Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

This proposal is to add to policy so that gender neutral language becomes a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines. It will make Wikipedia a more welcoming environment for all genders, including non-binary readers and contributors who may feel excluded by avoidable emphasis on gendered words and phrases, such as "he or she". The proposal does not apply to articles, any type of discussion page, or individual users referring to themselves or others. -- Fæ (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Amended to cater for the suggestion at #Guideline, policy or addition? to add to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content, with the example and detail remaining in an essay, rather than creating a stand alone policy. No substantive content for this RfC has been changed. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes about voting

Please consider breaking out longer discussions into the discussion section. If you are unsure if your question or choice of words may cause offence, consider asking separately at WikiProject LGBT studies first. This is not a vote or discussion about transgender or nonbinary rights. See Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+ for some off-wiki channels if you have concerns or want to discuss any related issues with LGBT+ friendly volunteers.

Support

1. As proposer. --Fæ (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Support - Even without broader discriminatory implications, he/she is so exceedingly stylistically awkward it makes me cringe. With those boarder implications, there's just no reason not to. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Support - I support the use of gender-neutral language wherever possible, especially as I'm agender and prefer singular they pronouns for myself. Funcrunch (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - I typically use the singular They anyway, unless someone has explicitly stated their preferred gender-based nomenclature. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC) That's right, I know long words

   Ah, but why use a long word when an apposite diminutive synonym will suffice? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

5. Support with the comment that the singular 'they' can be confusing to native English speakers as well as others. The pronoun-free construction used in the "best" example should be used in every case where it is feasible. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Support I did not see the need for this proposal until I read the initial opposing comment below, and now I fully realize the importance of this proposal in creating an environment that is welcoming to all readers and editors, one that truly fosters collaborative editing between users who treat each other with respect and good faith, as opposed to an environment that caters to a small group of loud squatters who conflate hostility with dissent and free expression. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Support this does no one any harm at all and could potentially make some small amount of people feel significantly more welcomed. Absolutely no reason not to (though I like the singular they!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Support with the proviso that singular pronouns ought to be avoided where a better alternative is available. Mduvekot (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
9. Weak support - Changing to gender neutral language is definitely a good thing, and could help us retain a tiny bit more editors. The reason why my support is "slightly weak" is discussed in my comments. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC) (addition: I think that I would fully support this if it were implemented as a guideline) (edit: After the change to guideline with an essay, I fully support this proposal)
10. Support Opposes nrs. 1 and 2 show why such a proposal is warranted. Being inclusive and respectful in project & policy wording is simply the right thing to do. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
11. Support As someone who lightly (by which I mean I won't be offended by your pronoun choice) identifies as agender, this would be very welcome. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

    For what it's worth, I agree that this might not need to be an entire policy, and could probably fit somewhere else. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

12. Support Gender-neutral language is a good rule for Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
13. Support Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
14. Support For general policy/guideline/help pages - in those pages, we are all, in fact, addressing everyone, without regard to whomever they are. (The first sentence of the proposal is not needed but I won't oppose on that basis.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
15. Support with changes I think the "singular they"--although superior to singular he--is generally inferior to "she or he", "he or she" or "s/he". The problem with "they" is that it can confuse the reader into thinking two or more people are being spoken about. Someone who didn't know my gender here on WIkipedia referred to me as "they", and for a while I was puzzled about who else in addition to me was being mentioned.
    I read an interesting article long ago proposing a novel solution: "he or she" becomes "ze"; "his or her" becomes "zer". Obviously it did not catch on, but it has an elegance I find admirable. Apparently, people are still talking about it: [1], Vanderbilt tried it?. Also mentioned in table of our article Third-person_pronoun, here under non-traditional pronouns. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
16. Support – Really, I don't see this as having a big impact. It makes sense to make the language in policies/guidelines more inclusive to non-binary contributors. There is some room for confusion with the singular they, but notice that the proposal actually recognizes that potential and agrees that it should be avoided in favor of avoiding pronouns entirely. The proposal also explicitly does not force the style upon anyone's contributions and communications outside of writing policies and guidelines. Overall, I think that this is a well-formed proposal that addresses points of opposition without being unnecessarily complicated. Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
17. I have no issues with this being done. Assuming proper grammar is maintained, I think that this can probably be done without an RfC. Though perhaps the opposition here proves otherwise. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 5:21 pm, Today (UTC−5)
18. Support – Any opportunity to be inclusive should be considered. This is not only for the health of people marginalized by gender binary language, but helps shift the culture for the health of the whole community. We are better and stronger together. Jackiekoerner (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
19. Support. Sensible change to the style we use to write about this project and how everyone can participate in it. The current gendered conventions are needlessly exclusive, and the proposed solution -- to use second person, singular they, or reframe the sentence so that pronouns are not needed -- is sound. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
20. One of our problems is policy bloat, this is a suggestion that could actually shorten policy by debloating it. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
21. Support. Anything we can do to be more inclusive will make a difference. It can be hurtful to misgender someone, and it's awkward to try and guess what pronouns they use. Let's be a shining example of gender inclusivity! = paul2520 23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
22. Support - per I JethroBT Ijon (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
23. Support - May not have a big impact, but seems like a move in the right direction. "He or she" is awkward and doesn't include everyone. The suggestions presented above seem like good guidance and should be relatively uncontroversial. Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
24. Strong Support - Huge step in the right direction. Inclusivity should be a very high priority. It isn't exactly on the top of the list of requirements for a wiki, but it is part of having a welcoming editing environment. I really fail to see why this has any problems. Tamwin (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
25. Support - Not fond of singular they, but even less of he or she and the other stilted alternatives. I prefer to avoid when possible. I will also propose 'e (pronounce like the second half of he or she) as a genderless singular pronoun for English, though I don't expect much support. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
26. Support - This is the right thing to do. It will help present a welcoming editing environment to those for whom this is an important issue. Other editors are unlikely to notice as the proposal covers only a small minority of pages and only a few sentences within those pages. The proposal is flexible, acknowledges that some editors are uncomfortable with "singular they" constructions, and makes it clear that the end result should not result in clunky language. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
27. Support - Like others have said, it's not really something you notice if you're not looking for it. A proposal that has a positive effect on a relatively small group of people and doesn't affect the rest is great in my book. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 14:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
28. Support I am not a fan of gender-neutral language. However, I believe it is essential for Wikipedia because of anonymity and the impossibility (even when self-identified) of knowing for sure if a user is male or female. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
29. Support Support updated proposal. I think it is a minimally invasive update to our policy on policies and guidelines that can be used to set a principle that Wikipedia strives for neutral language in terms of demographic groups in the future. I also think a smaller change such as that will be much easier to implement than a brand new policy, and reduces the risk for disruption. I'm sympathetic to the no-language-policing opposes still, but I think having it in the content section will allow a descriptive update to our policies that is common sense and can be implemented easily. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
30. Support It does not affect others but helps those, who do not use he or she as pronouns. Using they is also shorter than writing he or she. --Freddy2001 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
31. Support About time. Ckoerner (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
32. Support - Important to have gender neutral language so all feel included. "They" is a better choice all around. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
33. Support -- I’ve been trying to do this already while writing here, and it isn’t that difficult, though for a grammarian the devil is sometimes in the details (as I am not fond of the singular “they”). I’ve had to write non-gendered language in the real world for decades, so it’s high time to be putting it into policy, at least as a goal. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
34. Support - Doesn't hurt anyone and could help some editors feel more welcomed. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
35. Language in our policies and guidelines should lean toward the inclusive—why not? Like Tony, I, too am "sympathetic to the no-language-policing opposes." But as Tony also mentions, this is "a minimally invasive update." Why not set an example confirming that Wikipedia is modern and progressive. El_C 10:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
36. Support purely because singular "they" is a lot less clumsy than constant "he or she", "his or her", etc. The number of traditionalists fighting against singular "they" continues to decline, and here in Australia at least, singular "they" is very common. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
37. Support Like David Tornheim, I think "she or he" or "he or she" is superior to "they", but that may just be the internalized voices of my English teachers. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
38. Support - Wikipedia should strive to be as welcoming and inclusive as possible for all people, and this is a small, simple step in that direction. I think a distinction needs to be made, too, between potential alienation as a result of language that denies one's existence (i.e. the use of “he or she” as if that covered all people) and potential alienation as a result of language that challenges one's worldview (i.e. language that allows for the existence of more than two genders). One of those is much greater problem than the other. -- Irn (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I do not support altering our text to the proposed doublethink new-language at the behest of a small minority of non-conformers who perceive micro-aggressions from standard wording. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
2. This is not needed and in my opinion will just open up more areas for nonsense requests. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   Oppose not because I don't like gender neutral language. I actually actively try to use it myself. I'm opposing because this would be next to impossible to enforce and has the potential to cause a lot of disruption. I can see this devolving into edit-warring of gender-neutrality, which is the exact last thing this project needs. The biological solution is the simplest solution: as people who are more aware of this become of age to edit Wikipedia, our language will follow the common usage, which tends to be gender-neutral among younger people. As people who were less exposed to this idea move off of Wikipedia for whatever reason, then the usage shall decrease as well. We don't need a policy on this. WP:GNG isn't even a policy! TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose proscribing language. For all the reasons Jordan B. Peterson so eloquently provides. Moreover, since Wikipedia in general, and the English Wikipedia in particular, is highly international in nature, requiring this kind of nonstandard language may actually confuse a lot of people for whom English is not their native tongue. Kleuske (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose This is not needed. --Tarage (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Agree with Kleuske. Policies and guidelines are meant to be clear statements of rules and accepted practice for everyone in the community to follow. Thus, the first priority should be ease of understanding. Forcing a specific writing style is overreach. If adopted, I can see this easily becoming a can of worms or an excuse for some users to put the letter of the policy before the spirit of the policy. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose Yes we have editors that identify as non-binary, however, altering the text to non-binary alternatives can be seen as off-putting for those that do not identify similarly. I would say that the reverse of Fae's policy should be adopted. In fact, we do this anyway. Anyone can choose to identify their gender on Wikipedia (via preferences), those that do not are usually not called by either gender unless they specifically state they prefer this. Oppose as un-needed at this time.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I'm not opposed to gender-neutral language, but this is instruction creep. {{sofixit}} applies. Maybe add a line to the policy policy which says "language should be gender neutral" - it might be possible to do this without any serious objection - and then write an essay for the examples, variations, explanations, proscriptions, etc. But we don't need a whole gender language policy page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose. We don't need to have mandates requiring our policies to use or not use certain languages. In addition, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is no way that internal Wikipedia documents using "he or she" could be deemed "oppressive" as noted below. That's not what oppression means. The purpose of the targeted documents is not to be welcoming (with the notable exception of our welcome templates), but rather to inform people of our policies and processes as clearly as possible. Singular they pronouns are more likely to be more confusing to non-native speakers (and even some native speakers of older generations) than the widely accepted practice in standard written English, so this proposal would be a net negative for our purposes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose No! No! No! We do not need to attempt to dictate to editors what kind of English they use. There is far too much instruction creep on Wikipedia anyway, without starting to move into this area too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

   Weak oppose - Although I agree with the intentions, it seems that this is definitely not policy worthy. I would be ok with maybe a sentence in some guideline saying that the most gender-neutral language in polices, guidelines, etc., is preferred. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ah, nevermind. Will unstrike previous vote.

10. Oppose I'm sure this is well meaning, but proscribing language in this way could well cause more problems than it solves. In fact what is this meant to solve in the first place? I can't see the use of "he or she" will be offensive to gender-fluid contributors, unless they've got very strange sensibilities. The article Singular they discusses many of the problems associated with this approach. The real risk of alienation of contributors is a risk, at having non-standard English thrusted upon them could change their commitment to this project. Honestly if people have a problem with "he or she" maybe the problem exists within themselves. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
11. Oppose. We are not the language police. KMF (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
12. Oppose per JamesBWatson, who concisely explains why this is a horrible idea. Lepricavark (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
13. Strong oppose, language should not be proscribed in this manner, even for the best-meaning of reasons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Clarity should be our focus. I like singular they, mainly because it is more concise (one word instead of three). Genderless he, would be even more concise (less characters). However, he or she is probably least confusing to all readers. "Sentences should be rewritten to avoid unnecessary pronouns altogether" would lead to awkward constructions. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
15. WP:NOTYET/WP:TOOSOON for this far-reaching change to be enacted, because there is no settled consensus as yet. WP:CONLEVEL: Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus... Furthermore, clarity of policy-language is of paramount importance, welcomingness of policy-language is about 9th place on the priority-list methinks. WP:NOTPART: ...the content of these pages is controlled by community-wide consensus, and the style should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors. I appreciate this RfC is an attempt to generate and/or confirm community-wide consensus, but it actually refutes that premise. The oppose-section is full of people that believe this is a bad meta-policy. Moreover, the proposal itself is filled with internally-contradictory options: it deprecates *some* valid grammatical constructions such as the traditional he and the later-vintage construction of he or she but does not specify a *specific single* kind of all-purpose replacement (rewrite to use singular they OR rewrite to use second person you OR rewrite to eliminate all pronouns). I personally use the singular they, on usertalk and article-talk, but would I wanna write all the policy-pages using the singular they? Fuck no. I don't force the use of singular they in mainspace either, and for the same reason: the point of mainspace is to summarize the what the RS have said on a topic as clearly and correctly as possible, and the point of policy-pages is to summarize what the actual current best-practices are as clearly and correctly as possible. Using a controlled vocabulary is a bad idea for policy-pages, because it gets in the way of the purpose thereof: to accurately reflect widely-held project consensus. Which brings us back to the main point here: it is NOT yet the widely-held project consensus, that avoiding the use of "he or she" will in fact be a best-practice in terms of making the policy-pages as clearly explanatory as possible. I can guarantee from personal experience, that some people fail to understand singular they construction. I can state without hesitation that eliding pronouns altogether is also gonna cause confusion. It is very likely impossible to rewrite all the policy-pages in the second person, because policy-pages are vastly more complicated than a simple list of thou-shalt-and-thou-shalt-not. (To be clear I would *support* a massive rewrite of policy-pages to *make* them that simple... but I just don't believe the WP:PAG currently *are* that simple.) My suggestion to the authors and supporters of this proposal, is that they^(heh) work diligently over the next few months trying to find the portions of policy-pages which are toughest to write up in a gender-neutral fashion without any loss of clarity, and that they *measure* this by doing A/B testing of the standard-english-version versus the gender-neutral-version, using a randomly-selected subset of newbie ESL editors. If and when there is no statistically significant differential in how well the toughest thorniest least-easy to alter portions of policy-pages are correctly understood, by beginning wikipedians, who are not native speakers, then I can definitely see myself supporting. But not yet, more effort is needed before this proposed multi-policy-changeset can even be close to ready-for-implementation. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    With respect, I don't see how the proposal is "internally contradictory" at all. The proposal merely suggests three viable alternatives to using the problematic and honestly rather clunky phrase "he or she" and ranks the alternatives in order of preference. Among the three, singular they is the least preferable precisely for the concerns you mention. Sometimes, however, it's just convenient. As far as the impact of the proposal goes, it surely isn't as big as "rewrite all the policy-pages". If you look at, say, Wikipedia:Civility, the wide majority of it already conforms to the proposed guidelines, only using the phrase "he or she" (or "him or her") thrice or so. This strikes me as an indication that most policy pages, in fact, already do consider the spirit of this proposal best practice. I envision that it really wouldn't take much effort at all to tweak a few pronouns here and there. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    I must have missed the part where we were nominating gender neutral language for adminship, but... given the events of the last week, it might be a possibility. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    (Ahem. WP:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan closed as successful :-) The point is, this is an attempt to change meta-policy, aka the policy-which-applies-to-all-other-policies. It is too soon for that to happen, hence the linkage to TOOSOON, and the time is not yet ripe for that to happen, hence NOTYET. Meta-policy should only be altered when #1) there is a really solid consensus with very few dissenters and #2) the proponents have unified themselves around a straightforward single proposal. Neither of those is the case at present; plenty of people oppose the meta-policy that all policy-pages MUST be made gender-neutral (since that can interfere with clarity among other reasons), and even people that are in favor of the meta-policy change *disagree about specifics* (singular-they versus second-person-you versus omit-pronouns-entirely). This is not even counting options NOT mentioned explicitly, such as s/he the contraction, quasi-historical yo, as well as stuff like ze/co/ou/thon/etc. If clarity is the goal, he or she is likely ideal, despite being "awkward" and not third-gender-inclusive. Nobody is gonna be *confused* by the sentences containing that stock he or she type of verbiage. By contrast, if enwiki policy-pages start using an ad hoc mixture of pronoun-alternatives, there is guaranteed to be confusion. That's what I mean by internally contradictory: any specific sentence of a policy-page can only use one technique (he-or-she/(s)he/they/you/omit/ze/thon), but the proposal suggests LOTS of options, which means our policy-pages will lose consistency, whereas at present all the policy-pages consistently utilize he or she (when that phrasing MOST CLEARLY and efficiently conveys the meaning of the policy-page in question) that I'm aware of. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

16. Oppose I think gender neutral language should be encouraged but not written into policy. AniMate 00:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
17. Oppose this being policy. Attempting to "avoid using pronouns entirely" would lead to a whole lot of awkward and hard-to-follow instructional pages, especially so for those for whom English is not a first language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Starblind: please note the "in many cases" part of the statement. Each idea should only be applied where it makes sense. Tamwin (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

18. Oppose. I'd be happy to support the singular they version, not only because it's more inclusive but also because it's less cumbersome than "he or she". But I disagree with the implication of the rest of it that the second-person and the passive actorless versions are even better; they're not. And there are also issues of WP:CREEP here; this can be dealt with on a page-by-page basis through the normal process of editing and discussion without making a mandate out of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
19. Oppose. It is not the place of policy to dictate such things. To the extent that the proposal would impose large-scale changes, it is undesirable, and if indeed "the proposal covers only a small minority of pages and only a few sentences within those pages", as noted in a support vote, then why is a policy needed at all? This can and should be discussed in a case by case basis. The versions touted by this proposal as the two best (second person and pronoun-shunning) can become very clunky very fast. And inaccurate to boot: no it's not my username that must be sent, I'm not the banned editor! I personally heavily favour they, and where it doesn't sound good, the generic he or generic she -- which are still perfectly serviceable, so long as one does not go out of one's way to take issue with them. The one point where I agree with the proposal is that he or she is terrible -- unless the subject is "Bob or Alice". — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
20. Oppose not something we need a policy on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
    

    @Rich Farmbrough: It will now be implemented as a guideline, with an essay describing the best, better, etc. stuff accompanying it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

21. Oppose Don't see the point in legislating such a tiny thing. But singular they is in my personal opinion the most efficient phrasing. Jakob (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
22. oppose. The "better" examples are better than the initial statement, agreed, we should have them, but this is the wrong reason. We should aim for those because we want policy to blear short and clear, gender, whatever it is, is irrelevant. Also, the general idea - to treat others with respect - is already embodied in policy, enough in my opinion, e.g., in the Five Pillars. We do not need good faith edits to be blasted as "against policy". Finally, we do not need to go such effort to avoid all perceived offences as to turn the language arid, boring and un-welcoming to everyone (and the supposedly "best" example is on that way. It is correct, but it feels like written by a lawyer, not for a wide audience) - Nabla (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
23. Oppose. The language has developed to identify sex where possible: we use "he" and "she" when we know. The language and its users know that "he" (instead of the neutered "it") is also used when the sex is unknown. OK, some people don't like it, but Wikipedia is a publisher of information; it is not an agency of change whose mission is to right great wrongs. Glrx (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I agree with Kleuske. Our policy pages need to be focused on clarity and not on the language they use. When editing a policy page, I (and likely many others) don't want to have to be thinking about whether or not my wording is gender-neutral enough. I (and definitely many others) want to be thinking about whether the policy is clear enough. — Gestrid (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
25. Oppose. The purpose of WP is not to reform the way the world uses language. People here come from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultural traditions, and write in styles leaned from their society, reading and education. When they discuss things on WP pages , they should use whatever style is clear and natural and helps communication. There is no version of these pronouns that eveyone considers preferable, so there is no reason for forcing people into one prescribed variant. My own use nowadays is very close to that being suggested here, but if something else should come naturally, I don't usually go back and change it. In some way, its like EGNVAR--I try to respond in the style of the discussion so as not to look singular. This is different than if I were writing political tracts--I would then try to use the most acceptable language to those I was supporting, and if they were people who use the current vogue, I would try to do so also. But WP is not tied to any particular persuasion. In writing WP rules in particular, the problem is to be clear and unambiguous. Most of our rules are failures in this respect, full of hidden assumptions and conventions. That's what we need to work on. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Hi @DGG:, dropping in as we've discussed some LGBT+ related stuff in real life, and so I have a better idea of your context. Could you take another look at the proposed change please, you appear to have misunderstood something about scope and intent. It does not apply in any way to discussions between editors, nor does it attempt any reform or promotion, just adopt where reasonable to do so established and well regarded guidelines that the AP and many other organizations have published, and consider publishing industry best practice for modern English usage. I agree that "WP is not tied to any particular persuasion", and my understanding of making that work is to make effort to be welcoming to everybody, including our valued nonbinary or genderqueer identified readers and contributors, which from my view is worth a, very minor, transitional 'discomfort' in changing the odd easily avoidable gendered pronoun in our policies for a few of us dinosaurs and old fashioned grammarians. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    (I'm not DGG) Fæ, is there anything in current policy that will prevent you to change "the odd easily avoidable gendered pronoun"? - Nabla (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    See the discussion below, the question already came up. Basically without this being supported by guidelines, it will be the same long off putting, and all too easily offensive, argument every time. What is being proposed is already a publishing world English standard, which in other contexts such as BLP guidelines are sources for style choices made with hardly any debate. I honestly expected this to be no big deal. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

26. Oppose until the point where we have created an effective gender-neutral personal pronoun; 'they,' of course, lacking the precision required in this project. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 10:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
27. Oppose—just as we can't right great wrongs in our article editing, we can't try to do so in our policy editing either. By its very nature, Wikipedia has to follow, not lead. Imzadi 1979 → 10:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    @Imzadi1979: Then lets follow. I know that Wikipedia is typically 'behind the times' in terms of reporting on things that have already happened, but why not be 'with' the times on this topic, rather than falling behind everyone else first? Sam Walton (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

28. Oppose Newspeak is around enough at this point, but saying that we should not offend people who are "not binary" is a tad beyond reasonable. Unless the topic of a sentence is specifically about a person's sexuality, it is not offensive to use ordinary English language in the normal use of "he or she" to be inclusive. If we really wish to be "inclusive" we should bar the use of any "gendered words" from any language at all. An interesting thought, I suggest. Collect (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

• I propose this RFC be closed and redone. The question is not a neutral question and is a leading one. The RFC should be "Should Wikipedia adapt gender neutral terms?" The way it's written now, already assumes people want to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  The other issue is whether or not this is a proposal for a policy or to adjust something in the MOS. Its not clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  MOS is irrelevant as this does not apply to articles. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  So this is a policy proposal? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Refer to the opening line "This proposal is to adopt a policy". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, I just wanted to be clear because to me this seems to not fit well with the type of policies that we consider to be policy rather than a guideline. I don't mean to try to downplay how important this is for many people, but it seems to be that this isn't of the level that we normally consider for policy proposals. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I think that is basically the same thing as is being put now. The current RfC asks "to adopt?" and gives a suggested policy which is only intended for policy and help documents, not Wikipedia in general. I cannot think of an alternative meaningful gender neutral policy, for policy documents, that would be different in any significant way from the current one proposed. I'd be happy to see alternatives put forward, but the one that evolved here from many viewpoints, is entirely based on strong external standards on the English language, such as the Associated Press guidelines for journalists. So no, I see no benefit in closing this RfC, apart from disrupting it because it is "nonsense", rather than letting it run its course. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think that there should be some rule allowing RfCs on policy, guidelines, etc. changing non-gender neutral language to neutral language should be allowed to close after, say, 4 days when the consensus is in support, and 7 days when consensus seems to be wavering or is oppose. This would allow for pages to quickly change non-neutral language without causing the edit warring that this proposal could cause. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  The intention of this RfC is for there to be one big RfC, and we then avoid separate consensus discussions for making these rather small changes to a few pronouns that exist here or there in policy or help documents. We are following normal RfC rules, rather than expecting special rules because of the subject matter, which itself would be controversial. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Train2104: Could you give an example where changing to gender neutral pronouns in an existing policy or help document might open a can of worms? As any change would only be on a reasonable basis, rewriting if needed, so that precisely same meaning of policy is preserved, I'm having difficulty imagining this hypothetical problem ever becoming a real one. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I was referring to the opposite case. Say a document was not updated to follow this proposal, whether by accident or on purpose. Then, someone accused of not complying with said document could easily use the argument "you have an explicit policy saying such documents should be written with gender neutral pronouns, this one is not, I don't identify with either gender, therefore this document doesn't apply to me". Yes, I am aware that second part of that hypothetical argument can be made today, but it's far easier to shoot it down in the absence of policy. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not only has that never happened, yet based on your own argument it is the status quo, it never will happen just because this policy might get agreed. The nonbinary people that have contacted me about this policy are not interested in being confrontational about it, and even if they were, this hypothetical argument is too daft odd to hold any water. Thanks for the clarification, I understand your opposition built on this type of reasoning but it seems entirely a fiction to my eyes and a poor reason to avoid making Wikipedia feel welcoming for all contributors. --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I think that that argument is invalid because of WP:IAR. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally can't stand "he or she" just because it's plain bad writing, and prefer the "singular they" immensely. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why the concerns raised in this RFC cannot be dealt with by the normal BRD cycle of most policy pages? Be bold and fix the offensive language. If you are reverted, discuss. --Izno (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The real experiences of our editors having comments like some of the opposes in this RfC. The attitudes of genderism may not be a majority any more, but such people still think it's okay to publicly deny the existence or importance of nonbinary people, and believe they are doing a good thing by fighting off "nonsense" (oppose vote #2) or doublethinking non-conformists (oppose vote #1). Having a policy gives all editors a reason to go ahead and make our policies more welcoming for everyone, including women, trans and genderqueer people who feel an avoidable emphasis on gender is oppressive. Without this policy, every change is a risk of having to argue the same case, principles and be required to educate anyone that turns up who may have regressive views. Let's avoid having all that off putting drama that would guarantee that these changes will not happen until all the dinosaurs (including me) have left the project or died (oppose vote #3), which maybe could happen in 25 years or so. --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not entirely a fair characterization of my oppose. What I jokingly call the biological solution works both ways: more young people come on and the language of the project adapts accordingly naturally. Language is fluid and not prescriptive, and any proposal like this is bound to fail in actual implementation. Regulating hate speech is one thing, but something as basic to any language as pronouns is next to impossible to actually do. It creates the resentment that you seem to be seeing in opposes #1 and #2. Its hard enough to enforce a pronoun policy when documents are being drafted by one person, much less an encyclopedia that is by its very nature collaborative. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Implementation seems easy from where I'm sitting, there's actually hardly any editing needed to roll out changes to a couple of pronouns and do a bit of recasting of sentences on some policy pages. However this same way of thinking, which aligns with oppose #7, confuses taking the editorial step of reducing unnecessary gendered text, with somehow rejecting the majority male or female genders. It's more inclusive not less. By the way, making this proposal and having this discussion did not "create the resentment" of some opposes, those folks already had those views about gender before I typed anything on a page, so I think it is fair to say that people are responsible for their own opinions, and indeed they are responsible if they choose to publish views which may cause hurtful offence or disparage others. Not me, I did not even know these editors existed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"more young people come on and the language of the project adapts accordingly naturally" Isn't that what's happening here? Times are changing and a proposal has been put forth to change language. Opposing something changing because "it will change one day anyway" seems odd to me. Sam Walton (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I would never really call a prescriptive rule a natural evolution of language! Like I'm commenting below, I'd be fine with adding something like this to the existing policy policy, and then let individual editors make the changes as needed when they see something come up. That's much more organic and would be easier to maintain. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's actually pretty hard to separate the "natural" from the "organic" when considering the evolution of language. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:JamesBWatson... Am I missing something, or do we not already attempt to dictate to editors what kind of English they use in basically every respect but this? I could link to the alphabet soup, but I don't know that that's really necessary for someone whose been here almost seven years. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I really cannot imagine what you mean by that. Really. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Taken from WP:MOS: "The Manual of Style (...) is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I know this sounds weird coming from someone who !voted oppose, but I would like to remind everyone to assume good faith when reading through this RfC, including when reading this reminder about AGF. Remember to assume the best intentions from your fellow editors. An RfC like this one will likely cause a lot of division if we don't remember to AGF. — Gestrid (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Guideline, policy or addition?

Though I called this a policy, it is very short and could be added as a subsection to an existing policy or guideline, if we decide which one. Does anyone have some ideas on if this would be a good fit as part of an existing policy or guideline? I did surf around thinking about this when drafting, but nothing popped up as suitable, the closest being the MOS, but that is for articles not policy writing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support some sort addition to an existing policy that would explain why people make the changes and give it grounding in policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I think that it would be best to either do what Tony suggested above, or just create a new MOS section titled "In other namespaces". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• NB: my suggested location would be in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content. Keep it short and sweet. I think you'd also get more buy in that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  That's a good fit, thanks. I'm not committed to this being stand alone, so unless anyone objects, I'm happy to consider the #Content section to be a suitable place to host this additional bit of policy, with a suitable shortcut. --Fæ (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Why not say "Use gender-neutral wording. Although it is preferred to use the pronoun "they" over "he or she", avoiding the use of unnecessary pronouns altogether is preferable." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  That could work. Also something like Use inclusive language: the English Wikipedia has users from a variety of different groups, and the language of policies should strive to be inclusive and gender-neutral as much as is possible. Use of concise language that avoids gender is best. For more see WP:ESSAYONPRONOUNS. I'm a fan of leaving the language broad so it can be used in principle for other issues in the future. Having an essay explaining the better/best examples above would be a good idea as well, though I wouldn't want it on the actual policy page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Do you want to create an alternate proposal proposing the agreed wording, Fæ? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} |

_Edits 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll set it up in a sandbox tomorrow. It's an implementation choice, but not a content change, so the RfC itself is not materially affected. --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have split the minimum policy component from the rest of the details, so that the example, practicalities and detailed explanation is in an essay rather than expanding policy. I think this works, comments welcome. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note that WP:GUIDELINE is a policy, not a guideline. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  Technically a procedural policy, so slightly different, I think, from a normal policy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)