Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Which is more important, GNL or PNL??

User:Thomas.W says that PNL (politically neutral language) is more important than GNL. Anyone have any thoughts on whether GNL or PNL is more important??

(For clarification, politically-neutral language contrasts with politically correct and politically incorrect.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, I do not say that, and have in fact never commented on PNL (see see this discussion on my talk page, where Georgia guy starts to make some kind of comparison, a comparison that I'm not going to get dragged into). So what Georgia guy writes above is a blatant lie. Thomas.W ^talk 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To clear up what I mean, I'm not saying Thomas is actually using the term PNL; I'm saying that Thomas considers PNL (politically neutral language) more important than GNL. For clarification on what I mean, PNL is neutral with respect to politically correct and politically incorrect language (you should know what these terms mean.) Politically correct would be using GNL all the time; politically incorrect would be considering GNL totally unimportant. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You know absolutely nothing about what I think or what my opinion about PNL is. And I want a full and unreserved apology for the blatant lie you posted above ("User:Thomas.W says that PNL (politically neutral language) is more important than GNL"). I have never said that, neither on-Wikipedia nor off-Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gender-generic man (as it says in this essay) is not GNL. I can easily conclude that you think GNL is only moderately important, and I'm trying to describe what you think is more important than GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still just an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors. It does not give you the right to edit-war over changes you make in articles. And I demand a full and unreserved apology for the lie about me that you posted here, in an attempt to get sympathy and support from other editors here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling it a lie doesn't help. What you should do is reveal a better term than PNL for me to use to describe what you think is more important than GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a blatant lie. And why would you need to describe what I think is "more important than GNL"? It's none of your business what I think about things, or what I consider more or less important than whatever else. If my editing on Wikipedia had shown any form of bias, which it doesn't, you would have a right to comment about that, but what you're doing is trying to invent some kind of bias so that you can portray yourself as a victim, which you aren't, and I'm not going to help you with that. All I have done is reprimand you for edit-warring, and for trying to present an essay as a rule, both in an edit summary to an IP and on my talk page. And I'm still waiting for the apology. Thomas.W ^talk 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Somebody other than the 2 of us please reveal your thoughts on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: I'm still waiting for an apology. Posting lies about other editors in order to get sympathy and support is not acceptable behaviour. Thomas.W ^talk 10:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize how strict I was being with describing what you said. But it's important for this discussion not to just be between the 2 of us without anyone else revealing their comments. Georgia guy (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using the term man-made as it implies made by mankind which is gender neutral.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Those term are using the word "man" as a gender-generic term. Why do children always learn that "person" and "human being" are gender-generic terms and that "man" is gender-specific?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Do they? What has that to do with anything assuming it to be true? Their teachers would be ignorant and perhaps victims to the arrogance of the political correctness movement. Please see this to understand why.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Political correctness?? Note that one very important fact about this discussion is that you're saying that "Wikipedia is not supposed to be politically correct; it's supposed to be politically neutral, which means neutral with respect to politically correct and politically incorrect". This is why I'm referring to the question as "Which is more important, GNL (gender-neutral language) or PNL (politically-neutral language)??" (If you don't like the term "politically neutral" please reveal a better term.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about you edit warring over this change and whether man-made is acceptable usage. Your efforts to put words in Thomas' mouth as well as mine falls short. Straw much? A person may be a Freshman but never a Freshperson when referring to a first year college student. The latter would be a poorly and ignorantly derived neologism. In other words, man-made is gender neutral and fine to use...it doesn't need correcting in the first place and efforts to do so may be seen as hyper-vigilant political correctness. This post is enlightening.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Read this essay very carefully. Thomas, despite having read the essay, says we don't need to follow it because it's an essay and not a policy; while some people agree with it, others don't. (Go to the section of the talk page immediately after this one that reveals an important problem relating to this fact.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thomas is correct.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There's still a question you're ignoring though. How does the edit to Swimming pool that I made that Thomas reverted violate Wikipedia policies?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Am I? Can you supply a diff apart from your last comment which poses that question in the above? This is the first time that I've seen you admit to the actual crux of the problem. Corollary question: How did Thomas' revert violate policies or guidelines?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Georgia guy: The edit as such doesn't violate the policies, but edit-warring to keep your preferred version in the article does. What you should have done, already after the first revert of the edit, was discussing it on the talk page of the article (see WP:BRD), to get support for your version. Trying to mislead the IP by pointing to an essay, as if it was a policy, isn't the right thing to do either. Thomas.W ^talk 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A good way to understand the meaning of this question is to note that it is not analogous to changing the word cat to the misspelling kat. "Cat" is spelled with a C; something we cannot change. Had I chose to edit an article by changing the everyday English word cat to kat, it would make sense to take the edit as vandalism and revert. The only thing I see Thomas's revert to my edit as consistent with is "Either following or breaking an essay (as distinct from a policy) is acceptable; please retain the first version in the article even if it breaks the essay because the essay is not a policy." Alternately, I see it as consistent with the alternate statement "Either gender-neutral language or gender-generic "man" is acceptable; please retain the version used in the first well-written version of the article", a statement that interprets GNL as a totally optional variant of English the same way American English and British English are. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Que? What has cat/kat got to do with what we're discussing? I reverted your edit on Swimming pool because a) your edit was bad English and b) there's no need to "neuter" a word that by definition already is gender-neutral. You then started a discussion on my talk page, waving WP:GNL at me as if it was a policy, and I replied there, followed by you then starting another discussion here, posting a blatant lie about me. So if don't like the way this discussion is going blame yourself, because you were the one who started it, not me. Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As for "edit warring", the real thing here is that the first edit I made was only reverted by an IP a few days after I made it. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, it was an IP, not Thomas himself, who initially didn't like my change. If only the IP had a registered account so we can know what the IP's thoughts are. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That is quite misleading as your first addition came couched with the edit summary "Gender-neutral language; feel free to improve but please don't simply revert" and the IP clearly wrote the summary ""Man made" refers to the race of Man, not a specific man, and IS gender neutral." which is correct. The next time they reverted you they left the summary "How about not just reverting. No-one cares about your gender neutral crap, "man-made" is the correct term". You didn't follow BRD and take the issue to Talk:Swimming pool as you should have done. Frankly, your change was very poor grammar and not an improvement.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Poor grammar?? If it's poor grammar, what a good Wikipedian who understands the edit would do is simply improve it rather than reverting it. I didn't really think about taking it to the talk page of Swimming pool as a better choice than taking it here; I was informed of the statement that only people interested in swimming pools would participate in revealing their thoughts. Taking the discussion here would allow any Wikipedian aware of this essay to reveal their thoughts. Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

They improved it by reverting you. The premise that if it isn't broken don't try to fix it comes to mind. What do you mean that "I was informed of the statement that only people interested in swimming pools would participate in revealing their thoughts."? <== diff please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More generally, talk pages are usually watched by people interested in the articles' subjects rather than the English variant (e.g. American, British, gender-neutral, male-centric) that is being thought of in an edit. Something I still haven't brought up yet: the main WP:MOS page already says "Use gender-neutral language..." in the area that links to this essay. Section 16.2 of the MOS needs to change its terminology to be consistent with the statement that it's just an essay. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Georgia guy: Your edit should be discussed on the talk page of the article you edited, i.e. Talk:Swimming pool, so that people interested in that article can take part in it, not here. The only reason I can see for why you try to keep the discussion here and not on the talk page of the article is that you count on getting more support for your edit here than you would get there. Which IMO is a sneaky form of canvassing. Thomas.W ^talk 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

He posted it there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, five minutes after I posted my comment here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The MOS is wrong

I've said many times that the MOS says to use GNL. However, many Wikipedians think that GNL is not important and should be used only where it can be done without causing ambiguity. Otherwise, it's best to just use generic male language. We need to change the GNL section of the MOS to saying either gender-neutral or generic male language is acceptable. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you and allegedly "many" editors don't agree with something doesn't make it "wrong". If you think the wording of MOS:GNL should change, the place to propose such a change is WT:Manual of Style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Blatant lie

"Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." This is obviously not true, it conveys the idea that traditional stereotypes are not priviliged and should not be reinforced, which is not neutral at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.73.7 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You're confusing gender-neutral language itself with the (possibly politicised) choice to systematically apply it (this confusion is a general semantics error). If I write "Police officers in Ireland are rarely authorised to carry firearms" instead of "Policemen ..." this in no way at all "conveys the idea that traditional stereotypes are not privileged and should not be reinforced"; it conveys that police officers in Ireland are rarely authorised to carry firearms. In particular, the confusion of a tool and its use should be avoided. A car sitting in your driveway is not the same thing as your choice to take it on a road trip to Vegas.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"he or she"

In a related essay, Wikipedia:Writing about women, it says:

The order in which groups are introduced—man and woman, male and female, Mr. and Mrs., husband and wife, brother and sister, ladies and gentlemen—has implications for their status, so consider alternating the order as you write.

The phrase "he or she" naturally belongs to this category. It's easy to see that "he (or she)" (that is, using the parentheses around "or she") should be avoided.

This suggests that I support that it's okay to use the singular they as long as there's no ambiguity. Any thoughts here??

Not everyone agrees about this. In many constructions, singular they (which hardly has universal acceptance) can be more confusing or awkward that "he or she". It really depends on the sentence. It's often better to rewrite to avoid any pronouns.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral maintenence template

There is no article maintenence template available along the lines of "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards on gender-neutral language". Should such a template be created? See vintage (design) for an example of where it could be applied (in that case, for overuse of the term "manmade"). 121.45.118.58 (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need such a template because WP:GNL is just an essay, so it doesn't qualify as "Wikipedia's standards" on anything, and if we had a new template for every copy-editing issue that has a MoS or other actual guideline section, we'd have hundreds and hundreds of redundant templates no one could remember. The actual guideline, at MOS:GNL, isn't very prescriptive and does not say anything about "manmade", so whether it's something that needs cleanup is subjective, not a rules matter. If an article is crappy in this regard by editorial common-sense standards (I would say that using "manmade" when we have alternative words would probably qualify), you can use {{Copy edit|for=[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language|gender-neutral language]]}}. Someone might disagree (for reasons which aren't invalid – see thread above about "mankind") and remove it, though. Your best bet is to simply rewrite the article instead of tagging it. For a tiny copy-editing issue like this, tagging it (and talking about tagging it) wastes far more time than just improving the article would take. (In this case, I did both.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language in single gendered schools

I was hoping to receive some clarification on the rationale behind not using "students" instead of "girls" when referring to a single gender academic institution. It is not out of the realm of possibility to have a gender non-binary individual at an historically single gendered school. Arosati (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

They need not be non-binary or transgender; a girls' school can conceivably admit a single male student as a special case. --jftsang 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's a girls' school they should be called 'girls'. What's the problem? It could only be - remotely - an issue if there's a boy at the school for some reason (I can't think of any reason why there should be a boy there). If there was a boy there, it would only become an issue when referring directly to him, and it would then require a short clarification: "Fred is a pupil at The Big Girls' School, but it should be noted he's a boy". And, at least for the UK (maybe different in the US) if they are at school they a PUPILS not students. The latter go to college and university, not school. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Actor vs. Actress, Part Deux

Per Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language/Archive 1#Actor vs. Actress, the consensus appeared to lean towards using "actor" over "actress" in most articles. (This discussion is 10 years old.)

Yesterday, an IP user changed "actor" to "actress" in the infobox on Violett Beane per this diff. I simply reverted it without comment. Today, it was reverted by User:IJBall as part of another edit here, with the comment "There is absolutely nothing wrong with "Actress". I reverted again, with the comment "Reverted to previous stable wording". That editor has since opened a discussion at Talk:Violett Beane#"Actress".

In researching this, I've been unable to find a clear guideline as to whether or not actress should be used for female actors. GNL implies that "actor" should be used in most cases. However, most of the articles on female actors that I have looked at since the issue came up all appear to use "actress" in both the infobox and lede sentence. I also consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, but could find no specific page on content guidelines. Has this issue been resolved elsewhere? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It's just something the snowflake generation has brought to the fore. Referring to a woman as an 'actress' is perfectly acceptable to all right-minded people. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Correction to Berean Hunter

Acthually, Berean Hunter, the term "mankind" is NOT gender-neutral, as it clearly has the letters of the word "man" in it. Where do women (or even boys and girls) fit in this word if it only has the letters of the word "man"? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is fallacious, since the word mankind pre-dates the compression of werman and wifman to man and woman, and thus pre-dates the idea that man means "male human", which it only does some of the time, anyway. However, since a zillion people do not understand this, and are apt to vent in Dunning–Kruger effect style about linguistic matters they lack the background for, it's probably more practical to replace this word in encyclopedic prose with "humanity", "humankind", "people", "peoples", "the human race", "the world population", or whatever fits in the particular sentence and its intended meaning. (Even then, some extremists will object to "human", etc., because it contains the characters man. This WP:FRINGE crew should be ignored as disruptive cranks if they show up here again.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Mankind is correct and acceptable. In no way does it imply a male of the species. 86.148.182.127 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Keeping a note of Main Page Errors discussion on "man-made"

It seems worthwhile to post here a note of the discussion over the use of "man-made" on the Main Page. Eventually the word was changed to "artificial", although I am unsure whether this really was the consensus. Personally I appreciated Swarm's discovery there of this earlier Village-Pump discussion. The consensus from that was that the "generic he" should be prohibited, but a policy to favour gender-neutral terms over "-man" as a suffix was simultaneously rejected. There is a risk here that changes in the direction of GNL get accepted piecemeal, because we can all live with an isolated piece of clear but clunky language, without there being any overall consensus that this is what we want. Jmchutchinson (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical revisionism?

It's 50 years since 1969. So are all the Apollo articles now having "manned" replaced by "crewed"? This is ridiculous: it's anachronistic, it's superfluous (no women on Apollo) and it does absolutely zero to improve any real gender issues on WP. Still, there's no article on the women selected as astronauts at this time (and then passed over for Apollo). Clarice Phelps has been deleted and salted, lest any of these pesky women scientists think they deserve any record on WP, but let's have a nonsense wording change like this and then pat ourselves on the back for righting great historical wrongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical revisionism doesn't mean "substituting a word in current usage for a synonym used at the time." Otherwise I hope you'll sound the alarms for the rampant historical revisionism going on in our articles on the Middle Ages in which we have brazenly deigned to replace Old English. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Syntax, semantics and pragmatics aren't the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what "women selected as astronauts at this time (and then passed over for Apollo)" are you talking about? The "Mercury 13" were not selected as astronauts. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

That's precisely what's wrong with this project. Worthless wording changes to wave the SJW banner, but then finding the slightest quibble over terminology to denigrate the real achievements of women. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#RfC on mass changing "maiden flight" to "first flight". – Levivich 01:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race § Hatnote to explain pronouns

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race § Hatnote to explain pronouns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

TfD on hatnote template for pronouns

Watchers of this page may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 26#Template:Multiple pronouns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)