Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language

Most Wikipedians don't agree with this essay. The majority of Wikipeidans support (and this appears to be the consensus) that either gender-neutral language or generic man is acceptable and that you must retain whichever was used in the first well-written version of the article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no empiric evidence about what Wikipedians agree or disagree with concerning this essay. Also claims that there are ever a "first well-written version" of an article, or that that an article "must be maintained in a certain version" flies in the very face of what Wikipedia is. An article may have been "well written" in 2005 but many things have changed in various manual of styles since then and no article is "locked in stone" at any time. As to the essay itself it clearly it clearly supplements and enhances the Wikipedia:Manual of Style's Gender-neutral language subsection. MarnetteD|Talk 00:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section says:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

But hardly any Wikipedian thinks this rule is important. Most Wikipedians go by this rule:

Either gender-neutral language or generic man/he is acceptable; retain the first variant used in a well-written version of the article. I would personally support GNL, but there are too many Wikipedians who don't think it's important. Georgia guy (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide evidence regarding what "most Wikipedians" believe you are just using that term to say "this is what I believe." MarnetteD|Talk 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This especially includes just about all Wikipedians whose main interest is chess, including User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Frungi. Also check out a discussion at Talk:Eiffel Tower. Georgia guy (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting my views. I never said that and it is not what I think. I've represented my views elsewhere and at length, so will not be repeating here. p.s. Since the OP has clearly demonstrated strong opinions on the topic in past threads, this MfD seems to be WP:POINTy, which is example of disruptive editing. Perhaps the OP should therefore be warned or even sanctioned accordingly. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what chess has to do with anything. I think we need to add WP:CANVASS to to the other problems with this MFD. MarnetteD|Talk 01:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Wikipedians say that it's standard in the chess word to use gender-generic he when referring to a chess player, as in "White moved his king to e4", rather than "The White king moved to e4." Georgia guy (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself only, your example is out of context, but other things being equal, you're correct. ("The white king moved to e4" is poor writing for chess articles. The chessboard is not a Ouija board--the pieces do not move mysteriously by themselves. [With exception there used to be a stand-alone product where the computer made its moves not by crane but by shifting below-the-board magnets. It was eery and funny to watch--especially castling!]) Depending on context, the sentence could be written different ways without "he" pronoun, and even more succinctly too: "White played 55.Ke4." (Context is king. [Excuse pun!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: How did captures work? The mental image I currently have for en passant is also rather creepy... Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So many years ago to remember specifically; but for sure, the captured piece was first dragged off the square, then to an area off the board perimeter. Saw one being demo'd in the hallway off the tmt room once, players collected to watch, one wondered if they were watching the game, or the mechanics. (Me thinks the latter!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rename but this shouldn't be a guideline... it should be clear that it is just someone's opinion and many people disagree. Shii (tock) 05:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And are Wikipedians with this opinion common enough?? I'm sure Wikipedians who disagree are more common, and that there also needs to be an essay reflecting the point of view of people who disagree. Georgia guy (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right... it should be renamed so that the title of the page doesn't sound like policy. Shii (tock) 15:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with "Gender-neutral language"? How does that sound like policy? Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the essay carefully and for me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's poorly written and vague and confused -- not simple & clear like the GN MOS. (E.g. the example re player makes no sense. Have never seen "taking up [a] position" in any article -- what does it mean?! It's informal expression not encyclopedic text. And this seems to be tip-toeing around as well as working against what the article is trying to promote [italic is mine]: "constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement". Also I disagree the "he or she" construction is "neutral": the essay advocates the construction: "Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency". for gender equality. [Right. Men first. Women relegated to second place. Always.] With "he" always occuring before "she", can anyone tell me the said construct never satisfies "might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotype"!? So here we have a "solution" perpetuating the same problem it professes to correct. Great solution! Besides being cumbersome.) How could (or would) anyone consider writing a "counterpoint" essay when the first essay is so vague and poorly defined and confused?! Perhaps the essay is worthless; but, that's IMO, and there's no requirement re worthiness for essays is there?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose userfication – This essay is written in a way that is somewhat subversive. It attempts to posit an opinion as fact, and attempts to subvert good English usage. Whilst I can accept the writer of this essay's opinion as an opinion, I cannot accept it in the Wikipedia space where it could be misconstrued as having any weight of consensus behind it. Remove the essay from the Wikipedia space, and allow the user to keep it in their userspace as representative of their own opinion. Allow the MoS to handle matters of style. RGloucester — ☎ 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a sensible essay that has evolved with input from many editors, in over 100 edits over more than 7 years. It's not a guideline, but is a good opinion essay. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It provides sensible guidance on how the guideline can be implemented in a way that is consistent with consensus. If necessary, the text should be changed slightly to make this clear. For instance, I would suggest removing the link to Spivak pronoun, which might be read as implying that the use of Spivak pronouns in articles is consistent with consensus. If anything is seen as being inconsistent with consensus, in particular prescribing any particular solution that is contrary to the relevant guideline, this should be changed after normal discussion, applying the same conventions as for guideline changes. If there is indeed consensus that "generic he" is a suitable alternative, this could also be given due weight as an alternative, but this should be discussed like any potentially controversial change to a guideline, and should be made dependent on prior change to WP:MOS, which currently states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". That would need to be discussed at WT:MOS, as would removal of the link to this essay at WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language. --Boson (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essay has been in widespread use for many years, and espouses principles which have gone without objection (such as shown in the MOS) for just as long. If consensus is different, we need to show that first through a discussion on the Essay and MOS talk pages. But consensus is evident as the substance of the essay has not changed for a long time, and it has been linked prominently from many places without objection. --Jayron 32 17:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dicklyon's comments above. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boson, largely, and others. The guidance in the essay accurately reflects the guidance in the Manual of Style. Perhaps the essay should mention more prominently that styles should be consistent and should not be changed without consensus, but that is not rationale for deletion. Not having a counter-essay is also not a good rationale for deletion - Georgia guy is free to write one if he so chooses, and WikiProject Chess can create their own supplement if they like. Most Wikipedians agree that one should avoid the use of constructions like "most Wikipedians" without providing any kind of statistics to support that claim. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually support WP:GNL, but I feel that there are too many Wikipedians who don't (far from 0%.) A counter-essay would be useful if written by someone who can actually explain why some Wikipedians prefer to ignore WP:GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but your feeling seems to be contradicted by comments in this thread and in the one at WT:MOS. Consensus is obviously against your gut feeling at this time. If you've observed that editors are not following the guidance at WP:GNL, my guess is it's because those editors are not aware of it, rather than deliberately ignoring it. We have many editors whose first language is not English, and may be more familiar with a language where gendered pronouns are much more widespread, or indeed may be from a culture where masculine is the dominant pronoun set. You can simply correct them, or point them to the essay. Consensus on the Manual of Style pages develops slowly and through collaboration by a very large number of editors; it's unlikely to change suddenly. A discussion on this board is unlikely to be seen by all that many editors - if you'd like to try for a wider discussion on it, I'd suggest bringing it up at one of the WP:Village Pump boards. But if you're going to, I suggest withdrawing this first, in good faith. Ivanvector (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an essay WP:GNL is excellent. It does a very good job of summing up the views of a large segment of the Wikipedia community. However, I would agree that there is another large segment of the community that disagrees with those views, and it would be quite appropriate for those editors to write a "contra-essay" expressing their views (that's what essays are for). Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/ It's an essay. Don't like it? Write your own, and link them together thru links in a "See also" section. Question, though: how come instead of the {{Essay}} tag it carries the stronger {{Supplement}} tag, and who decides that? Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW. Why is this discussion still open? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.