Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)

Craftsman/craftsperson

This article's appearance on the main page yesterday generated controversy over the eleventh word in the article: craftsperson. 16 of the 58 edits following this article's appearance have been to change this word, either from craftsperson to craftsman, or back again. A review of the edits in question, with edit summaries in parentheses, follows:

1. 137.25.104.127: craftsperson -> craftsman (typo)
2. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (Not a typo; discussed at Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)/GA1)
3. 2601:381:4000:190:6487:c131:92e8:f349: craftsperson -> craftsman (no edit summary)
4. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (See previous edit summary and Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)/GA1)
5. 71.191.47.98: craftsperson -> craftsman (Fixed grammar)
6. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (rollback)
7. 2001:569:fac4:7800:d455:8760:15a2:35a8: craftsperson -> craftsman (no edit summary)
8. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (rollback)
9. Kelisi: craftsperson -> craftsman (>>>Reverted PC — absolutely ludicrous example! As if nobody can tell Doubleday's sex from the pronouns or the picture. And by the way, WP is not PC, and no axe-grinding is allowed.)
10. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (No axe-grinding, thanks; the article sailed through both GA and FA with that word structure.)
11. 31.52.160.160: craftsperson -> craftsman (According to that rationale, any GA or FA article could never be edited again. These statuses do not stop continuous improvement, and craftsperson to craftsman is an improvement. The latter term is, in any case, used elsewhere in the article.)
12. Serial Number 54129: craftsman -> craftsperson (Get ye back to the 1950s.)
13. 31.52.160.160: craftsperson -> craftsman (Craftsman, + ref to that effect)
14. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (Reference (which is also inconsistently formatted) adds nothing, since the wording is stylistic, and Oddy 2006 could be used for that point instead)
15. Kelisi: craftsperson -> craftsman (The original wording was "craftsman", and changing it to the unword "craftsperson" adds nothing stylistically. My original edit reverted an uncalled-for mangling of the article to restore it to its original non-PC glory.)
16. Usernameunique: craftsman -> craftsperson (The original wording was also worded by me (see here), and as said in my last edit summary, there are two problems with the reference that you restored. Let's leave the article stable for now and discuss on the talk page.)

In terms of the article's history, craftsman was used when I created the article, and changed to craftsperson at J Milburn's suggestion during the good article review. The word was not mentioned during either of the featured article candidacies (1; 2). During these latter two reviews, the contributors were Squeamish Ossifrage, Casliber, J Milburn, KJP1, Tony1, FunkMonk, Wehwalt, Ceoil, and Serial Number 54129.

Personally, if I tend to think "craftsperson" is a slightly better word than "craftsman," I don't think the difference is that substantial, especially with someone who was clearly an artisan and clearly a man. "Craftsperson" does have the benefit, however, of recognizing that using gendered terms can get awkward (do we term female artisans "craftswomen"? What about non-binary artisans?), and that the substance of the word is a what a person did, not what their gender was. I don't see it so much as an issue of political correctness (and on that note, Kelisi, what is the Wikipedia policy that you seem to be referencing? I searched, but could not find it) as much as a nod to the reality that using gendered terms can lead to situations with no easy resolutions. As Kelisi said, "As if nobody can tell Doubleday's sex from the pronouns or the picture." This is true, but it seems to make the opposite point of what was intended: we don't need the word "craftsman" to make clear that Doubleday was a man, and so little if anything is lost by using "craftsperson" instead. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Forgot to ping Kelisi. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. I confess I don't fully understand some of what Kelisi says in the edit summaries (perhaps he could expand on it here?), though I do want to challenge his claim that craftsperson is an "unword". The OED lists it with the definition "A person engaged in handicraft; (spec. as a deliberately non-sexist term for) a craftsman or craftswoman." It has quotations going as far back as 1920. (Incidentally, the OED recognises unword only as an obsolete, rare verb meaning "To deprive of words; to make speechless". If anyone here is making up words...) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What do the, admittedly dated, sources say? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the relevant alphabet soup is WP:GNL. In reviewing, I generally won't comment on such language choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that some editors stuck up for gender-neutral language. Tony (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In the 'alphabet soup' we have the following: "Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman")." I'll add further comments tomorrow - it's getting late here. 31.52.160.160 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)