Talk:Chair (officer)

Chairman vs. Chair

There has been a long discussion about the proper and most suitable title of this article, particularly about the use of "chair" vs. "chairman." The result of the discussion repeatedly comes out in favor of "chairman." The history of this discussion is in the archived talk page, which probably should be reinstated here. It's not a good thing to archive the discussions, then to change all the "chairman" references to "chair." Lou Sander (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed etymology

I restored properly cited material about "chair" and "man." If editors dispute it, the solution is not to remove it, but to cite different material and mention the difference between the two. This was also discussed in the newly-archived material from this page. The bottom line is that if you want to assert that chairman is somehow not gender-neutral, you need to cite some sources for your claim, and juxtapose them with the properly-cited sources that say that it is gender-neutral. Lou Sander (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed this again, because multiple dictionaries give the etymology as exactly what you would expect - i.e. that "man" derives from "man" meaning male person. In the face of these official etymologies I dispute that a book on rules of procedure is a reliable source for etymology. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The material you removed is eminently verifiable. I understand (but disagree with) your strongly-held personal point of view that the cited material is "wrong," and that an authoritative book in the field somehow isn't a reliable source. Unfortunately, strongly-held personal points of view are disallowed from appearing in Wikipedia. If you want to include material on etymology, PLEASE provide some references, and PLEASE do not remove properly-sourced material just because you disagree with it. There is quite a bit of discussion on this in the Archive, right at the end. Lou Sander (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is not clear to me that a book on parliamentary procedure is a reliable source for etymology. Can you offer any evidence that it is, such as perhaps the etymology reference cited by the book?

Your edit gave the 'manus' etymology as if it were the 'correct' etymology, whereas in fact a large number of dictionaries (which unquestionably ARE reliable as etymology sources) give the etymology of chairman as being the same as the suffix "man". I would be happy with listing the 'manus' etymology as an alternative if it can be shown that it is a view held by etymologists and not merely a parliamentary procedure author. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I also looked at the archive, which completely backs up my view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it may help if you actually cite these large number of dictionaries. Just as a start. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Try The American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, the online edition of the current Merriam-Webster dictionary, Word Origins by Anatoly Liberman (page 88), Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (page 235), and wordorigins.org. I've more if you need them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Andrew c might be suggesting that you provide some proper inline references to support your claims. I also think that all of us realize that from your point of view, the Riddick book isn't a reliable source. But it certainly IS a reliable source according to Wikipedia's content guidelines. IMHO it's not a good practice to substitute one's personal feelings for good, hard, references that conform to WP:RS. Lou Sander (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop telling me what my personal feelings are. They irrelevant to the discussion and to you.

My "point of view" is also not relevant to the reliability of Riddick. Riddick is outside his area of expertise when talking about etymology, and given the huge number of references that disagree with him from people with etymological expertise his opinion has to be considered a minority one. I have already added inline references. I assume that means you no longer have any objections to the content as it stands? DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Riddick and Zimmerman are reliable sources, regardless of DJ's unsubstantiated personal opinions. DJ has removed the clear, informative, plainly stated material from them, and replaced it with a paraphrase that has the flavor of original research. This is not proper editing. He/she has added a Wikilink to the Riddick book. This is good editing and improves the article. The strength of the claim about "etymologists" is weak. The citation is an opinionated blog with a questionable reference to OED, and hardly a reliable source. I intend to restore the Riddick and Zimmerman material, leave the Wikilink to Riddick, and delete the poorly sourced stuff. I'll first leave some time for comment, of course. (I will disregard further opinions that Riddick and Zimmerman are not reliable sources. This stuff is discussed to death in the archive.) Good Cop (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which of the dictionaries I quoted do you consider to be an "unreliable source"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He might be talking about the wordorigins blog. Also, you very much need to stop removing well-cited material from this article. Also, your pronouncement about "the real etymology" is original research by you. Please stop. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Good Cop's proposal. Cleome (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)