. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, but i'm fairly confident that "fuck it, let's just say chairman" is not really what they're advocating in that article. Nblund ^talk 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Using a synonym for a word in a source doesn't violate WP:V, because WP:V allows us to restate things in our own words, because of course it does. If it didn't the encyclopedia would have to consist entirely of exact quotes from sources! (With that said, when talking about a specific individual person, we should probably defer to the terminology that person prefers. I think it would be bad form, in particular, to second-guess a woman who verifiably refers to herself as a chairman, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree on that point.Nblund ^talk 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with WanderingWanda's position here. If the article is referring to a particular position or person we should follow that source. Thus a reference to Mary Barra should be Chairman of GM [[6]]. We shouldn't automatically follow a generalized source. So a reference talking about "chairman" and corporate governance could be chairperson. However, I agree with Amakuru and Cygnis insignis that it makes more sense to generally use "chair" in the article. Amakuru noted that chair is the more common gender neutral term. Cygnis insignis noted that "chairperson" is somewhat female vs neutral gendered and, and this is the big one for me, it doesn't roll of the tongue as nicely. Chair is conversationally easy while chairperson is much less so. Since the context in the article is clear, using chair vs chairperson should make it read better without gender specific concerns. Springee (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What is happening?

RfC was closed with consensus that the common name is Chairperson. Yet people from the minority who opposed that outcome are still repeatedly changing instances in the text to "chairman" and then "chair"...? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Specifically: ?? ?? ??. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually it was not closed with the common name being "Chairperson." That is overwhelmingly "Chairman." It was closed with the best choice being "Chairperson." It should be "chairperson" throughout as per the article title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I should've allcapsed for clarity. WP:COMMONNAME (which includes a caveat), if not "the common name". Regardless, yes, closed with consensus for chairperson. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The previous version repeated "chairman" over 80 times. Now "chairperson" is being repeated. It's the title, and it's the first term used in the lead. The rest of the article needs a copy edit and update. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that a rewrite with the term being used less would be ideal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet you're the one that keeps adding it. ? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken my post. If the term chairman or chair is used it should be changed to chairperson. It is the title, not CHAIR. If you want to rewrite the article with the term chairperson/chair/chairman occurring less often, that would be ideal. Whether you use the wording of chairperson or chair or chairman, it all the same redundancy. Find another way to write the sentences without those words being used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I started doing. A copy edit involves moving and removing text, reading (note: reading!) and updating sources, perhaps restoring text that was earlier removed, saving a few times and checking how things look. None of that can happen if people are reverting, so I'm going to leave you to it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As I suggested here [[7]] I would say follow the source when talking about a specific person or position. In general terms I would prefer chair vs chairperson since it just reads much better and as others have pointed out, it's actually the less common term. Springee (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made the case above for Chairperson in the title but chair in the article body. Chair is more concise and more commonly used in sources, and I don't see an issue with the article body using a shortened form of the word in the title. But it seems like consensus might be against me. My feelings about it aren't that strong, in any case. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a very sensible way to handle it. Springee (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Chairperson in the article title makes sense as a natural disambiguator, but "chair" is the clear, concise term that should be used throughout the article. I'd offer this as an example of how well that works. – bradv🍁 01:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Me too. Leviv ich 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that. Sure, synonyms can certainly be used occasionally in an article, however this just came off a contentious move. Using "chair" seems like an end-run around consensus "chairperson" right now. Plus if you are talking synonyms then chairman is by far the most common used word to describe the position in the real world so that should also be sprinkled in throughout, along with chair and chairperson. Chairman was moved... it was not banned. In this case, with all the voting and re-voting, and move reviews it's best to stick to the term it was just moved to. It just doesn't need to used as often as it is now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Feminist, I've already reverted this kind of edit once, so I don't want to again, but it's inappropriate. The consensus was for chairperson, so that's the title, and it's what the article should lead with, not chair. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I did not look at the talk page before performing the edit. Though I do think that the article body should use "chair" instead, it's more common than "chairperson". I see that many editors above agree. feminist (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

But not in the first sentence. The RM was closed in favour of chairperson, so that's what we lead with. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

chairman [...] should also be sprinkled in throughout, along with chair and chairperson. Chairman was moved... it was not banned. Per MOS:GNL we should use gender neutral terminology when possible. There might be specific cases where it would be better to use the word chairman, but I wouldn't support just "sprinkling in" chairman randomly. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised

I'm surprised that nobody has offered this as a reference or source of guidance. It is a standard work for deliberative assemblies and is often used for other types of organizations. It contains quite a bit of specific and authoritative information about the presiding officer (usually chairman), his or her title and term of address, including the chair, etc. The editors and publishers have been keeping current on these matters since 1876, and are probably way ahead of unvetted and unpaid encyclopedia editors such as myself. I am working from the 10th edition from 2000, but there is a newer one from 2011. Lou Sander (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that standard globally or in one country? The article on it, this and others at a glance suggest it's mainly a US thing and doesn't have much use, let alone authoritative respect, in other countries. Even if Palgrave's Chairman's Handbook was still in print I doubt it would be taken as definitive all round. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It's one source that should be in the article, though. Citrine's ABC of Chairmanship, originally published in 1939, latest publication 2016 I think, has been influential in the UK, well outside its original Labour movement context. (I've used it myself in chairing meetings of school governors as well as university committees.) The point is that there is a literature on how to chair meetings, which should be covered. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to rephrase that as "ABC of Chairpersonship" or "ABC of Chairship"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It was written in 1939; the copy I have was published in 1945. So I'm sure that The Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Citrine K.B.E. did not consider gender neutral language to be an issue. But we do now. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Next you’ll tell me I shouldn’t use the word colored even though it’s in the NAACP’s name! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were quoting the latest version published in 2016. That's certainly how yours of 21:48 reads. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see; sorry that it wasn't clear. I wrote "latest publication" deliberately, rather than, say, "latest version", because I don't know if any changes have been made. My intended point was that a book in print from 1939 to 2016 has a reasonable claim to be a notable source on the subject of chairing meetings, as indeed does the US Roberts book. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of bringing up objections to its reliability as a source, editors might want to actually consult Roberts, which contains a great deal of wisdom about chairs, chairmen, etc., and the words used to refer to them. Such wisdom is notably absent from some of the discussion above. Lou Sander (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with Roberts is the way some editors treat it as some sort of bible that is gospel truth in all circumstances. However it appears to only be a US thing (a look through both the British Library catalogue - one of our copyright deposit libraries - and Amazon.co.uk only seems to return US published editions, suggesting it's never been published here), which makes it a bit difficult to actually consult, and certainly here although there are some books on chairing there's also a widespread practice of organisations writing their own standing orders (or, worse, relying on rulings by the chairperson) with widely ranging practices between organisations (and sometimes within when successive chairpersons rule differently). It is impossible to conceive of a contentious point in a meeting here being settled by pulling out a copy of Roberts.

By all means use it as a source but it should not be taken as globally definitive, particularly on contentious matters or where US practice seems to vary (note how when I pulled out all the examples of male chairpersons in current news stories, the US was a notable absentee). Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved and speedy closed (again). The last RM was closed only hours ago, and in the closing Cuchullain strongly advised to wait at least a few months before opening yet another RM here. There is a current discussion on their talk page about the close, and there is still the possibility of a move review to be opened. At this point, it is too soon to open another move request. Mindful of not overstepping, but also cognizant that the discussions about moving this page have been ongoing since March, I am also imposing a one-month moratorium on further move requests: no new requested moves should be opened in the next month (not applicable to any move reviews). If you have any questions about this close, please ask me. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Chairperson → Chair (presiding officer) – The closer of the previous move request states that "chairman" is the most common term, but that the term is problematic because it is gendered. Okay, well then the most common non-gendered term for the subject of this article is "chair". Therefore, the article should be moved. The closer also stated that a subsequent move request on this issue wouldn't be a bad idea, but suggests waiting. I see no reason to wait. We should hash this out now while this issue is currently fresh in everyone's minds. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Rreagan007: can we make the proposal be for Chair (officer) please? That's the variant that has generally been considered appropriate in the discussions above, and I would strongly support it over the current bad title.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Chair (officer) is the March 22 one that just ran. Leviv ich 05:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  It didn't gain consensus in that RM because "chairman" was still in the mix, and there was a three way split. The chairman variant is now seemingly dead and buried, so it's a straight choice between Chairperson and Chair (officer). COMMON NAME heavily favours Chair, while NATURALDIS favours Chairperson. And unless I'm wrong, there's unlikely to be much more support for "presiding officer" than "officer". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Has "presiding officer" been proposed before? This RM will become difficult to close if it turns into a discussion about dabs, which is partly what happened in the March 22 RM. It took shelving the dab issue to focus consensus on moving the page. A discussion about dabs might be helpful before an RM to a dabbed page title is launched. Leviv ich 05:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Leviv ich 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, good point, and I don't actually kind which dab is used if it comes to it. Would certainly support Chair (presiding officer) over Chairperson. Hopefully that won't be the sticking point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Close - you have to be freaking kidding me? Again? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. As suggested in the close above. Because the current title is a disaster, and is hated by a lot of editors. You supported a gender neutral version, that was the purpose of the move, so let's use the common variant rather than a hardly used term. That is what will put the issue to bed, not the current half-baked title.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy close. Since February, we've had four RMs (one speedy closed) and a move review. Please wait several months before proposing anything else. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Sarah, you got what you wanted, the gender neutral term, but now let's move to the commonly used gender neutral term. Why do you object to this proposal? Just support it and we can move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.

---

•  Note: My closure above was reverted improperly. I have reinstated it; the below comments were added after it was closed the first time. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• @DannyS712: I would strongly request you to reopen this nomination. There is a strong feeling among a number of editors that the wrong gender-neutral term was chosen, and we should discuss this now while everyone is still engaged with this issue. I also would like to know under what authority specifically do you have the power to impose a one-month moratorium on further move reviews? If you do not reopen this move discussion, I will initiate a move review about your closing. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no "power to impose a one-month moratorium on further move reviews", but please note that I explicitly said it was not applicable to move reviews. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Will come back with more evidence later, most of it is in the sections above. Ngrams show conclusively that Chair is the established gender neutral term for this. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy close A RM just concluded that addressed this issue. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That didn't stop it being immediately reopened on the previous two occasions though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Move moratorium proposal

I'm sorry, but looking at the bunch of RM history, it seems that it is necessary to have a move moratorium of six months on this article. Although I see that some users think that this may not be the best title, we have to follow the previous consensus. --B dash (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --B dash (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – there is a good argument to be made for "Chair (officer)", and #Requested move 8 May 2019 did not settle the issue. Stopping the conversation is no way to determine consensus. – bradv🍁 13:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'll further note that I count 19 people in the above discussion who expressed a preference for "Chair", so this cannot be described as a settled issue. – bradv🍁 13:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's safe to say that Chair is preferred over Chairperson, but given that Chair must be disambiguated, for better or for worse, it has recently been repeatedly demonstrated that natural disambiguation of Chair as Chairperson is preferred over a parenthetically disambiguated Chair (e.g., 11 out of 18 participants in the #Ranked survey preferred "Chairperson" over either disambiguated Chair option). And I say that as one who prefers the parenthetically disambiguated Chair. At some point you have to admit your view is in the minority and move on. --В²C ☎ 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Over 75 people participated in the RM above. How many participated in the ranked survey? If we're going to achieve consensus, we need to be allowed to have the conversation. That's my point. – bradv🍁 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  18 participated in the ranked survey but the preference of Chairperson over Chairman was almost exactly the same in both, about a 60/40 distribution, indicating those 18 were just as representative of the larger community as were the 75+ in the subsequent survey. Furthermore, there is nothing new or complex to discuss here. Most people seem to feel nist strongly against one the three main choices here, for varying reasons. These particular preferences are highly subjective and unlikely to be changed by reason or argument, so I don't see the preference distribution changing much due to discussion, at least not in the near term. While there is considerable antipathy for Chairperson, it's clearly not as widely shared as the antipathy for Chairman, and I think it's clear that the antipathy for disambiguated Chair is even stronger. Consider that Chairman was favored over disambiguated Chair in the first RM, and then Chairperson was favored over Chairman in the most recent one. That strongly suggests an overall preference of Chairperson > Chairman > Chair (disambiguation), and this is supported in the Ranked Survey. I'm not against having a Chairperson → Chair (disambiguation) RM to humor you, but the outcome is already clear to me. By the way, I think our chances of getting a change (remember, I favor Chair (role)) will be higher in 6 months or a year than today, as today you'll get a lot of opposes based on frustration/annoyance alone. --В²C ☎ 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Chair (officer) has already been considered in the current batch of RMs and launching yet another is wearisome. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose six months but I think we need pre-MR discussion before the next MR is posted. I think the best way forward is for those editors who prefer "chair" to have a discussion about what disambiguator to use, see if consensus can be formed around that, and then post a move request to "chair" with the chosen disambiguator. Otherwise, the MR will become that discussion, which is what happened in prior MRs, and that will make for a mess. I don't know how long such a discussion will last, but one month sounds like it's enough time, and for that reason, I support Danny's one-month moratorium. Six months, on the other hand, is long enough for everybody to forget everything, for some participants to leave the project, for new participants to join the project... it would essentially mean starting over from square one. I don't really see the benefit of a moratorium of that length. Truth is, there is nothing magical about one month or two months or two weeks, etc.; any time period we chose for a moratorium would be arbitrary. I think it would be fine to say "don't formally start another move request until you have solid support for it on the talk page first". Or, barring that, one month. Leviv ich 14:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• How about just one month to let things settle a bit. I was opposed to Chairperson (preferring Chair (___) or Chairman) but in the end I don't think it's going to be a big deal. "Chairperson" at least is an accurate, single word name and functionally is the same as Chairman. So long as people aren't going to be dogmatic about changing all examples of chair, chairman, chairwoman to chairperson in the article text/captions etc, I don't see having the article title as "Chairperson" as that big an issue. When the original change discussion came up I had assumed the article would also be "find-replaced". Since that didn't happen I think the Chairperson -> Chair discussion is less important. I would personally rather see the name good enough and stable vs perfect with more fights. Springee (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one month moratorium per Levivich and Springee. There's likely to be a move review regarding the 8 May discussion, whether that comes from those who prefer Chair (officer) or those who prefer Chairman is anybody's guess, however the process of move review is solely for examining the closure itself, not to rehash the discussion. I'd endorse the closure, but I also agree with Bradv that there's still a discussion to be had regarding Chair (officer). I think a one-month moratorium is a good idea because it allows any move reviews to be opened, discussed and closed, it stops spurious requested moves being started which will inevitably be speedily closed, and it gives ample time to those who prefer Chair (officer) to put together a well-sourced proposal. SITH (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any moratorium. It has been decided that there was consensus to move to a gender-neutral term, but now we need to have a discussion about which gender-neutral term is the most appropriate one while the issue is still fresh in everyone's mind. That's a discussion that desperately needs to take place now, and waiting one month or six months is not appropriate. Having one more discussion over which gender-neutral term to use isn't going to hurt anything, and it will settle the question. After that discussion is had and the issue is decided one way or the other, then you can have your moratorium if you still want it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to move to some random gender-neutral term at all. There was consensus to move to chairperson only. Many had looked at anything with () as clumsy and unnecessary. I would expect that chairman will be reintroduced at an RM monthly if chair() becomes a reality. That's not what we need. We need some closure on this. And talk about hypocrisy... no moratorium now but one later? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose moratorium beyond waiting for MRV outcome, same as last time. I generally oppose all moratoriums, but when there is an ongoing MRV the outcome of which could potentially invalidate whatever an RM is presuming, the RM should not be proposed until after the MRV has been closed and the outcome known and stable. That said, even once the MRV is closed, presuming it endorses, I still think an RM to move to a disambiguated Chair (e.g., Chair (role)) is likely to fail, given that 11 out of 18 participants in the #Ranked survey preferred "Chairperson" over either disambiguated Chair option, presumably due to a general preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetic. --В²C ☎ 18:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 6 month moratorium before any further rename proposals to give respect to the consensus just achieved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Propose confiscation of all WP:STICKs and the passage of the Equine Protection Act - I wouldn't oppose a moratorium, but I'd rather editors be adults, realize there is WP:NODEADLINE, and be patient. We don't need to start a new RM immediately after the previous one was closed. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support 6 month moratorium. Agree with SmokeyJoe. Guywan (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support six months per nom. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is absurd Buffs (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one year moratorium. Six months is kind of short in the scope of these kinds of articles, right? Either way, we're circling back to the same arguments, and this proposal will be good for stability. By the way, some of the above arguments for chairperson have convinced me to support chairperson over chair because WP:NATURALDAB. I just wanted to throw that out there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose—I can sympathize with those wanting a break, but six months is much longer than is needed, and the number of those who support or do not oppose "chair (xxx)" is very significant. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Having said that, there should be a discussion on what the disambiguator should be before another move request takes place, so that doesn't turn into yet another move request. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Evergreen, Curly, and Bradv. I sympathize with wanting a break, and if we all drop the stick we can get one without needless bureaucracy. But there's no reason to tie our hands on finding consensus. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. We just demonstrated that discussion about a different proposal can lead to uncovering consensus. Imposing a moratorium here is a form of status quo stonewalling. --В²C ☎ 17:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe give it a week, but it does seem like there's a good case for "chair" over "chairperson". If we can do it without just re-litigating the previous move discussion entirely, then I don't see any reason not to. Nblund ^talk 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Abdelouahab Bellouki, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 2018

Gianni Ghisi, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011

Leena Al-Hadid, IAEA, 2018

John Ging, Syria Humanitarian Forum, 2012

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting, 2012

I think the lead sentence should be:

The chairperson (also chairman, chairwoman, or simply chair) is the leader of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

Three items of note:

1. "Chairperson" should be the first version of the word used, because it's the article title, per MOS:BOLDLEAD. (This doesn't mean "chair" can't be used in the body.)
2. Although "chair" is more common, I suggest it should be the last version of the word used, because that makes it clear to the reader why it's called "chair" (it's short for all the other versions, i.e., chairperson, chairman and chairwoman). I don't think it matters which is the most common; readability and understandability is more important.
3. My proposed first sentence changes "highest officer" to "leader" because, at least in the United States, the chairperson of a corporation is not an "officer" of the corporation; the highest officer is usually the CEO/President. Sometimes the CEO is also the Chairperson (known as an Executive Chair), in which case they would be the highest officer, but it's because they're CEO, not because they're Chairperson.

TIA for your thoughts. Leviv ich 02:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Chairperson" is used as the title not because it's the most common term (it's not), but because it satisfies WP:NCs, in particular WP:NATURAL. The term "chair" (or even "chairman" since it's still more common) should be used throughout the article, not "chairperson". feminist (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I support this approach. Start with the lead sentence above, and then use "chair" as the default term in the rest of the article. – bradv🍁 03:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bradv here. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 05:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No. It's fairly clear that we would normally be using "chair" for this article title, and people's only objection to that as a title is that it fails WP:NATURALDIS. That issue doesn't affect the article text though, and we should absolutely be listing the more common "chair" first, with chairperson as an alt title, and referring to the concept as such in the article. At least where I come from, chairperson is a very unusual term and makes the article look strange if we keep using it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Several editors argued that chairperson is unusual, but it really isn't. 29,700,000 hits on Google, and images of international bodies using it. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say awkward rather than unusual, as with "leader' and much of the article, awkwardly skewed to focus on the individual and gender and away from the various definitions of the role (which range from 'what I say goes' to 'as chair, I have no say in this'). Like the hangman, or those who can man the tiller or the pumps, the identity and their gender is often irrelevant to a usually well defined role. cygnis insignis 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I like the proposed lead sentence and agree with the reasoning for it. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

For what reason? Chair is a gender neutral term, that's what people wanted. And it is the most used and recognised gender neutral term. Chairperson is an alternative lesser used term which should be in the "also" section.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding me, or else I'm misunderstanding you, but I support Levivich's version of the lead sentence for all the reasons Levivich gave, and I support chair in the article body for reasons I've given elsewhere. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that chairperson should be first and chair last. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and WanderingWanda: Is it even necessary to mention gendered alternatives at all? If so, why? This is English Wikipedia, and the fact that there are gendered versions should be no suprise to anyone, and isn't worth mentioning. I reworded the lead (before I saw this) because it was quite silly. Guywan (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, most of which involve matters that are actively under discussion here (all editors are of course encouraged to join those discussions). Let me know if you have any questions that weren't answered in my edit summary. IMO, yes, it is necessary for the article to tell the reader that "chairperson" is the same thing as "chairman" or "chairwoman". Leviv ich 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. It's probably true that most people understand that chairperson is the same thing as chairman. But still, wouldn't it be odd to not include the most-used form of the word in the lead? And if you include chairman, it would seem odd to not include chairwoman. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: That's not a bad point at all. They really don't need to be there at all since it is covered in the Terminology/Overview section. Multiple extra names (when there are more than one or two extras) are not supposed to be listed in the lead and instead should be in a naming section. The Overview handles this well. Per MOS, the lead should have only one or two alternative names in parentheses. That's it. Anything more than two and they should all be moved and discussed in a separate section of prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: IMO, yes, it is necessary for the article to tell the reader that "chairperson" is the same thing as "chairman" or "chairwoman". I'd like to hear your reasoning for that. Any person with an average command of the English language knows that "Chairman" and "Chairwoman" both mean "Chair" and "Chairperson". It is an unnecessary verbosity to include all of the alternative terms in the lead.

The article states: Chairman has been criticized as sexist. I don't see how this can possibly be so. I also don't see what encyclopedic value this offers. If we must keep it, which I hope we shant, can someone at least go into more detail, and explain why it is considered sexist? And by whom? And why we should care about their fringe opinion?

The unsourced statement about Chairs referring to themselves in the third-person is from my copy of Robert's Rules of Order, pg. 82. (The 1876 edition, granted it is probably outdated.)

Regards, Guywan (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

With the current article title being "chairperson", the first bit of the lead sentence need sto be The chairperson (also... per the MOS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I disagree. Since "Chair" is the root word of "Chairperson", it should be stated first. (In fact, this article should probably be named "Chair" as well.) Also, which MOS guideline are you referencing? Guywan (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: WP:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:BOLDLEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you. Just in case, I wasn't accusing you of referencing non-existent guidelines. I was merely curious. Guywan (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is my proposed lead:

The chair or chairperson is the highest-ranking officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

The chair is not a "leader". The chair is more akin to a moderator. It is their duty to oversee meetings and make sure they proceed in accordance with the rules of the group. Chairs are a neutral party. "Leader" implies authority, influence, and decision making, whereas "officer" implies guidance (in the sense of, one who holds a position of trust). Guywan (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the majority here - the title is the title due to NATURALDIS, and would be Chair of not for the ambiguity. Also, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[4] Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text. So we can use the undisambiguated term, "a slightly different form", in the lead, exactly as Guywan proposes. --В²C ☎ 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm ambivalent about whether "chairman" and "chairwoman" should be just in the terminology section or also in the lead, and about "The chair or chairperson..." v. "The chairperson or chair...", though I think MOS supports the latter. Cygnis is right that the authority of a chairperson ranges from "absolute" to "none" depending on the organization, but I think "leader" works because even in organizations where the chair doesn't vote, they still lead (preside over) the meeting/organization. In a corporation, the chairperson is very much the leader of the corporation, and often the majority owner, and often also the CEO. Nevertheless, there are probably better words than "leader", though not "officer" in my opinion, and I can't think of any other good ones ("head" and "chief" seem overly colloquial, "boss" and "most senior" are not always accurate, etc.). Leviv ich 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Let us both compromise so that we may reach an agreement and table this matter :) Revised lead:

  The chairperson or chair is the chief presiding member of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

  How do you feel about this? Guywan (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. That works for me, thank you. Obligatory note that it is, of course, not up to just me and you, these other peons our colleagues also have a say. Leviv ich 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me :P I suppose a few days may be given to allow others to have their say .... Guywan (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman should definitely be in the lead, it still has a load of usage (compare Flight attendant which includes the archaic "steward/stewardess" in the lead sentence). For many (I dare say most) people, "chairman" is the most recognizable term. feminist (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To help sort this out, I've created the #Lead sentence ranked survey below. --В²C ☎ 22:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit late with this suggestion but... we could bypass the "leader" vs. "officer" question with a construction like: A chairperson (or chair) presides over an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My bad. I should have had a pre-survey survey to identify more reasonable candidates before created the ranked survey. Lesson learned. --В²C ☎ 16:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes history?

Per Nblund and WP:NOTFORUM -- no content related to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this the first English-language encyclopedia in the world to use "Chairperson" for the name of its article on this business position? If so, should we be proud and celebrate that we are way way way in the forefront of things? Or should we be embarassed and ashamed because that (trendsetting) is exactly what we're not supposed to be doing? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @SergeWoodzing: 1. Who knows how long the move will last. 2. The opposition to the move was certainly interesting from an academic perspective: a denial of agency ("wikipedia only reflects sources so blame them for systemic bias") combined with a naiveté (or feigned ignorance) about the power and reach of Wikipedia to determine what the sources say. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia is also the first English-language encyclopedia in the world to have entries on open-crotch pants, 69 (sex position), Mewtwo, and about five million other topics. How many English-language encyclopedias are there these days? How many have millions of entries? How many have an entry on "chairman" or "chairperson" at all? Britannica and Columbia don't have this article. If you look at dictionaries, American Heritage, Cambridge, Macmillan, Collins, Oxford and Merriam-Webster all have entries for "chairperson" (and the usage notes almost universally note that "chairman" is considered sexist). So we should be neither proud, as we're not in the forefront, nor embarrassed, since we're finally in the 21st century. In all the discussion that's taken place here so far, this diff has been my favorite: Dude! I feel like I just walked into an Elks Club from the 1950s. Who in their right mind still uses the word chairman when referring to a woman? That's been stilted and obsolete for, like, 30 years. At least 25, and during that time the usage has been essentially absent from mainstream newspapers and textbooks. — User:COGDEN 22:06, 12 April 2007 That was posted here 12 years ago. Leviv ich 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC) The fifth edit to the page in April 2003—16 years ago—noted: "In order to avoid sexist assumptions, the position is nowadays more often called chairperson or simply the chair." SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC) People make a lot of unsourced claims. In 2003, that person was demonstrably wrong overall, and mostly wrong even about women. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC) What we care about is not raw frequency. Leviv ich 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia's claims of what it's not supposed to be doing, disappeared long ago... Wikipedia is a trendsetter. We work by consensus not sourcing, so it's not happy or ashamed really... it just is what it is. We gather consensus, a decision is made, and we move on to more editing. There is nothing to be embarrassed about unless it's for naivete on how we work here. It's not like academics would use wikipedia as a major resource. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I don't think that's really true. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and all our other policies telling us to reflect the real world rather than to try to change it, are still as relevant now as they ever were. The page here was moved primarily because enough people felt that the world really had changed in this regard, and that it was time for us to follow. If the motivation for the consensus had simply been trend-setting then it's unlikely a seasoned admin would have closed it as move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC) It is true. Seasoned closers move to consensus (not sourcing) all the time here. Chairman is overwhelmingly used outside of wikipedia. And it's like the counting of votes that was mentioned so often... That is consensus, not sourcing. The fact we have gender-neutral clauses in our MOS... that is trendsetting, not sourcing. It's not a complaint as much as it is an observation. Wikimedia Foundation can set the rules it wants to its own company website. But make no mistake that we trendset and self-prophesize. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Instead of a 6 month moratorium on move proposals, how about a permanent moratorium on shitposting on article talk? Someone should hat this. Nblund talk 21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Or a moratorium on bullying? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman (version 2) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chairman (version 2). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence ranked survey

See related discussion above at #Lead sentence.

Order your preferences from highest to lowest for the leading clause of the lead sentence...

1) The chairperson (also chairman, chairwoman, or simply chair) is the ...
2) The chair (also chairperson, chairman, or chairwoman) is the ...
3) The chair or chairperson is the ...
4) The chairperson or chair is the ...

... and the trailing clause:

A) ...leader of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.
B) ...highest-ranking officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.
C) ...chief presiding member of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

--В²C ☎ 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
————————————————————————————————————————————

• 3,2,4,1; C,B,A. --В²C ☎ 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC) changed 2,3 to 3,2 to prefer title term first per SlimVirgin/MOS:LEADSENTENCE, but I still think prominent synonyms should be listed in parentheses. --В²C ☎ 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2,1,3,4; C,B,A...though I prefer just "presiding officer". Dictionary.com defines "chairman" as "the presiding officer of a meeting, committee, board, etc." and I think that's a good definiting first sentence for the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Dictionary.com defines "chairman" as "presiding officer" [8], but its definition of "chairperson" doesn't use the word "officer" [9]. MW also uses "presiding officer" [10], but OLD [11], Cambridge [12], Macmillan [13] and Collins [14] use "person in charge of". (Proof that encyclopedias > dictionaries.) Leviv ich 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• 4,3,1,2; C,A,B. Leviv ich 23:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• 3,1,4,2; C,A,B. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
• Not specifically #1 but "chairperson" first because that is now the title of the article. Include the other three either as listed or alphabetically. While it's generally best to have just 2 or 3 synonyms, I think 4 is OK in this case. It isn't a burden to read. No opinion on A-C. Springee (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• 1, 4, or the current first sentence: "The chairperson (also chair, chairman, or chairwoman) is". The lead should begin with the title. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." There's no reason here to deviate from that; if you do, it will look so odd that you'll probably have people constantly changing it. As for the rest, I prefer the current version: "is the presiding officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• 5; C - 5 being The chairperson is the .... 1 and 2 would be going against Wikipedia MOS by having so many secondary choices in the lead. C seems the best fit of those 3 choices, though their may be better wording to be found. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) 4, 3, 1, 2; A, B, C. I can see the value of pointing out that "chairwoman"/"chairman" are the same thing as the subject of this article, but since that's already covered in the "Terminology" section I don't think it's necessary in the lede. 04:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Oh, and I'm in agreement with the above comments that the first bolded word should match the article title for clarity. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• {3, 4}, 1, 2; C, B, A. I agree with the position the discussants above eventually reached, namely, the "-man" and "-woman" forms are just std English variations and don't need to be spelled out. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Almost persuaded to change, but I have noticed a convention or tendency, perhaps undocumented, to include prominent alternative names that redirect to an article in the lead sentence in parentheses like we have in choices 1 and 2. --В²C ☎ 23:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: Yeah, it's MOS:BOLD. "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement." --JBL (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's a good convention, as anyone who gets to the article by searching for a synonym is quickly and easily reassured that they got to the right spot. --В²C ☎ 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  The convention is definitely reasonable in general, but we don't (for example) include plural forms of words in bold (even though they are often redirects) because they come from a standard English construction and no one should be confused by clicking on a link that says "mathematicians" and ending up at the article "mathematician". --JBL (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• 2,1,3,4; C,B,A. Chairman/chairwoman are far too common terms to avoid in the lead sentence. Compare this with Flight attendant, which lists the archaic terms "stewards/stewardesses", "air hosts/hostesses" in the first sentence. The goal of a lead sentence is to allow readers to quickly recognize a topic. We must be aware that many of our readers are socially conservative and are thus used to using the term "chairman". feminist (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  The difference is that it's not a standard rule of English that "steward" is the masculine form of "flight attendant". --JBL (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  We must be aware that many of our readers are socially conservative and are thus used to using the term "chairman". Guywan (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• 3, 4, 2, 1; C, B, A. Made my points already, nothing more to be added. Guywan (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 4, 3, 1, 2; C, B, A. Second thoughts. Guywan (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2,1,3,4; no preference on A,B,C. So let me get this straight? Having just come through a contentious move, in which a large minority favoured the previous title "chairman" (which is still, rightly or wrongly, the most used term for this concept in reliable sources), people are now proposing to airbrush that variant even as an alternative name in the lede? Absolutely not. At least people looking for chairman or chairwoman, who aren't aware of alternative titles, will immediately know where they are. Other than that, "chair" should be listed first as it's the most commonly used of the gender-neutral terms.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider two typical English speakers, one of whom puts "stewardess" into the search box and ends up at flight attendant, the other of whom puts in "chairman" and ends up at chairperson. Could you give your subjective assessment of the levels of confusion of these two people, assuming that the word they searched for does not appear in the first sentence of the article on which they land? --JBL (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman as sexist

Chairman has been criticized as sexist.

That kind of generic statement leaves much to be desired.

• Two of the citations point to the same source (Dictionary.com), so we shall count them as one.
• The last two point to books, which are likely filled with the authors' non-notable opinions.

1. How can a word be sexist? Is "waiter" sexist? What about "actor"?
2. Why is this opinion important to mention? What notability does it have?

I assert that clarification and more notable sources are needed. I have removed the statement as it may be misleading. Guywan (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

1. pass; no; no.
2. The fact is mentioned in … actually, pass on that question too.

Anyway, I would prefer that was returned and discussed, or until I find out what "more notable sources" might be. cygnis insignis 16:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You removed it once, and you were reverted. Per BRD, you should not have removed it again without getting consensus. I suggest you self-revert to the existing consensus reversion until you gain consensus that its removal is appropriate. Beyond that, you don't have to agree with the opinion in order for it to be an appropriately sourced and included statement that is clearly (given all the gender-based argumentation around this page) relevant and notable. You have offered no rationale for its removal other than your personal disagreement and your belief that words can't be sexist. Further reliable sources which, while not unanimous in their embrace of the use of chairperson, all agree it arose out of a concern that the use of chairman was sexist: [15][16][17][18] Grandpallama (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I like chair, its not prejudiced at all, even to our species. Actually, it is ergonomically biased, and not at all suited to candidates like octopoids and cetaceans. I guess a llama wouldn't mind standing as chair, and I think they would be good at the job. cygnis insignis 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I tried to broach the issue, but there were no takers. See Talk:Chairperson#Lead sentence. I assumed that it would then be fine to remove the statement.

Thank you for the sources! That is all I ask. And perhaps you can improve the statement and go into further detail about what the sources say? Those who use Wikipedia as a primary source, such as myself, will find that statement lacking. Guywan (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources pulled from my bookshelf:

• "Typically, these analyses pointed out the use of so-called generic male terms as sexist... As a consequence of these critiques, guides were published that replaced so-called generic male terms with truly generic terms: policeman became police officer; fireman, fire fighter; postman, mail carrier; workman, worker; chairman, chairperson; mankind, humanity; and so on."
• "Is it possible to change sexist language? ... Much of the debate has centered around two types of change: the coining of new terms (such as Ms. to replace Miss/Mrs., and chairperson to replace chairman and chairwoman), and various proposal to replace he as the generic third person singular pronoun."
• "Following Tajfel's work, Williams and Giles (1978) propose that strong action from a subordinate group will be met with strong action from the dominant group attempting to maintain its superiority and control. Their discussion appears valuable for an analysis of the opposition many people are making to women's proposals for alleviating sex bias in language... One strategy is to accept, seemingly, the changes women advocate but then to redefine the situation so that the meaning of the change is diminished or lost. Such a strategy has been used by critics of women's proposals to change the language structure. One instance of such a redefinition: the acceptance of the label chairpersons, but the use of it only in reference to women. Thus chairman and chairperson have become gender labels."
• "Another factor which we must bear in mind is that women need more words - and more positive words - not less. The removal of sexist words would not leave a large repertoire of words for women to draw upon! ... Some attempts have been made to modify sexist words and there arc signs that this on its own is insufficient to reduce sexism in language. Words such as police officer and chairperson have been an attempt to break away from the negative value which female words acquire by the creation of sex-neutral terms."

References

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thanks for adding the reference bundle. Should I add a few of these ones I listed so we don't rely so heavily on style guides and dictionaries? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Generally dictionaries aren't the best sources available–although, on a point of the usage of a word, maybe they are? I really don't know. The dictionary usage notes are modern, and some of the academic sources posted here are older, so there's probably a benefit to including both some newer and older sources. I don't think we need as many dictionary entries as I put in the bundle, but I'm not sure which are the best to keep. Also, the sentence could be expanded to discuss more about the sexist history of the word, which would allow spreading the cites out somewhat. So in conclusion, I'm sure the citation would benefit from some appropriate mixture of old and new, dictionaries and academic sources, but I'm not sure of the right mix exactly. :-) I'd very much appreciate another editor improving the cite–feel free to take out anything that I just put in and keep just what's useful. Thank you! – Levivich 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not heavy reliance on dictionaries, but the presence of OED lends some significant weight, I'd say, and is reliable on the etymology and evolution of English language usage. Grandpallama (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This has the significant danger of giving a minority view WP:UNDUE prevalence. One must consider that those who call a word "sexist" are the most vocal, ideological, and zealous. It is relatively easy to cherrypick and find such statements - and harder to find specific statements that refute them. What goes more unseen is the majority trend that does not consider these words sexist, and we must ensure that the majority view is presented foremost. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary entry for "chairman" mentions that surveys of their Usage Panel of experts time-and-again show a majority accept "chairman" and other -man words as not sexist. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

But...so what? You don't have to agree that the use of "chairman" is sexist, or inferior to "chairperson." It might be a minority view to say "chairman" is sexist (or may not), but it's not a minority view to say that the word arose from the belief that the use of "chairman" is sexist. That's just reporting what the reliable sources say. I don't understand the controversy around that. Grandpallama (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Oxford "chairman" entry states it succinctly: "The word chairman found itself accused of sexism in the 1970s, with critics opposed to the way it combined the notion of power with a grammatical gender bias. Two neutral alternatives were proposed, chair (which was actually recorded in this sense in the 17th century) and the neologism chairperson. Both terms faced initial resistance, and although they have now become accepted in standard English, the Oxford English Corpus shows that they are still far less common than chairman." So yes, describing "chairperson" as a failed neologism created as a reaction by a minority who perceived sexism in "chairman" would be correct. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

So...is it just a matter of wording? "The use of 'chairperson' arose as a result of perceived sexism in the use of the term 'chairman'". I don't think WP needs to weigh in on the appropriateness of the use of "chairperson", but it seems clear (now that it's the title of the article) that there should be an explanation of its origin. Your argument particularly supports that, I think, because if its usage is as low as you are arguing, there is all the more reason to include an explanation as to where it came from. Grandpallama (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the concern that the article discusses the view that "chairman" is seen as gendered or is the issue that the term is being called "sexist" the same way a derogatory name for an unset female would be "sexist". In other words, would the problem go away if the word "sexist" were replaced with a more clinical sounding word? I would support such a change as I think "sexist" does have a negative implications for the user. I fully support the material having the material but perhaps we could sidestep the issue by using "gendered" or similar. Springee (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources use sexist, sexually discriminatory, etc. Let's use those words. – Levivich 18:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just using the phrase "Chairman has been criticized as sexist" is quite poor and really incorrect. There are certainly some groups and sources that say it's sexist, and that's how it should be written. "Some sources criticize 'chairman' as being sexist." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Per my comment above, how about changing the focus here? Instead of making the sentence about "chairman", make the sentence an explanation as to the origin of "chairperson". Something like "The creation and use of 'chairperson' was a reaction to perceived sexism in the use of 'chairman'". That, after all, gets at the actual point of the sentence and the sources that are being employed while being neutral in terms of whether or not the sexism allegation is justified. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It brings me much joy to see such constructive discussion :'). If my understanding is correct, the sources are saying that it is not the word "Chairman" that is criticized as sexist, but the usage of the term. Specifically, its usage to refer to a woman who holds the position. Thus, the current sentence is misleading. This was my original fear. I am in agreement with Grandpallama's suggestion. A short history of the term is needed which explains when and why the politically correct terminology was introduced. Guywan (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources also say it is sexist to use Chairman to refer to the position itself, as in, "Okay, now it's time to elect a chairman". That's sexist, obviously. --В²C ☎ 00:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sue Gardner added the following in 2012, which could be restored. I don't have access to the source:

Although many experts maintain that use of the term chairman is not sexist because it is meant to encompass both genders, feminists argue otherwise, saying that using an andro-centric generic to stand in for all humans is assymetrical and therefore biased, because men are allowed to represent all people while women are not. Feminists also say that psycholingual studies find that when people are asked to imagine which gender is represented by a male-specific term, they are likelier to choose men than women.

References

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: the source is available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=HyRk1v6wb7AC&pg=PA108. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you! Will take a look. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Move back to Chairman.

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.

---

"Chairperson" is a left-wing political propaganda word. This radical political correctness run amok needs to stop. So-called "gender-neutral" attempts to destroy the English language in order to enforce a far-left extremist neo-Marxist feminist political agenda are a bad thing and must be crushed with force. The neutral and natural word—the word that evolved naturally out of the English language and that wasn't forced upon us by left-wing identity politics—is chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.10.16 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support without commenting on the political details. The most common word is chairman & Wikipedia should not be used, against that basic principle, to further any sort of agenda or to sway us with unrealistic crystal-balling. If & when chairperson becomes prevalent, you'll see me supporting that word. Not before. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is not another official RM, is it?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  This has gone too far, I'm taking this up with the Chairperson of the Wikimedia foundation! ...Or is that the Chairman? ...Actually looks like it's the Chair.WanderingWanda (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

First line sequence

It is my opinion, with all due respect, that this reversal goes too far. Who, if anyone, relatively, uses "chair" as a noun for this position? Must we have such weird sequence for the commonly used terms, when we all know that chairman still is #1? So, some people, seemingly very emotionally involved, want to exclude the word completely. Is that we're supposed to be doing? Or is it neutral info we aspire to? Can we get a grip here, please, for Wikipedia's sake, not for mine?! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Who, if anyone, relatively, uses "chair" as a noun for this position? well, the Wikimedia Foundation for one. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Key word you apparently ignored: relatively. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation for one. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote relatively. Anyone who doesn't don't know what the word means can look it up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well your sentence doesn't make much sense if you just mean "is there anyone who uses chair more than chairman" because not only did we have a move discussion advertised on WP:CENT where this was discussed extensively, but it's an amazingly weak argument that requires just one example to refute it. I use chair more often than chairman. There, your point is refuted. I assumed you had some more cogent point than "I don't believe there is a single person who uses chair more than chairman". So I assumed you were just using the word "relatively" wrong and ignored it. Then you doubled down, so I thought you meant "uses chair in relation to the position", but now you seem to be saying that interpretation is wrong. So clearly it's my fault for thinking you were making a good point. If you want to know why the sequence is as it is, I suggest you scroll up and read the not even month old discussions conveniently titled Lead sentence and Lead sentence ranked survey, one of which I linked to in the edit summary of the revert you link to. After that I hope you have some more insightful point than "I can't believe other people have different opinions than me". Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree chair is now used more frequently than chairperson and should be first in that list. Plus, that way it's alphabetical too (chair, chairman, chairwoman). --В²C ☎ 23:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait. If you simply go by usage then chairman should be first in that list. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

How are you determining current, usage? Since “me too”. —В²C ☎ 05:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Rotating chair listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rotating chair. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Chairmanic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chairmanic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Move to Chairman

When will new users (or users who were not able to participate in the last discussion) be able to have their say on moving this article to the much more widely used 'Chairman'. I notice that this issue was raised on 9 June 2019 by a user, but that it was quickly closed down by Wugapodes on 10 June 2019 because it was 'unlikely that consensus has changed'. That is fair enough at the time. I would not want to re-open this case for it to be speedily closed again, so when would an appropriate time be to re-open the discussion? Are we talking three or six months? Or nearer to a year?

I know of many individuals on Wikipedia who would support the move to the correct term of 'Chairman' and would provide a much stronger argument for the move than the ones provided by some in the previous discussion. Poiuytre (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Poiuytre: probably a year because I know a good portion of folks here want to move this to Chair (executive) or Chair (officer) in 6 months. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no set rule but the longer the better. If a number of new people are weighing in on the talk page objecting to the reasons from last time then a good case could be made for opening sooner rather than later. Do keep in mind that, fair or not, right or wrong, the current title will now be seen as the default choice so unless there is a new consensus for a change this title will stay. If those same people had offered support during the move discussion the outcome might have been no consensus and the original title would have stayed. I don't see any reason why the question of "Chair (officer)" etc would have to be addressed before revisiting the name of this article. Perhaps as courtesy but not by policy. Springee (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

We must wait for the current pulpy carcass to slowly decay and a fresh equine carcass to be procured. Only then can we resume this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, this absolutely perfect example of exactly what Wikipedia is not supposed to do (trend set à la latest move) should be reversed asap. It's not only very embarrassing to the project, disastrously bad for it's reputation as attemptedly neutral, it's also a horrific precendent for more of these kind of opinionated shenanigans to go on and on and on, spinning, not reporting. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

PS I am not a bigot. Several of my friends & acquaintances have been chairwomen, and I've been very particular about always calling them what they want to be called. This is about what's normal, not what's courteous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think this is about, the reality is that there are three arguably reasonable choices, counting some variant of a disambiguated Chair as one of them, and that too many believe Chairman is no longer the common name for the generic board/committee/council/etc. head position this article is about for it to ever achieve consensus support again. That said I’m against a moratorium of any kind for any title change consideration, but there is definitely no consensus for that opinion, sadly. —В²C ☎ 09:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember that it took three attempts back to back before enough !votes could be mustered to change this to the politically correct variant. I'm sure that any attempt to revert will be met with the same "vote until you get it right" approach, so please, let's not start on a doomed path. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not just about which word gets more hits on Google. The article title is in the singular, so it refers to one such person. If you know that the leader of a committee is a woman, what percentage of the time are people going to refer to her as a chairman? I suspect that in the majority of the English-speaking world, addressing the leader of a committee as chairman would widely be considered correct only if that person were a man. And it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles entitled chairman and chairwoman. COGDEN 18:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of us Wikipedians, I think, have long worked under the guideline and assumption that frequency of use was the absolute determining factor in naming articles, and that Wikipedia must (must) follow what's frequent, never set new standards, so I think and hope you can understand that many of us are totally flabbergasted that something (consensus) like this renaming could happen, which flies in the face of what we've worked by. The new concept is that if enough users get together and fight hard enough, and vote often enough, they can get an article named whatever they please. Makes one sort of lose one's footing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I certainly fall into the category of those who "have long worked under the guideline and assumption that frequency of use was the absolute determining factor in naming articles, and that Wikipedia must (must) follow what's frequent, never set new standards", and that's exactly why I support some variant of Chair, or Chairperson, over "Chairman" as the title of this article. Common usage today eschews "Chairman", especially when speaking about the position in general (rather than as a reference to a particular person whose sex is known); WP should reflect that; WP must reflect that. --В²C ☎ 21:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: is absolutely correct. Although I'm not sure it's a new concept at wikipedia to change things in the face of usage. That's been happening for years so I've just gotten used to it, and this article is just political correctness on display. In dealing with companies, anything other than chairman is rare. If a women wants to be known as chairwomen then that is followed. Otherwise it's chairman. Chairperson is some strange invention that no one uses. But as long as there are redirects readers will find the information, just at a strange title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples in common usage:

1. New Aviation Maintenance Science Chair Touts Employment Opportunities
2. Supervisors elect new chair
3. FAF appoints new chair of FASAC and PCC members
4. Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith appointed new Chair of AOA
5. EPRI Announces New Chair, Four Members to the Board of Directors
6. NC Board of Elections votes to make Circosta new chair
7. AKVA group ASA: Mr Knut Nesse is appointed as new Chairperson of AKVA group ASA
8. Egypt- Osama Rabie appointed new chairperson of the Suez Canal Authority
9. New Chairperson for ICAI (SIRC)

Yes, chairperson is not nearly as common as "chair", but consensus is that "chairperson" is reasonable WP:NATURAL disambiguation for "Chair", and preferable to "Chair (disambiguation)" or "Chairman". --В²C ☎ 23:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait a sec. That's a non-sequitur compared to what you said above. There are about 100-1 more examples of Chairman than Chairperson. In normal usage Chairperson is a strange term. Sure there are examples but it's a drop in the ocean in comparison. Same with chair. Now some people simply don't like the term chairman, and that's cool. More people here at wikipedia would rather be politically correct than what is commonly used in English speech. I have come to expect that here so I'm good with it. But let's not kid ourselves as to what is far more common. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

See analysis by Wugapodes at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 May. Arguing for a return to Chairman is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. It has been argued, heard, and rejected by consensus. The only remaining question is whether or not we should move to Chair (disambiguator). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of restarting a move discussion but the ICANTHEARYOU isn't appropriate in this case. I recall it wasn't as clear cut in the end and the fact that the closing was contested makes it that much more reasonable for someone to challenge the result at a later date. Also, there were a number of move discussions in the past that said keep it at Chairman. I don't think consensus has changed at this time but it's reasonable for someone to ask and make the case. That said, I think anyone trying to restore the older name at this time is likely to fail simply because the discussion was too recent and I'm guessing consensus hasn't changed enough to get the old name back. Springee (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I also agree that it should not be moved. I only rejected what someone said above as to why it was moved and should stay at chairperson. Political correctness wins out at Wikipedia over usage. That's simply the way things are. Editors have spoken so lets move on from this and on to other topics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's absolutely clear that consensus favors Chairperson over Chair (disambiguation). That one is probably worth determining with one more RM. The trouble is how to propose it so that exactly what is used for the disambiguation (assuming that is favored over all) is separate from the main question. --В²C ☎ 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a two-step process. First an RfC to determine if there is support to move from Chairperson to Chair (some disambiguator). Then another to determine what the some disambiguator is. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I'm okay with that as a chairperson supporter myself under the following conditions: (1) if the second RFC results in no consensus, then the default goes back to chairperson, (2) the RFC clearly articulates that this is a question of WP:NATURALDIS vs. a relatively more WP:COMMONNAME, (3) for the purposes of having a proper discussion, !votes to revert back to chairman will be ignored at this time (we can return to it as a third RFC if deemed necessary). Would that be agreeable or am I asking for too much here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That seems like too many unnecessary caveats for people to understand. I am proposing we first determine if a switch to Chair (some disambiguator) even has consesus and then we ask editors to choose the disamiguator from a list of the many options that have been suggested already: (executive), (officer), (role) or (position). If we can't reach a consesus on which disamiguator or if the first RfC fails to gain a consesus for any change at all, then everything stays as it is now, at Chairperson. I am sure people will ask to move back to Chairman, but I trust the closer will know what to do with that. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What about a special RM in which we request a normal Support or Oppose on the Chairperson → Chair (TBD) proposal, but then ask everyone to simultaneously include their preference for a Chair disambiguator in their !vote comment to be considered only if Chair (TBD) prevails. Whichever choice gets a plurality wins. —В²C ☎ 07:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Something seems a bit unfair with not being exact in a proposal. What happens to editors who would want Chair (one) over Chairperson, but are completely opposed to Chair (two) and would rather it stay at Chairperson rather than move to Chair (two). Those editors are thrown to the wolves by not knowing beforehand what they are really voting for. They could be inclined to vote Chairperson so as to not take a chance it could ever go the Chair (two), even though they want Chair (one). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Another option is vote ranking. I would vote Chair (officer) / Chair (role) / Chair (position) / Chair (executive) / Chairperson / not Chairman. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the proposal could be Chairperson → Chair (TBD) where TBD is either A, B, C or D. And support would mean you’d support any of the four over Chairperson. The presumption is any of the four is generally acceptable. Ranking introduces complexity. Trying to keep it simple, right? —В²C ☎ 14:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Therein would lie the problem. While none of these are close to as common as Chairman, in looking at the 5 choices Chair (role) and Chair (position) are absolutely terrible. Chair (executive) might be better than what we have now, and Chair (officer) I'm not sure about... it makes me think of the police for some reason. I would have to vote Chairperson if these were the choices. Perhaps you should first hold a referendum on the "chair" choices before matching them against Chairperson? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  Really? Okay, I didn't think anyone would care that much about what exactly the disambiguation was. Maybe this is more like Sarah Jane Brown (where the middle name for disambiguation, barely used in sources, was preferred over any of the disambiguation choices) than I realized. But you've convinced me determining the least problematic disambiguation for Chair should be a separate and first step, and then the Chairperson → Chair (TBD) RM, if we have one, would have only the one specific winning choice for TBD. --В²C ☎ 19:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have performed many ngrams queries to determine which term was more common for various articles in Wikipedia.

However, in this case, ngrams counts are useless, because there are in fact more male chairs than female chairs, so it is not surprising that the male term chairman is more common than the female term chairwoman. But the article is not about male chairs, it is about chairs in general, so the only options open to us are the gender-neutral forms chair and chairperson, because it has become unusual to call women chairs "chairmen" or "Madam Chairman" these days -- here ngrams is actually useful. Chair certainly has a longer historical pedigree in this sense (OED: 1659), but chairperson has the advantage of not needing disambiguation as in Chair (title). Either of those seems fine. --Macrakis (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Re Chair (title/role/position/executive), executive is wrong, because many (most?) chairs are not executive chairs, that is, their primary role is as conveners or moderators rather than decision-makers. Whenever decisions are taken by vote (e.g., of a government or organization or company board) rather than unilaterally by the chair, the chair is not an executive. --Macrakis (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But title is problematic because it too is ambiguous - the topic could be taken to be anything with title Chair, like a book, film, or play with that title. What about person? Chair (person)? Hmm. So the proposal would be Chairperson → Chair (person). --В²C ☎ 22:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, none of the terms are ideal. They are all poor second choices compared to Chairman, but we have to decide on something. And you are wrong if you think women aren't called chairman... they are most of the time in my dealings, but also often chairwoman. Actually they are usually called by their first names. Only on paper does chairman get used. There are plenty of sources that tells us that chairmen can be executives. Such as this. When I see chair (role) I think of the set of a kindergarten play where little Jonnie is a tree and Suzie plays a chair. That definer sucks. (position) is not as bad as (role) but nearly so. We had an old reclining chair that had 8 positions. The only two that make any sense at all are (executive) and (officer). Chairperson originally won out because most of the time if you have to go with a poor second choice at Wikipedia you'd much rather add a middle name, or an initial rather than title something in parentheses. Parentheses are to be avoided if at all possible. It's only because Chairperson is such an oddity (I've never heard it in actual use) that we have to look at parentheses at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Chair (person) is something new. I'll have to think on that a bit. For that matter you could also do Chair (business). Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The existence of chairs of nonprofit and political organizations would probably cause objection to the business disambiguator. I'm liking Chair (person) the more I mull it around. The meaning is obviously Chairperson without using that odd term itself. --В²C ☎ 23:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It turns out that there is a way to use Google ngrams to get a handle on the relative usage of chair, chairman, and chairperson -- find some common collocations like "board chairX", "deputy chairX", etc. where the meaning is unlikely to be a piece of furniture. Here are the proportions:

term (freq)	chair	chairman	chairperson
board (14%)	56%	40%	5%
committee (15%)	53%	40%	8%
executive (6%)	46%	52%	1%
vice (22%)	23%	73%	4%
deputy (11%)	17%	75%	8%
* of the board (33%)	12%	83%	5%

It's interesting to note that "board X" is becoming more frequent compared to "X of the board" over time, perhaps because "board chair" sounds better than "chair of the board". In any case, I think the table above shows that "chair" is much more common than "chairperson", and that "chair" is actually more common than "chairman" in many important contexts. So there's a strong case that "chair" is a better title than either "chairperson" or "chairman"; that "chairman" is not inclusive just adds even more weight to this argument.

Unfortunately, Google Ngrams data ends in 2008, but it certainly seems that the trend has continued.

As for "executive" as a qualifier, I didn't claim that no chairs were executive, just that chairs are not executive in general-- though corporate chairs are often executive (as documented in the Investopedia cite), committee chairs are almost never executive; so Chair (executive) should not be the title of this article, though of course it makes sense as a redirect. --Macrakis (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to sound like I'm stirring the pot because I've already made clear that I greatly dislike parenthetical disambiguation for this title; but Chair (person), while initially sounding fine in theory, is a poor idea in practice. I looked up some articles that aren't about people which use this disambiguation, so here are some examples: Snowbird, Westie, Grisette, Night owl, Outcast, Sabra, Coyote, and Casualty. In my opinion, most of these use person as a stand-in for type of person (even though the use of the disambiguator term would be much more effective). The only one that cannot be said for is Casualty (person), which would be better off either (A) becoming the primary topic or (B) using the disambiguator military as was recently suggested for it (even better: war imo- it's shorter). This article is really not about a type of person called a chair, and nor is it about a literal person named chair. Therefore, I don't think we should really be considering Chair (person) as an option. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Chair (title) is not ambiguous with titles of works, because we never have articles about the titles of works, only about the works themselves, where the parenthesis describes the type of work, unlike what the song's name is called in Through the Looking Glass. Thus, for works entitled "Buddha", we have Buddha (2007 film), Buddha (TV series), Buddha (manga), etc.; as opposed to Buddha (title), which talks about the titortitle or status, not about a work called "Buddha".

"(title)" is already used for a position or role in many articles: Younger (title), Ras (title), Ban (title), Maid (title), Rex (title), Caesar (title), Doctor (title), Colonel (title), etc. etc. --Macrakis (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

NATURALDIS

As stated earlier, I am of the opinion that Chairperson is the right title for this article over any other title. Part of my justification for the WP:NATURALDIS policy is thoroughly illustrated by the lack of agreement on how a RM/RFC should be formed. The use of parenthetical disambiguation pretty much always leads to debates about which disambiguator should be preferred. NATURALDIS pretty much avoids those types of debates entirely, and that is why I am a fan of that policy. Even if a title is not as common but still in somewhat common usage; it's preferred over the relatively more common one.
I say this not to rehash the previously settled discussions, but to provide feedback. If proponents for Chair (disambiguator) cannot come to agreement on how best to decide what that disambiguator should be, then I see no reason to have a discussion to moving this page to any Chair (x) related title.
Can this just be decided before we have another contentious move request? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Relatively more common one? I'm not saying that it should be moved from chairperson, but it's probably 100/1 in favor of chairman usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Chairperson is common relative to terms like Chairmanic or Chair(wo)man which don't see any mainstream use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. The whole point of most of the discussion above is precisely to resolve the disambiguator issue before anyone proposes another contentious move request. --В²C ☎ 18:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Why not just RFC it? It might sound bureaucratic, but an RFC for what a RM should look like would at least be focused solely on the topic at hand (and not be as proned to hijacking). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps. This discussion kind of erupted spontaneously and at this point I think the few watchers who are interested are keeping it productive. We might get to a point where an RFC is appropriate, but I don't think we are there yet. I, for one, am not ready to start one. --В²C ☎ 18:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't like Chairperson and would never use it conversationally. However, since there isn't consensus for Chairman, I think it does make more sense than Chair (TBD) per NATURALDIS. I agree with the view that Chairperson makes it very clear what the subject is while Chair (TBD) opens up a new can of worms. If we aren't going to use the most common name then we can at least use one that is every bit as clear as "Chairman" was. Emotionally I prefer Chair (TBD) over Chairperson as Chair is a term that has been in use for a very long time while Chairperson is a relatively recent term but sometimes logic (in context of Wiki policies/guidelines etc) needs to win over emotional preference. Springee (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And that is the whole thing in a nutshell, and probably why we should leave well enough alone. It's not ideal by any stretch, but it's the best we have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Some stats, since apparently people didn't read the previous discussions:

• "Chairman" is far, far more common than "Chairperson", to the present day. (Ngrams only goes to 2008, but there are other corpuses that have verified this.)
• Women in the position are more frequently called "chairman" than "chairperson", "chairwoman", or "chair". (This contradicts the personal experiences of many editors, myself included, but this says more about what kinds of people we read or interact with than it does about the state of the English language.)
• The terms "chair", "chairwoman", and "chairperson" are all in use, and are not terms used only in fringe sources.

WP:COMMONNAME says "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The rationale for the close said, "It's well established that many people consider the term "chairman" to be problematic for being gendered." Given that "chairman" remains the common term for female chairmen, I'm not sure what this is referring to. The various suggested names are all in use, and "chairman" is the most common, so the underlying question is whether "chairman" is sufficiently problematic that it can't be used.

The merge discussion ended on May 15, 2019. I'd suggest waiting some more before starting up the discussion again. --Yair rand (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the first and second bullet points, I recommend reading my corpus analysis in the move review. While chairman is more common in terms of raw frequency, based on a random sample of the NOW corpus, these are almost uniformly in reference to a specific individual and uniformly men. In a random sample of 100 uses of "chairman" in the corpus, 0 uses co-occurred with a feminine pronoun and within the entire corpus it was significantly more likely to co-occur with "John" or "Mr". By contrast in a random sample of 100 uses of "chairperson", 6 were unambiguously generic uses referring to no specific individual. Of those uses of "chairperson" which referred to a person, there was a mix of gendered pronouns with some referring to men and others referring to women. So I am highly suspect of the corpus analyses used to justify those first two bulleted points. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm also a bit skeptical on the point about women being called "chairman" more frequently, at least as a form of direct address: Madam Chair beats all competitors with 12,290 results in the Archive.org's TV news captions. "Madam Chairman" is in a distant second with 3,044. The term "chair" is already used to describe the office itself ("the chair recognizes"), and so I suspect people naturally gravitate toward that use unless they've had some stodgy prescriptivist bludgeon "madam chairman" into their head. Nblund ^talk 22:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really quite obvious that "chair" is the preferred term. I think the issue Yair rand raises is secondary, as I think the prefered title is "Chair (...)" but that it is problematic in the NATDAB sense because of the parenthetical disambiguator. That then leads to the secondary question of "chairman" is problematic or "chairperson" is common enough that we keep getting bogged down in. I think working out the parenthetical text and having an RM is a good course. I can say that my thinking has changed since the last RM; I think "Chair (...)" would save us a lot of arguing in the future if we can come to a consensus on what "..." should be. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

True. 2 cents: "chair (office)" (or "role") has the advantage of circumventing the question of what to call the officer who holds the title. No one disputes that "chair" is the appropriate name for the position itself. But, honestly, I'll take whatever gets consensus and I wouldn't hold up a resolution over a disambiguation. Nblund ^talk 19:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by no one disputes that "chair" is the appropriate name? I assume you mean of the poorer choices we are left with after political correctness has stepped in? Of the two choices left, chairperson or chair, certainly chair gets used exponentially more often. It's just a question then of whether we want the lesser used "chairperson" or the more used "chair" with a parenthetical disambiguation term attached. Usually I would tend to go with NATURALDIS if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean that "chair" is the appropriate name for the position itself Thus: "the chair recognizes" > "the chairman recognizes" or "the committee chairs" > "the committee chairmen". "Chairman" could refer to the person who holds the office, but not the office itself. For most people, "chair" has become a metonym like "the throne" refers to a monarch and the monarchy, but even old school grammarians would say that no one holds the "position of chairman". Nblund ^talk 20:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC: What's the best disambiguator for Chair?

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.

---

I was the nom of the RM that resulted in moving this article from Chairman to Chairperson (Talk:Chairperson/Archive_4). I'm also aware that prior to that, an attempt to move this article from Chairman to Chair (person) did not succeed Talk:Chairperson/Archive_3#Requested_move_22_March_2019, a decision that was contested and endorsed in move review (Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2019_May#Archive_4).

Despite this history, I still think the issue of this title is not yet quite settled, but before we have a hopefully final RM to get that done, I think we need to find consensus about the answer to the following question:

IF (that's a big "if") this article were to be moved to Chair (disambiguator), what would be the best disambiguator, and why?

1. executive
2. officer
3. person
4. presiding officer
5. role
6. parliamentary procedure
7. title
8. officeholder
9. position

Note: Let's please keep the discussion in this section focused on the best disambiguator question. In particular, please refrain from opining about any other title (like Chairperson or Chairman) being better or worse than any Chair (disambiguator) option - that's for another section, or for a future RM.

--В²C ☎ 01:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As requested, please limit comments in this section to choosing the best disambiguator for a potential future RM. This is not an RM.

Talk:Chairperson/Archive 5#Move moratorium proposal. The six month moratorium just expired? Per WP:Natural, no disambiguated Chair will be preferable to the current title, so what is the point? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Perhaps. It’s unclear if consensus agrees the current title is natural enough to outweigh a disambiguated Chair. That’s what a future RM would settle, as noted in the nom. This pre-RM RFC is in line with suggestions made in previous discussions here, including the one you just cited. —-В²C ☎ 16:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC) I think natural is natural enough to be considered natural. Chairperson vs Chair (person), Loki’s silly, and is settled. So for me, the only question is whether “person” is so inferior to something else. It’s not. Therefore, WP:TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Chair (officer) I hate parenthetical disambiguation, but if I had to choose... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  I already changed my mind. Chair (presiding officer) or Chair (parliamentary procedure). This is really tough, and I already regret commenting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it is difficult. I added "parliamentary procedure" to the list above, but could you explain that? I mean, parliament usually refers to the UK's highest legislature, or similar organization of other nations, not to, say, the local bowling club board of directors which has a chair... --В²C ☎ 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle: Basically, the local bowling club board of directors likely uses Robert's Rules of Order to conduct its meetings. Parliamentary procedure refers to a practice that is exercised by most organized groups. I hope that helps explain my logic and things a bit. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• officer, by process of elimination. The Chair is not always an executive. Chairperson is preferable to the silly looking Chair (person), per WP:NATURAL. Presiding officer is good, but officer is sufficient and preferable per WP:CONCISE. Role suggests drama (film or play). Parliamentary procedure implies more formality than is often applicable in many Chairman contexts. Title is ambiguous... could be the title of a book or film, for example. --В²C ☎ 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  When I see (officer) I think of the main definition of someone in the armed forces, or perhaps someone on the police force. If I stretch it I think of someone in civil service. It doesn't really seem to fit with a chairman of a company. When a reader sees "executive" next to the word chair I think they readily understand it's meaning. Yes, a chairman is not always an executive, but it is often the case the she is, and I think readers would correlate it better than "officer." They all seem like lesser choices rather than chairperson. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

How about Chair (officeholder) or Chair (position)'. Any alternative to the unnatural sounding chairperson, which to get down to the basics, simply likens someone to a piece of furniture. In addition, "chair" is actually used in the article far more often than "chairperson" which is kind of interesting. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I added those two to the list of options. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Executive > officer > presiding officer > role, and scrap the rest. WP:CONCISE should rule out "Parliamentary procedure" immediately. "Title" is vague and could cover something like a named chair for university professors which has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure. "Person" as a parenthetical disambiguator is functionally equivalent to "chairperson" and since we should prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation "Chair (person)" is pretty much always a worse title option compared to "Chairperson" (it might be better name if we were talking about a person whose given name is Chair). Executive is broad enough to cover a lot of use cases without including things we don't want (unlike "title"). "Officer" is slightly more restrictive in scope but my main problem is its a bit more technical. "Presiding officer" makes it clear that we're not talking about a police officer but is significantly longer. "Role" is incredibly vague, but it's sufficient to distinguish the title problem; a named chair isn't a role, but it is a title, whereas parliamentary chair is a role and title. Wug·a·po·des​ 10:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What about Chair (position) though? It's not suggestive as to whether the holder is an executive or not, and it seems to me the most suitable form of disambiguation for the title.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.