Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2014

Charity or donations?

It's interesting that there's no mention of charities or non-profit organizations that Mrs Rinehart contributes to. Surely there must be something somewhere or is her PR mob hopeless? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good pick up. Section on wealth and philanthropy added. Thanks Jherschel (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But the Philanthropy section still contains not a single charity that has received funding from Rinehart. Visiting orphanages isn't philanthropy, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.162.103 (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the Australian peak body, Philanthropy Australia, philanthropy is The planned and structured giving of, time, information, goods and services, voice and influence, as well as money, to improve the wellbeing of humanity and the community. Visiting orphanages is giving of time and potentially voice and influence. Some individuals are also private and Rinehart may have given money, but chosen to do it without drawing attention to herself. In other words, I believe that the naming of this section is appropriate and in line with similar sections for other Australian ultra high net worth individuals and their families. Rangasyd (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rinewhat private? Not wanting to draw attention to herself? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The only notable thing about her philanthropy is the lack of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.170.161 (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way of describing her philanthropy is the lack of publicity surrounding her personal giving of time, information, good, services, voice and influences, as well as money. Rangasyd (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Too bad the only thing she has worth giving away she won't even give to her own children, let alone charity. Who the Hell needs advice from a wealthy heiress who's never had a hard day in her life? Maybe I'll ask Paris Hilton to do my taxes or Kim Kardashian to advise me on politics. Seems about as relevant as asking Gina Rinehart to spend time telling me how I should just work more if I want to be rich. Guess I should have inherited more money when I was born. Bad business on my behalf. 110.174.91.113 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Chairman/chairwoman/chairperson

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.

---

Time to settle this once and for all, so we can stop this edit war. I have locked the article so you can't even add how much more money she has today, before you settle this. (Ms. Rineheart, if you don't mind, I could do with some money.) Simple: chairman or chairwoman or chairperson? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

[special invitations for this party go to HiLo48, Moondyne, GroveGuy, AlanS, Mr. Stradivarius--and of course their opponent, 180.216.119.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)]

• Chairperson. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Darn it. Good point. I think I can add that without disrupting the process. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• How about just Chair? Although you can consider my official position to be "not really bothered". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman. GroveGuy (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) The people pushing for "Chairwoman" use political correctness as their reason. I think this is wrong. Otherwise, to take it to the extreme, we should change all the corporations in Wikipedia to the gender neutral "Chair".

(2) I believe everything should be supported by citations. The website of her Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited states she is the "Chairman". I feel this is an overridingly strong argument for "Chairman".

(3) Look at this article: Hancock Prospecting. It says "Chairman". Why aren't we changing this article?

(4) It should be noted that the newspapers aren't helpful. They use Chairwoman, Chairman, and Chair with no clear preference that I can see. None use Chairperson.

This is one of those topics which makes feminism look stupid, and I don't want it to look stupid. This lady is no shrinking violet. If she didn't like what her own company published, it wouldn't be published. They say chairman, so she approves of it. And Australian society went through all this 30 years ago. The "man" in chairman does not mean a male. It means someone who manages. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman. if she wanted to call herself Grand Poohbah and that was published in the company's annual reports then we would and should call her that. Not some made up term by the PC police. Moondyne (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman. Sources provided state "Chairman"- the feminism argument is not valid here and no source states her as a "Chairwoman". Meatsgains (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• While the discussion is pending, can an admin at least fix the infobox so it does not say Excecutive Chairwoman? Choor monster (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done I await the claims of admin tools misuse. Moondyne (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Chairperson or Executive Chairperson - It is irrelevant that she refers to herself as Chairman or Executive Chairman. Chairman, Chairwoman and Chairperson are all potentially correct. If I were notable enough to have an article about myself and if I were to insist in the minutes of meetings of the board of directors for which I was chair that my position be noted as Chief Hobgoblin , would it even be relevant to anything at all? Chairperson can't be argued against from a gender perspective, that is what matters for me. AlanS^talk 03:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Chairperson" doesn't need to be argued against from a gender perspective. It's simply wrong, becasue it the word has nothing to do with gender. The "man" in "chairman" does not mean a male person. It means a person of any gender who manages the chair. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Chairperson" is a word according to Wiktionary as is Chairman and Chairwoman. All can be used. [1]. I suggest you acquaint yourself with a dictionary in future before making statements about the meanings of words. AlanS^talk 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how that word is used by some who are ignorant of what correct usage was 50 years ago. "Chairperson" is a faulty, politically correct neologism based on a misunderstanding of "chairman". We should not be part of such nonsense. We should use the best language we can. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that "chairperson" is ugly PC and all that, I believe that the etymology for "chairman" you mention is completely bogus. The OED dates "chairman" to 1654, in the sense we understand. Yet by 1682 the word was used for sedan-chair carriers, and this is not "man" short for "manager". And in 1699, the word "chairwoman" is documented. So obviously the "man" is "chairman" was understood as gendered from almost the beginning.

On top of that, words don't mean their etymology. Something can have a totally harmless origin, but once perception sets in, too bad. Complaining about it as part of a WP discussion isn't relevant or helpful whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that directed at those complaining about "Chairman"? HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My complaint is directed at anybody who mentions details regarding the etymology of a word hundreds of years ago as if that matters to what we are supposed to make of a word today. Someone who says that because William Shakestoor in 1654 combined "chair" with "manager", we have to man up and ignore how people in 2014 actually understand "chairman" is not contributing anything useful to this discussion. This is true even if the etymology were true, all the more so if the etymology is completely made up. Choor monster (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairperson No gender discrimination as well as it will settle the edit-war. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And what about accuracy and reporting per RS? Chairperson settles nothing. Moondyne (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Summoned here by bot, and refreshing to be presented with a simple question. I think chairperson nowadays is most commonly utilized in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Worldwide? In company reports? HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman What a waste of bytes, her own company's website says "Gina Rinehart the current chairman of HPPL" so please, just use chairman and move along. We use RS, not PC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when the lady herself is obviously perfectly happy with "chairman", I cannot see why anyone wants to argue that it should be something else. That's really a quite irrational position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

And if her own companies website referred to her position in the company as "Chief Gimp", that is what you'd argue should be used because it is a RS? AlanS^talk 01:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a pointless, near impossible hypothetical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical yes. Pointless no. The point is very obviously that Gina Rinehart's preferences in how she is referred to as far as title goes should have little bearing on what this article shows to be her title. The accepted usage of words should be the main determinant. Argue "PC rubbish" all you like but titles such as Chairman are falling out of usage in favour of titles such as Chairperson. AlanS^talk 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in Gina Rinehart's companies. And I say again, it was a stupid hypothetical. Many people are called chairmen in company reports. Nobody is called a Chief Gimp. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

More than just a stupid hypothetical, it is a massively irrelevant hypothetical. We have a particular question, we deal with that question. Policy is hammered out based on actual issues that come up. It is well-understood that there will always be extreme cases that no one thought up before, and that applying policy as written leads to unacceptable absurdities, and that is what WP:IAR is for. Pointing out that somewhere there might be an extreme case and the argument would clearly be different in that case isn't adding one iota to the discussion. It's simply an annoying distraction. Choor monster (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman: This debate should not exist. Quoting from the top of WP:GENDER, (an essay explaining WP:GNL in detail, which is policy), specifies WP articles should, in general, favor gender-neutral language, but there is a list of exceptions:

The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Situations this does not apply to include: [...] when the subject prefers a gendered term. This includes a woman preferring a masculine term, for example: "From 1998 to 2000, she [Esther Dyson] was the founding chairman (not chairwoman or chairperson) of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.".

and from MOS:IDENTITY, a guideline:

An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

Since reliable sources tell us that Rinehart prefers "she" but also prefers "chairman", we rely on that. We almost always respect self-designation at all times. It's not our job to tell people what they ought to be calling themselves, no matter how brilliant or cogent your argument is. Yes, at the very top of MOS: there is the all-purpose reference to WP:IAR. But unless you anti-Chairman people explain why this particular situation is so incredibly different, you're not contributing anything to this discussion. Running the generic run-of-the-mill arguments about gender and language isn't grounds for ignoring the rules we already have. Choor monster (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that policy you've quoted state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage? Chairperson is not only gender neutral, I'd argue it's also increasing being used more and more as against chairman. AlanS^talk 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The quoted statements most clearly, emphatically, unambiguously do state that we should prefer self-designation over common usage. Why are you even bothering to ask? As it is, your statement about how chairman/chairperson are used elsewhere seems to be nothing but a personal opinion. Worse, your statement could not possibly be relevant, since it is an assertion about a trend (no part of policy whatsoever). It is not an assertion about which term is used most commonly (which is a consideration in policy). Choor monster (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Off-topic material moved to User talk:AlanS, per WP:TALKO guidelines. In brief: this can only be a discussion about existing policy and how it applies to this page, not for your opinion of existing policy, or showing off the well-known fact that policy is not going to be 100% perfect in all possible situations. Stray comments are one thing, but upon being reminded to stick to the permitted topics, you point-blank have refused to do so. Another editor has also pointed out that your hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Further deliberate misuse of this page will be responded to with reversion. You are welcome to continue to discuss the application of existing policy/guidelines/etc to the actual question before us.
• As I stated above, I do not see why this discussion exists, since the quoted guidelines are completely explicit on this issue. By your choice of responding with irrelevant and ludicrous hypotheticals, I conclude that you completely agree. Choor monster (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to remove material on the basis that you deem it to be off-topic and move it to another talk page, I'd suggest that you make yourself fully aware of the policy you claim to be doing it under before using it as justification. Specifically: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Now to be straight forward, you have no grounds to presume I agree with anything. AlanS^talk 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, I did not err whatsoever. Not even close. I left in your pointless "Chief Gimp" hypothetical above, because it was still marginally on-topic, concerning a matter governed by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CONS, WP:BLP, MOS:, and so on. The material moved to your talk page concerned how editors interact with editors, and as such is governed by an entirely different set of rules, like WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and so on, and therefore no amount of discussion could ever bear on the present question. This is 100% obvious. Thus, it was absolutely off-topic. Consult WP:CIR.

And I most certainly have grounds for my conclusions, and I explicitly stated them. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Chairman. Per AlanS. No brainer. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly not my position. I would argue for what is increasingly becoming common usage and that would be Chair or Chairperson I would argue. I would not rely on self ascription at all. AlanS^talk 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What is "increasingly becoming common usage" is irrelevant. The actual common usage, not the trend, is what is relevant. Similarly, we usually rely on self-ascriptions in matters of gender. You've had both of these points clearly explained to you. You have absolutely made no response other than further irrelevancies, some ludicrously off-topic. In short, you are being pointlessly disruptive. Choor monster (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Chairman. Let's stick with reality. IgnorantArmies 10:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Chairman as being the most common word for the position. "-man" is similar here in usage to the German usage of "man" which simply means "a person." The German word for "Chairman" is ... "Chairman" (or "Vorsitzender" which has the masculine "r" at the end). Collect (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman, per sources and common use. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Chairman per sources and common use. The organization gets to decide what the position is called. If they say it's Chief Hobgoblin, then we'd say that. See, for example Guido van Rossum who is Benevolent Dictator For Life. --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted about 4 people in favour of chairperson. There may be a majority but nobody could conclusively argue why one term was better than the other. Therefore, chairperson or chair is the most neutral, and is more in keeping with gender neutral language. She may refer to herself as chairman (actually her official title is executive chairman), perhaps you would like to change it to that, but that doesn't mean we should use that term. We should endeavour to use terms that are relevant, and the use of gendered roles in positions of business is increasingly becoming not de riguer. Since nobody can seemingly agree, the best option is to use chairperson instead of chairman and chairwoman. This alternative pleases everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.85.183 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read some nonsense in my time here, but this is biscuit worthy. There are at least ten in favour of "chairman". This is very simple. Time to stop arguing against the majority consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Chairperson per BLP. Calling her a Chairman violates BLP by giving her a male title. "Chairperson" or "Chair" are the two most obvious and acceptable titles. MOS:ID is WP:LocalConsensus which , cannot override policy. BLP stands as the gold standard, therefore, it's obvious, she needs to be called Chair or Chairperson, not Chairman. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  No, it does not violate BLP, just because you say so. Since it is her own official term for her position, it can not violate BLP. Meanwhile, "Chair" and "Chairperson" violate WP:OR, WP:V. Choor monster (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  Um.... you think so, huh ? Perhaps you should re-read BLPSPS as you , and other seem to assert that it's ok, because the subject says so, that violates BLPSPS big time, and thus does violate BLP. Further, it's not OR to state she's a chairperson or chair, per Chairperson, further, I site this essay as well as further proof that we can state was it an obvious fact. Obvious facts are not OR per this little gem as well. I've already told you I won't roll your change back, but I could per BLP, however, in the interest of keep good faith, why not revert yourself KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  WP:BLPSPS is absolutely clear that we can use such sources for this detail. Try reading it, instead of pretending to. And it is OR to state that "Chair" or "Chairperson" is her position. If there were any coherence to your claims that it's not OR to pick a particular name/title just because the dictionary OKs it, you can start by edit-warring, and move New York Court of Appeals to New York Supreme Court. You are making a mistake by confusing "fact" with "title". Also, BLP exempts you from 3RR only for clear-cut violations, and here you've merely made a hash over niggling details, and would be blocked if you kept it up just like the Anon who breezed by. Meanwhile, you do agree with my statement that consensus has been reached, right? Just not made official. Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  KV, I'd drop this one, you are so far off the mark you should step back and do something else. And as Choor monster says, we now have a clear and abiding consensus. So please don't even consider reverting the current title she uses herself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Rambling Man, both you and Choor Monster (and I , as well ) are involved, so none of us can claim consensus at all. Leave that for an uninvolved admin. I've cited policy and even a little common sense , i.e WP:BLUE as to how we obviously can't' call a woman a chairman. In fairness, I note that even the press itself can't decide if she's a chairman or a chairwoman as well. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is obvious. I note that "obvious" is something you seem to take as very useful on WP, except when it goes against you. You have not cited policy whatsoever, you referred to it rather ineptly, as I pointed out. Common sense has nothing to do with her actual title, which is set by whatever policies the company wants to follow. Your reference to BLUE is again incompetent and inappropriate. We most certainly can call women chairmen. In Ms. Rinehart's case, a few billion dollars buys her any title she wants. That's genuine common sense. And I dissected somebody's lame attempt at applying etymology to decide this question (the other way, as it was) a few weeks ago—it's still up there—and it applies just as well here. Choor monster (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

KV - have you written Gina a letter to tell her how naughty she is for calling herself a chairman? Your position is silly. If she can, we can. And should. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, not hardly. I actually agree with Choor Monster that with all the money she has, she can call herself what she likes :). Problem being, on Wikipedia, we actually have to use what's verifiable, and right now, looking at all the links in this article, it seems the press itself can't decide either. So, because I know you don't want drama, and believe it or not, neither do I, I'll shut my trap and let others comment, and when consensus is decided by an uninvolved sysop, no problems. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly there's a case for "no idea" being applied here by some. There's a clear consensus for "chairman", the OED allows for "chairman" to be universal, the woman herself identifies as a "chairman", her company identifies her as the "executive chairman". Perhaps some people here have forgotten the basic tenet that we work on verifiable reliable sources, not someone's PC version of "truth". This is massively lame, after all, if we'd received an email on OTRS from Rinehart saying she objected, then I could see some kind of way into this debate, otherwise it's just a bunch of people pissing in the wind. Chairman is the majority, the consensus, the existing status quo, it should and must stay until new evidence is provided. Do something better folks, really (e.g. Kosh Vorlon, do as you suggested!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also verifiable what she prefers. And that trumps all other sources, with or without a few billion to spare, per WP:GNL, MOS:IDENTITY, WP:GENDER. Why this is even being argued is completely incomprehensible to me. Choor monster (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a side-comment, regarding "PC" language. In fact, WP:GNL policy does expect, in general, that we use gender neutral language. In the case of an article about a generic "chairman" or generic "chairmen", such policy would normally apply. The policy allows for exceptions, of course, and this is obviously one of them. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The drive-by edit warring by seemingly(?) random IP editors continues. I suspect protection is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (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.