Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

MOS:IDENTITY - "She fathered a child"

The suggestion in MOS:IDENTITY that "she fathered a child" should be replaced by a gender-neutral version "she became a parent" is absurd. If jarring text is to be avoided, it's the pronoun that needs to be changed or removed, not the biological verb changed to a legal verb. If the guideline is to require the current gender in pronouns, the pronoun needs to be removed, rather than the verb neutered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again... a one-size-fits-all "rule" is a bad idea here... a lot depends on context. In a bio article about a trans-gender person, the issue of his/her gender identification presumably has been explained early in the article (preferably in the lead). If not, it should be. Once the issue of the gender identification has been explained, subsequent gendered sentences such as "she fathered a child" will no longer be confusing for the reader... because the reader will already have been informed of the background behind the statement. In articles on other topics, such a sentence may indeed cause confusion... that's when re-writing the sentence to avoid the pronouns is helpful. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes if an example seems too rigid, providing an additional one can show that the rule has more than one way of being implemented. Do you think adding something like "Change 'he hid the burn mark on his breasts' to 'he hid the burn mark on his chest'"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that runs into the same fundamental problem; we shouldn't be suggesting reducing clarity to avoid superficial apparent contradictions at all. If the writing is clear, there is nothing particularly remarkable about a trans woman fathering a child or a trans man giving birth. I'd suggest taking out the example entirely and simply saying something like "Avoid confusing constructions by providing context as necessary."--Trystan (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Men (males) have breasts, also. I don't even seen anything jarring about the sentence "He hid the burn mark on his breasts," although it might depend on context.

@Trystan: I see your point. Perhaps an example relating to the phrase "her wife" might be in order, in that we would need to explain whether she was presenting as male at the time, or whether it was a homosexual relationship. (In this context, "wife" should not be neutered, as the wife's sexual identity is not in question.) In most of the English-speaking world, homosexual marriages are still notable, as are transitions, and we should avoid bald phrases such as "her wife" without explanation, but should explain the phrase, rather than neutering it. (I am not always intending "neutering" as pejorative; it seems the best term for applying gender-neutral language even when it seems the best thing to do.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the example helps some editors figure out that we're WP:NOTHERE to over-emphasize biology, and to remind other editors that this tendency is occasionally a problem in the relevant articles. "She fathered a child" is pointlessly focused on the physical, biological mechanics of sexual intercourse. "She had a child" might be misinterpreted as the subject spending nine months pregnant, especially if readers skip the explanation elsewhere (surely nobody here believes that all readers read every word...). "She became a parent" provides the actual facts without confusing anyone, without misleading readers who didn't notice the whole "this is a trans person" stuff, and without focusing on genitalia.

Of course, there are many other (and often better) ways to handle this, such as a sentence under a section heading like ==Personal life== that says "She is divorced and has two sons", which is exactly the sort of thing that we'd say in most biographies anyway. But when the birth of the child is relevant to the notability narrative, rather than a minor detail to be appended to the end of the article, then the slightly vague "She became a parent" is definitely preferable to the "insert Tab A into Slot B" statement behind "She fathered a child". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But "she fathered a child" isn't all that confusing once the reader has been informed that the "she" who is the subject of the sentence is a trans-gender person. It's not like that statement is going to appear outside of the trans-person's bio. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't confusing if and only if the reader has actually read the whole article, which is (unfortunately) not a reasonable assumption.

Additionally, as I said, there are two separate reasons to avoid this language:

1. It may confuse some readers (=those that either didn't read or didn't understand the earlier information about trans status).
2. It emphasizes the person's genitalia, which is something that trans people (and also many cisgendered people) find offensive.[1][2]

Even if you believe that nobody will be confused, the focus in that phrasing is still on the fact that the subject possessed a penis at the time of conception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to prefer "fathered"/"is the father of" to "...parent..." in an article about a trans person except to highlight physical mechanics or social role, which would be unnecessary outside of the "occasional exceptions" the MOS allows. Indeed, it would arguably be wp:undue, if the sources only consider "A is B's parent" important and not details of how "[trans woman A] used her sperm to become the father of B with an egg from C". Hence, I think the guideline is reasonable. Removing it would also (re)open the door to "[post-transition trans woman A] is the [=fills the social, and if adoption is involved possibly also the legal, role of] mother of two children", unless one added a new guideline that references to parentage must not only detail the fe/maleness of the actors involved but must also be based on the mechanics of sexual intercourse and genetics (delegitimizing parents who adopt, use donor eggs, etc).
The phrase has been discussed since at least 2007 (see Archive 92), and the wording has been in the MOS off-and-on since at least 2013 (search the archives for "fathered"), because individual discussions like this one tend to see a handful of participants conclude the wording is good/bad only for the next discussion to conclude the opposite. For example, it looks like slightly more than half of the six people here don't find "she fathered a child" jarring/confusing/to-be-avoided, but the archives are full of people who do. After the RFCs which are being discussed above have concluded, perhaps we should have an RFC on this. The most recent iteration was added as a result of a subthread of the Village Pump RFC on Jenner by User:SMcCandlish, who may want to comment. -sche (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

the issue is with the phrase is the verb fathered. Where would we even use "he fathered" ? Obama has two daughters he fathered with Michelle? Gingrich fathered two daughters with his first wife? Prince Philip fathered four children with Queen Elisabeth? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the usage would be rare... however, I could see the term being appropriate in cases where someone sired a child, but had little subsequent contact with that child (ie where it might be inappropriate to call the person a "parent").

This all comes down to allowing article writers to choose the terminology they think is best (not what we think is best)... balancing: a) what is said in the sources, and b) the expressed desires of the subject and c) the unique circumstances of a specific subject's life. All three considerations need to be considered when figuring out how to present information about the subject and what terms to use. The reality is that no matter what "rules" we come up with, we are going to have to make exceptions to those rules... because the actual people who are the subjects of our articles rarely fit into neat little boxes with clear labels. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a real-live example: Deirdre_McCloskey#Personal life has the sentence, summarizing her autobiographical book, "It is an account of her growing recognition (while a boy and man) of her female identity, and her transition—both surgical and social—into a woman (including her reluctant divorce from her wife)." In context, it's perfectly clear, and I don't think it needs "fixing". There will be readers who will be discombobulated because the sentence does not reveal the timeline of divorce vis-a-vis transition, under the false idea that both divorce and transition are single-point-in-time events. That level of detail is, for us, UNDUE. Choor monster (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• By contrast, the article Caitlyn Jenner reads as if a woman won Olympic gold medals in men's track events. Some editors have removed all pronouns to avoid confusion, but this creates a clumsy sounding article. Why can't we keep it simple and use the identity of the person at the time of the events we describe? This is exactly how Wikipedia handles[name changes], and few people seem to be bothered by that. The fact that we make this so controversial indicates that we're not as open minded as we pretend to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs)

Because, among other reasons, that's actually less simple.

I don't follow you. How does using trans individuals' preferred pronouns indicate that we're less open minded? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Canute(?). Keep it simple, and so you keep it good. When necessary, avoid gender-specific pronouns, maybe use neutral 'they'? (Much easier in e.g. Estonian and such languages without gender-spec. pronouns.) Besides, in addition to being very confusing (good point there about Caitlin), policy of using pronouns of relevant person's last known choice of gender identity is in blatant contradiction with neutral point of view policy, emphasizing thus mostly one person's PoV - they have, of course, every right to that, but, is Wikipedia correct place for that? Bit similar to writing article based on original reseach, without good references. It's a bit tall analogy, true, I hope you catch my meaning. And, besides, they might change their mind again... Analogy with (other) name-changing issues is very good and should be taken seriously into consideration and hopefully into changing MoS about gender or non-gender pronouns. It's as good to write about trans-man that she was born, or [name] was born as female, as it's about Marilyn that she was born Norma.BirgittaMTh (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding commas to "the [so and so] show" type of sentence

As seen here, here, here, and here, an editor (Cebr1979) insists on adding commas to sentences such as "Marty Saybrooke is a fictional character from the American daytime drama, One Life to Live." My argument is that such sentences should not have the comma there. This was also stated in a different discussion, where others weighed in. Opinions from editors/watchers of this guideline and talk page would be much appreciated for sorting out this grammar aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: SMcCandlish helped out with this matter at Talk:Marty Saybrooke#Improper comma usage. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just how the English language is. A comma needs to be before the name. Ex:

• Jim had supper with his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
• This is my dog, Bingo.
• Phyllis Summers is a fictional character from the American CBS daytime soap opera, The Young and the Restless.

Cebr1979 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: The difference between the phrases above is that the first two are complete sentences before the comma where the third is not. In the first "his parents" and "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" are the same thing. In the second "my dog" and "Bingo" are the same thing. In the third "the American CBS daytime soap opera" describes "The Young and the Restless". I'm sure someone who knows grammar better than I can talk about the names of those things, but that's the difference.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's just not true at all! "his parents" describes his relationship to Mr. & Mrs. Smith. "my dog" describes what Bingo is... just like "American CBS daytime soap opera" does for The Young and the Restless. Cebr1979 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between "This is my oldest dog, Bingo", where both "my oldest dog" and "Bingo" uniquely refer to the entity in question, so "Bingo" is semantically parenthetical, and "This is my dog Bingo", when the speaker has more than one dog, so "my dog" is not sufficient and only the full phrase "my dog Bingo" effects the reference. In the second case a comma is not needed in modern English which is more tolerant of stacked nouns than it used to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 and Peter coxhead are right, and Cebr1979 is wrong. The comma marks off a parenthetical phrase. A parenthetical phrase is one that can be removed and the sentence still means the same thing. If you remove the parenthetical phrase in Cebr1979's first two examples you're left with "Jim had supper with his parents" and "this is my dog", which retain the same meaning. But if you remove the parenthetical phrase in the third example you're left with "Phyllis Summers is a fictional character from the American CBS daytime soap opera", which only means the same thing if there's only one American CBS daytime soap opera. Therefore, "The Young and the Restless" is not a parenthetical phrase, is not the same as the other two examples, and doesn't require a comma. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Further, in "This is my dog Bingo" you can't tell whether to use a comma without more context. If someone says, "This is my dog Bingo and this is my dog Rover", then commas would be wrong since deleting the names doesn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, working it through, I can see that the no-comma versions of the soap-opera sentences are formally grammatical, but to me they read oddly. If the commas are considered not acceptable, then I would recommend rewording in such a way that they are, because reading too much text in a row without punctuation is confusing. How about "... a fictional character from One Life to Live, an American daytime drama"?

That solution has the added advantage of separating the wikilinks, consecutive wikilinks being another source of parsing difficulties for the reader. --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewording so that the sentence uses an appositive does seem clearer in that particular example. That isn't always going to be the case, though. In the other example linked, I would prefer "The 2009 sitcom Cougar Town explored..." to "Cougar Town, a 2009 sitcom, explored...".--Trystan (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Trovatore, yes, as you may have seen at Talk:Marty Saybrooke#Improper comma usage, SMcCandlish opted to reword. But as pointed out by SMcCandlish, it's not certain that rewording will definitively stop Cebr1979 (or some other editor) from incorrect comma usage in these or similar cases even in the face of overwhelming evidence of being wrong. If Cebr1979 were to acknowledge that he is wrong on this matter and/or that he won't be adding any more incorrect comma usages, then okay; but it's unlikely that he will, especially given his tempestuous history with me, and his tendency to see things as a winning matter. I did not bring this discussion here to win anything; I brought it here so that he and others can understand why these type of comma usages should be avoided. Despite what Cebr1979 may think, I don't want to escalate this matter to WP:ANI. I also don't see why we need to reword these articles simply because he or someone else wants to place a comma incorrectly. I personally don't find these sentences confusing because they lack a comma; they can obviously be confusing if they cause a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about a "sea of blue" as a "wall of text". Well, maybe not exactly a wall in this case, but a monotone block of text with a lot of signifiers at the same syntactic "level" and nothing to indicate how they are to be broken up. If you see lots of words in a row and you can't start forming your mental parse tree until you've actually decoded the words for their meaning, then there's a problem. It's not an insoluble problem, not if you actually speak English and know the meaning of the words, but it's a problem that it's better not to give our readers, if we can avoid it. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I kind of understand your point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase "his" in title case

In Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2015, "his" is lowercased in The Return of Ulysses to his Homeland, both in the article and in every ghit I've found so far. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Ghit"?

It seems as though "his" should be capitalized in title case, but if that's how the title is written in the RS, then that style should be preserved per exception rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Google hit. Okay, that's what I was thinking too. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Scottish English

{{Scottish English}} has been nominated for deletion; this is a MOS template -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy over MoS stated preference for "glasses" over "eyeglasses"

I think there may be controversy raised if we adhere to the preference for "glasses" over "eyeglasses" because a user reading the word may be tempted to ask, in the corresponding article's talk page:"Excuse me, but what kind of glasses are you talking about?" or, more informally, "Excuse me, what kind of glasses are ya talkin' 'bout?" if it was a young person who asked. I think the preference should be reversed, instead preferring "eyeglasses" over "glasses" in order to clear all signs of misunderstanding, since there are basically 4 types of glasses:

1) drinking glasses 2) eyeglasses 3) sunglasses 4) hourglasses. Do you see what I mean? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. As a UK-English speaker, I have never once heard the word "eyeglasses" used in normal speech, and I've never heard sunglasses or hourglasses referred to simply as "glasses". The context should be enough to distinguish between eyeglasses and drinking glasses, and if it's not, then, as the policy is an WP:ENGVAR one, we should follow the variety of English used in the article and use "eyeglasses" or "spectacles" as appropriate. The policy, to prefer but not insist on the more universal term, is fine as it is. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and sun-glasses are eyeglasses too. I can't imagine there are many contexts where eyeglaases and hourglasses are likely to be confused. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As a UK-English speaker, I find 'eyeglasses' to be highly unidiomatic. 'Spectacles' would be much clearer for disambiguation where needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nicknack. Context should distinguish "glasses" from drinking glasses. As a U.S.-English speaker, I find "spectacles" extremely old-fashioned, but I'd probably know what was meant. Appropriate for British English articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, why are we spending any time discussing this whatsoever? This is exactly why we have WP:ENGVAR. In articles written in American English or British/Commonwealth English, use the appropriate word for that variety of English. Trying to force an artificially common word into all varieties of English violates the spirit, if not the letter of ENGVAR, and this is not a worthwhile use of any editor's time, as the pedants among us will now attempt to replace the disfavored word(s). After all, it's not like 95% of our readers are unable to understand the meaning of eyeglasses, glasses or spectacles from the context; and frankly, most of our readers have probably encountered all three of these words and understand their meaning perfectly, even if the particular word is not the preferred choice in their own variety of English. Leave well enough alone, and stop trying to micromanage the dynamic English language. We're not French, and MOS is not the Académie française. Vive la difference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We have ENGVAR but we also have WP:COMMONALITY. Concur that this one shouldn't put a big dent in the reader experience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, DF. This is a very weak example. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that in older writing, "glasses" can also mean binoculars, and "a glass" can mean a telescope. I agree that at least in my experience ( I am American but have read many works from the UK) "eyeglasses" is rarely used in idiomatic spoken English. But in formal written English, particularly in medical articles and insurance documents, "eyeglasses" is almost the invariable usage. Perhaps we should favor the more formal wording? I don't recall seeing "spectacles" in anything written since about 1950, except fiction set before that date. If that is the current common term in the UK, this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. But I agree that this is too small a point for a specific MOS guideline. Where is this preference expressed? DES ^(talk) 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that Wikipedia should use general-English standards even if medial documents use something else. That's our audience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If it were an exclusively medical usage, I would agree with you, Darkfrog24. But I think (without having done any detailed data collection, so I may be badly mistaken) that it is at least in part a formal/informal distinction. See if you can find a few mentions of "eyewear" in formal writing, whether legal, medical, or some other sort of formal, and see what terms are used? I'll have to check google scholar. We do strive for a formal tone here, as i understand it. DES ^(talk) 00:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @DESiegel: See WP:COMMONALITY. The eyeglasses/glasses/spectacles example is a weak one. As I said above, I find it difficult to believe that few, if any, reasonably literate American, Australian, British, Canadian or New Zealand readers are not going to comprehend any of the three synonyms. This is exactly the sort of linguistic micromanagement that MOS should avoid. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ah I see, all this is over an example. Perhaps a better example can be found. But remember that examples are only that, and are not even guidelines much less rules. I do think that if there is a word A that is strictly US usage for a thing and a word B that is strictly UK usage for that same thing, and there is a third word C which will be well understood by all fluent speakers of English, C should usually be preferred here, if it doesn't require awkward writing. But the key word is usually -- everything depends on the specifics of the case. DES ^(talk) 00:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: why more opposers?

Compared to 2 years ago, there appear to be many Wikipedians now who disagree with the status quo of how Wikipedia deals with transgender people. Any reason it's becoming common now?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably in reference to these two threads: VPP:Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals

I don't know. Maybe it's proportionate. Perhaps five years ago, the cohort of people who had an opinion on transgender pronouns was more limited and would have included a higher proportion of people who've met trans men and trans women. With Manning, Jenner and Cox so visible, we have more people who know about trans individuals overall but a higher proportion of people who've only seen them on TV. The idea that the gender binary doesn't work for everyone after all can feel very threatening. People reject the idea to keep things simple. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Treating transgender people with respect has wide support, rightly in my view, but the Jenner case has highlighted more sharply the issue of rewriting history, which does not have wide support, equally rightly in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Cox ? The most visible one is Michael Cox (archbishop of Cashel), but he doesn't seem to have advertised any kind of cornflakes, nor released any kind of documents. Pldx1 (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean Laverne Cox. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the reason is that as that we are applying MOS:IDENTITY to more and more articles... which means more editors are now seeing it in action. As more editors see it in action, more editors are discovering situations where it doesn't work well... situations that perhaps were not thought about two years ago. This happens to any policy or guideline... the more it is applied, the more it comes under scrutiny. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Intriguing. Like what situations? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... most of the push back seems to come from editors who work on lists and articles that focus on historical events. So I would start there. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Why is this happening?? to WP:IDENTITY on transgender people: more opposers, in harmony with WP:TPOC (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have amended your revision... the topic of this sub-thread thread is the question WHY? I think the question should be highlighted in the sub-section header. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Bloat?

A recent edit has further expanded a section that I think has a dubious claim for inclusion—at least in the already over-large MOS central. Why do we need a smattering of examples of what is a complex and elaborate skill-set and knowledge-base for translating foreign text into English? As a gnome, I encounter much more troublesome features of our translations than a few "false friends". This section should be much shorter and just link to whatever style we (should) have on translating into English. Tony (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that addition is superfluous. The page should be less like a frog about to burst, and it should be less like a chameleon.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) and 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose a new subpage: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Translation.—Wavelength (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Splitting MoS content into multiple pages does not reduce complexity; it increases it. It only makes the rules harder to find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)