Talk:Chair (officer)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Chairperson" is now at Talk:Chairperson/Old history. There is also interesting page history at Chairman (version 2) and talk:Chairman (version 2). Graham87 11:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The latter history is now at Chairman and Talk:Chairman after this discussion. Graham87 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Graham: I've went ahead and moved it to Chair (executive) just because I wanted to give this page history renewed life in the mainspace. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Cool, thanks. Graham87 10:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Chairman (old) Red Slash 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think these pages ought not be moved around. It has made tracing the history almost impossible. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. Why is the history split up? Was there a cut-and-paste move? Jonathunder (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's very confusing. What didn't the history just stay with the articles as they were moved? --В²C ☎ 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There were several articles and talk pages, and it seems some were merged. After the latest move, I began trying to trace the history so that we could list the histories chronologically. But then someone made another move, so I gave up, and now yet another. I've objected to the latest at User talk:DannyS712. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@SarahSV: Can you email me a copy of all the deleted redirects? I'll make a graph. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and Born2cycle: Actually nevermind. Sorry for the double ping, but there were freaking cut and paste moves involved in this. I give up now. I say we delete Talk:Chairman and move Talk:Chairman (old) back there without leaving a redirect. That's how it was before Slash Red moved it. That'll sort most everything out. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The literal talk page of this article is older than the article itself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I support deleting the current Talk:Chairman since it is brand new, but I want to understand why Red Slash did that. Why not delete it, and move Talk:Chairman (old) back to Talk:Chairman? What's wrong with a redirect (like Chairman now is) having a talk page with lots of history? --В²C ☎ 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The move discussed here should be reverted in my view. It was at that point that I gave up trying to trace the history. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also discussion at User talk:Cuchullain#Chairperson_page_history from May 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's just WP:IAR and do it. SarahSV you have my full support to do whatever you think will get this train back onto a sensible track. Nothing make sense now, and consensus can change. Let's go back to how it used to be with the implausible redirects that were matched properly with their talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

MJL, I've been active here as an editor, so I don't want to use the tools, and the situation is so complex, I'd have to spend days looking at the histories. There are more than just the above. When you look at the deletion logs, you find people moving things around, going back years, for no obvious reason. We have regular page moves, merges, and cut-and-paste moves. Whatever we do, let's not rush it in case we make it worse. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS

Does anyone know if the usage of chair/-man/-woman/-person is specifically discussed in the MOS somewhere? IIRC, the usual rule in articles such as those on companies is to use the title which that company uses, whichever it is. However, I can't find any documentation of this. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that "Chair", "Chairman", and "Chairwoman" are distinct titles, and therefore it is inaccurate to use a title other than what the company uses. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's basically what I thought. Should something about that be added to WP:GNL? BilCat (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is clear consensus against Chair (officer), mostly on natural-disambiguation grounds. There's some interest in moving the page back to Chairman, but that suggestion didn't receive sufficient discussion for me to be able to evaluate consensus; if there's a serious desire to revisit the 2019 RM, feel free to follow 65.92.247.226's advice and start a new discussion focused solely on that issue. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Chairperson → Chair (officer) – It seems to me if we're not going to use chairman, then we ought to adopt the increasingly frequent alternative Chair. "Chairperson" just doesn't read or sound natural, although it is used, chair (office(r)/position etc.) would appear to be a more encyclopedic title than chairperson. The previous move did suggest that it would be worth discussing a more suitable title. and enough time has passed since then to reflect on a better title for the page. Also open to suggestions. Tærkast (Discuss) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. A chair is a piece of furniture. I would support moving the article to the most common term, which is "Chairman", but if that isn't acceptable to others, then the gender neutral term "Chairperson" is what should be used for the title. "Chairperson" is also preferable for the title over "Chair (officer)" due to WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION reasons. Injecting a parenthetical disambiguator into the title when one isn't needed is bad article titling. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Chairman --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I too would support Chairman, which until fairly recently was always used for both men and women, but if that's opposed then better to use the common "Chairperson" than an unneccessarily disambiguated term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Chairman --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I disagree that "Chair (officer)" is bad article titling or an unnecessarily disambiguate term. If Chair is more frequently used, as an alternative to Chairman, than Chairperson, why shouldn't it be so? A simple Google search is enough to show that Chair is far more common than Chairperson, so should WP:COMMONNAME not prevail as well? It all appears to be how you interpret the policy on article titles. Chairperson reads and sounds unnatural. If people want to move it back to chairman, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to that but Chairperson ought not to be the title. --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, WP:COMMONNAME does not prevail over WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. And if we strictly want to go by the most common name for the article title, then the article should be moved to Chairman. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it comes down to how one wants to interpret and apply the policies pertaining to article titles. As I've said, I politely disagree with the statement that "Chair (officer)" or other such alternative is bad article titling, however, Wikipedia certainly isn't worth getting all worked up over. Let the chips fall where they may. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• While "Chairman" is by far the best choice, there is nothing wrong with "Chair (officer)." No one uses what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that "chairman" is the best choice of title; however, it's completely false that no one uses "chairperson". And interestingly, according to the Google Ngrams, "chairperson" is actually more used than "chairwoman".[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said that "Chairperson" isn't used, in fact, I know the South African government often uses the title chairperson, however, it is far less common than Chair or indeed chairman. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said that? Then what did Fyunck(click) mean when he said that "No one uses what we have now."? Regardless, the current title is a good use of natural disambiguation so we dont' have to resort to a parenthetical disambiguator. But I would still prefer moving the article to the most common term, which is "Chairman". Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I should have been more precise rather than an overall message. It is hardly ever used. In my dealings with people no one uses it. It's Chairman or sometimes simply Chair. Certainly Chairperson is used more than Chairwoman. In the last discussion I thought you were on the side of Chair (officer) rather than Chairperson? My memory could be wrong and we all can change our minds upon reflection of the evidence. But I would go with Chairman also. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I was. But in the years that have followed that previous discussion, I have become much more of a proponent of using natural disambiguation in article titles. "Chairperson" might not be used very much, but it is still quite recognizable as a gender-neutral term for "chairman". I would still prefer "Chairman" as the title, but "Chairperson" is a preferable title to me than "Chair (disambiguator)". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In my dealings it's used a lot but more significantly in a previous discussion when I dug through Google New hits there was usage for men holding the role in a large number of English speaking countries but notably the only hit for US usage was a student newspaper. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: while both 'Chair' and 'Chairperson' are WP:COMMONNAMEs, WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION makes 'Chairperson' a better article title than 'Chair (officer)'. Also oppose a move to 'Chairman' per the extensive reasoning in the previous RM that moved the article from 'Chairman' to its current title. I don't see anything that has changed since then that would justify moving it back. GreenComputer (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Companies, parliamentary bodies etc by and large either use chair or chairman, we shouldn't be using an article title that doesn't reflect general usage. It seems to me the opposition is more for seemingly cosmetic reasons than anything else, based on one particular section of a general policy page. There is more than one criteria for determining an article's title. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• oppose WP:NATURALDAB -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Commnet if someone wants to move it to "chairman" I believe that a new move request should be opened, as people uninterested in the difference beteen "Chair" and "Chairperson" may be interested in the difference between "Chairperson" and "Chariman"; as there are different issues involved in the different new page names -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and strongly oppose "Chairman" per above and my contribution to previous discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, mild preference for Chairman Chairperson sounds odd and isn't used commonly. Chairman, per previous discussion is still the most common term. However, it is considered gendered so Chairperson was invented. In contextual speech I think "Chair" is better than Chairperson but I agree with the concerns related to natural disambiguation thus for the article title I prefer chairperson but would not suggest changing references to chair or chairman to chairperson. While I prefer chairman, I understand that some people feel moving to gender neutral terms and chairperson does do that hence I can understand why it makes sense for the article title. Springee (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2022 (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.

Requested move 16 June 2024

Chairperson → Chairman – "Chairperson" has almost negligible usage compared to "Chairman" [2]. This page should be titled "Chairman" which is the indisputable common name of this article unless another term surpasses it in future. Besides, per WP:NATURALNESS, we should be using the term that readers are most likely to search for, which per Google trends [3] is also chairman, with "chairperson" again having almost negligible searches in comparison. Lastly, the term "chairman" is gender-neutral which you can see in the Oxford Dictionary definition. PadFoot2008 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging @Rreagan007, @SergeWoodzing, @Fyunck(click), @TaerkastUA, @Springee, @Netoholic, @Srnec, @Abote2, @Yair rand, @Amakuru, @MrClog, @Pudeo, and others. PadFoot2008 14:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Chair (officer). When talking about the generic title (as opposed to a specific chairman or chairwoman), the most usual and gender neutral term in 2024 is simply chair. Since that's ambiguous, we append a disambiguator, as we would with many many other topics. Using the relatively rarer term chairperson is IMHO nowhere near as good as using that common name, as I said in the previous RMs. If we can't finally rally around that sensible title, the I guess the proposal to go back to chairman is marginally better than the obscure chairperson, but I'd much prefer chair.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support. "Chairperson" doesn't see anything resembling common usage. O.N.R. ^(talk) 15:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  This argument is actually flawed, because the term chairman isn't WP:PRECISE in describing the topic of this article. A chairman is (generally speaking) a chair of an organisation who's male. As such, because of the male-dominated world we live in, that's the term that appears most often in sources. I would have no problem describing a male chair as a chairman. But this article isn't just about that, it's about women who occupy that role top, sometimes called a chairwoman. As such, the name chosen should be *the most common that accurately describes the scope*, not just the most common vaguely related term. And chair dominates chairperson by a wide margin, hence why I favour it as the best option available to us.[4]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Amakuru, there are two things I would like to mention here. First of all, there are five main criteria that determine an article title. One of them is 'naturalness', or the title that readers are most likely to search for, which is obviously "chairman". There is no reason to suggest that the term "chairman" does not cover the scope of this entire article. Besides WP:PRECISION is something completely different, and tells to not be more precise than necessary or alternatively be precise when there are multiple articles with same name. Secondly, the "-man" prefix in compound nouns is generally gender-neutral and refers to males and females alike. Similar to how tiger or lion refers to both the the entire species regardless of gender, or sometimes specifically a male of the species. PadFoot2008 17:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  In you saying that "A chairman is (generally speaking) a chair of an organisation who's male" I don't know where you get that. Chairman is used for both males and females in my circles... as is chair. Chairperson I haven't heard in years. Then again I only hear "fireman" when describing both sexes. It just depends on the job. The terms mailman, postman, and mail-carrier are all common for that occupation. But with chairman, we also say things like "the chairmanship is open" for this company. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support per @Old Naval Rooftops A gendered term is more common, we're not here to right great wrongs. Killuminator (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Chairperson seemed to be a fad that had limited appeal. It's usually chairman or chair today. Even when this got moved to chairperson it was not a common term. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia and its article naming is not the forum where feminism and gender equality are to be pushed through against policy, albeit worthy causes. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Chairman.

Weak Support Chairman Revised —В²C ☎ 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support Chair (officer) per Amakuru. Chairman IS commonly used, but only when the Chair is a man. Even when they’re a man, Chair is commonly used. Chairman in the generic sense is virtually unused in 2024. It’s an unacceptable title. —В²C ☎ 20:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Chairman in the generic sense is virtually unused in 2024", What in the world do you mean? What's your source for that? "Chairperson" has negligible usage compared to "chairman". See Google trends here [5]. PadFoot2008 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Really? Because I just did a search for "Chairman Susan" (just picking a random female name) and found numerous examples of chairman being used with a female name. Same with Rebecca, Ann, and Tiffany (even excluding uses of Tiffany as a last name). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Chairman is still more used than I realized and is thus not unacceptable. But I still think Chair (officer) is a much better and less controversial title. —В²C ☎ 20:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - "chairman" is exactly as gender-neutral as "chairperson", but far more commonly-used even when referring to women in that position. -- Netoholic @ 11:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - "Chairperson" was a fad that never really took off. Women who chair committees, boards, etc are quite often referred to as Chairman. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose chairman, it was just a fad from the 1900s. Chairperson was a fad from the 1970s. [6]. The current term is “chair”. Support Chair (officer). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  The graph this user has linked compares "chauvinism" and "chairperson". Like seriously? That's just low. This is the correct graph [7] and you can see "chairman" being used pretty commonly even in the late 1700s, and usage even before that. PadFoot2008 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Chair (officer) - Can we find a term that is at least acceptable to all so we don't have a constant series of RfCs regarding the name? I do think chairman would be correct per COMMONNAME but I also think if we were to use it every 6 months there would be a new proposal to change the name. Chairman is not gendered by definition but is often viewed as gendered. Since the objective seems to be to find a truly general neutral term chair (officer) is probably the best option since it likely would do better than chairperson. That said, I'm somewhat torn because chairperson is clear in what we are talking about. If you read the word chairperson you would likely understand it to be the same as chariman or chairwoman or chair (officer). However, if you read "Chair" with nothing else it may not be clear we are talking about the position vs the furniture. This is one of those cases where I can can think of a good argument for 3 of the 4 possible options. At this point I would suggest finding the one that would be most stable. Springee (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - chairman is, by far, is most common term used for the position. This would correct the title to fall in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALNESS. "Chairman" is also, in fact, already a gender-neutral term as both men and woman use the title "Chairman". Even the term "Chair" would be way better than "Chairperson", but I don't agree with "Chair" as it's just not as popular as "Chairman". – Handoto (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Strong" irritation (comment): Could we please just give our opinions as *support" or "oppose"? The "strong" and "weak" stuff only lends an atmospjere of ridicule to all this, and votes are not counted accordingly anyway. Please! Whether you are strong or weak makes no difference here. Here, we are all the same. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)