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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.222.203.135 (talk) at 00:11, 8 April 2017 (→‎Oppose: the most important thing in policy-pages-language is clarity, and the purpose of policy-pages is to *document* sidewide consensus; this proposal will hurt clarity AND is not yet sitewide consensus, so it is premature; suggest A/B testing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This proposal is to adopt a policy for gender neutral language to become 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)[reply]

Gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

The English Wikipedia community is committed to providing a welcoming environment. Unless there is a specific reasonable need to the contrary, policy, guideline and help pages are to be written in gender neutral language. The use of gendered pronouns and other language that makes assertions about gender should be avoided. This policy applies to the language of official policy, guideline and help pages. It does not apply to any talk pages or user discussion venues, even if their purpose is to provide help to users, and it does not attempt to regulate the language used in those venues by individual editors.

In practical terms, existing statements which rely on phrases such as "he or she" may be replaced by use of "they" in its modern singular form, however to keep the context of the sentence may require a reordering of phrases, or a rewrite to remain clear. Where reasonable to do so, sentences should be rewritten to avoid unnecessary pronouns altogether.

Example from Wikipedia:Banning policy

"An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames he or she has used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years."

  • Avoid. This makes an unwarranted assumption that the editor is identifiable as male or female and can feel unwelcoming for non-binary readers and contributors.

"An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames they have used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years."

  • Better. This uses the "singular they" type of construction which, although it has a long history in English, is a construction that some native speakers find uncomfortable. Readers whose first language is not English may find such language more difficult to understand because of the apparent conflict between "the editor" (singular) and "their" (more often plural).

"Appeals by e-mail must specify your Wikipedia username and any other usernames you have used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years."

  • Better. As this part of policy explains a procedure of how banned editors can appeal, and the only action that can be taken is by a banned editor, the section can be recast in the second person. This gives a direct readable style and avoids unnecessary gendered pronouns.

"An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years."

  • Best. In many cases it is possible to recast the original sentence to avoid using pronouns entirely, without losing meaning.
Useful sources
  • Singular they
  • Proposed Wikimedia Commons policy, Commons:Use of gender neutral language
  • American Dialect Society (9 January 2016). "2015 Word of the Year is singular "they"". americandialect.org. Retrieved 6 April 2017.
  • Easton, Lauren (24 March 2017). "Making a case for a singular 'they'". The Definitive Source. Associated Press. Retrieved 6 April 2017.
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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[reply]
  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. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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. RileyBugzYell 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  12. Support Gender-neutral language is a good rule for Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  22. Support - per I JethroBT Ijon (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. Oppose This is not needed. --Tarage (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. 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 WordsmithTalk to me 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
    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. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ah, nevermind. Will unstrike previous vote.[reply]
  11. 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)[reply]
  12. Oppose. We are not the language police. KMF (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per JamesBWatson, who concisely explains why this is a horrible idea. Lepricavark (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15. 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 (TALKCONT) 23:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    MOS is irrelevant as this does not apply to articles. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is a policy proposal? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to the opening line "This proposal is to adopt a policy". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think that that argument is invalid because of WP:IAR. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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". RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sounds good. Do you want to create an alternate proposal proposing the agreed wording, Fæ? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll set it up in a sandbox tomorrow. It's an implementation choice, but not a content change, so the RfA itself is not materially affected. --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RfC_to_adopt_a_default_gender_neutral_style_for_policy,_guidelines_and_help_pages&oldid=774371918"