From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old page history[edit]

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)

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised[edit]

I'm surprised that nobody has offered this as a reference or source of guidance. It is a standard work for deliberative assemblies and is often used for other types of organizations. It contains quite a bit of specific and authoritative information about the presiding officer (usually chairman), his or her title and term of address, including the chair, etc. The editors and publishers have been keeping current on these matters since 1876, and are probably way ahead of unvetted and unpaid encyclopedia editors such as myself. I am working from the 10th edition from 2000, but there is a newer one from 2011. Lou Sander (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that standard globally or in one country? The article on it, this and others at a glance suggest it's mainly a US thing and doesn't have much use, let alone authoritative respect, in other countries. Even if Palgrave's Chairman's Handbook was still in print I doubt it would be taken as definitive all round. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It's one source that should be in the article, though. Citrine's ABC of Chairmanship, originally published in 1939, latest publication 2016 I think, has been influential in the UK, well outside its original Labour movement context. (I've used it myself in chairing meetings of school governors as well as university committees.) The point is that there is a literature on how to chair meetings, which should be covered. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to rephrase that as "ABC of Chairpersonship" or "ABC of Chairship"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It was written in 1939; the copy I have was published in 1945. So I'm sure that The Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Citrine K.B.E. did not consider gender neutral language to be an issue. But we do now. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Next you’ll tell me I shouldn’t use the word colored even though it’s in the NAACP’s name! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought you were quoting the latest version published in 2016. That's certainly how yours of 21:48 reads. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see; sorry that it wasn't clear. I wrote "latest publication" deliberately, rather than, say, "latest version", because I don't know if any changes have been made. My intended point was that a book in print from 1939 to 2016 has a reasonable claim to be a notable source on the subject of chairing meetings, as indeed does the US Roberts book. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Instead of bringing up objections to its reliability as a source, editors might want to actually consult Roberts, which contains a great deal of wisdom about chairs, chairmen, etc., and the words used to refer to them. Such wisdom is notably absent from some of the discussion above. Lou Sander (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with Roberts is the way some editors treat it as some sort of bible that is gospel truth in all circumstances. However it appears to only be a US thing (a look through both the British Library catalogue - one of our copyright deposit libraries - and only seems to return US published editions, suggesting it's never been published here), which makes it a bit difficult to actually consult, and certainly here although there are some books on chairing there's also a widespread practice of organisations writing their own standing orders (or, worse, relying on rulings by the chairperson) with widely ranging practices between organisations (and sometimes within when successive chairpersons rule differently). It is impossible to conceive of a contentious point in a meeting here being settled by pulling out a copy of Roberts.
By all means use it as a source but it should not be taken as globally definitive, particularly on contentious matters or where US practice seems to vary (note how when I pulled out all the examples of male chairpersons in current news stories, the US was a notable absentee). Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

chairman → chair in the article body[edit]

I'd like re-iterate my stance that the body of the article should primarily use the word chair, regardless of whether the title winds up being chairman or chairperson or something else. 1. There is broad (though not unanimous) agreement that chairman is not a gender neutral term (and this is backed up by various evidence including an expert usage panel, analysis of Google ngrams, and various style guides.) 2. Chair seems to be the most common gender neutral alternative to chairman. 3. The only reason the title is not likely to become chair is because that would require a parenthetical disambiguation, and there is disagreement about whether that would be appropriate. Obviously, disambiguation is not something we have to worry about in the article body.

As far as I know, this kind of title-body mismatch isn't against any guidelines. Furthermore, perhaps we could think of it as less of a mismatch and more of an abbreviation. Lots of articles do not repeat the full title over and over again: an article about a person is likely to just repeat the last name, an article about The Academy of so-and-so is likely to mostly refer to it as the academy, etc. I'll also note that the article actually slips back and forth between chair and chairman in a few places as it is.

I'm going to go ahead and implement this change per WP:BRD. (I won't change any instance of the word when it's referring to a specific person or company.) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The first line should state the alternate terms in the order of commonality. The Chairman#Terminology already explains the distinctions and so there is no need to have an exhaustive recapitulation of that in the lead. In the body of the article, where there is no specifically sourced use of a term, the most common and gender-neutral term "chairman" should be used as a default. Where a specific person/body/use is mentioned, we should use the term found in the connected source (or predominance if there are multiple sources supporting a specific statement) per WP:VERIFIABILITY. As such, I oppose the broad use of "chair" as a default throughout as it would be POV insertion not supported by sources or common use. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the use of "chair" interchangeably with "chairman" in the article. There is no rule that says we can't use "chair" and I'm not persuaded by assertions about POV or V. Our article itself discusses (with many sources) the "chair" v. "chairman" issue, and states that "chair" is commonly used. For example, Google and HP use "chair" instead of "chairman", and they're both cited in our article. Levivich 03:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    The rule that says we can't use "chair" broadly is WP:VERIFIABILITY, a foundational policy on Wikipedia. Most sources use "chairman", it is accepted by all to be the common term, making any broad use of "chair" WP:UNDUE. Even if you don't think "chairman" is gender-neutral (which it clearly is due to near omni-present usage), it still is the general term we must use. Sometimes, being neutral means using terms or concepts that individual editors might detest. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Netoholic, I think you should explain your position again because we haven't read it enough times. Levivich 04:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: Happy to. If I could make a request, let's replay this move discussion as many times as possible on this page, and let's spread it to others like journeyman, master craftsman, doorman, showman, marksman, milkman, helmsman, and any place else you -man haters would like to try again. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, a broader policy discussion on the acceptability of -men in modern wikipedia society might not be a bad idea. I mean, I don't see any -women in article titles stirring up all this fuss. Safrolic (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I believe that discussion was already had, and the consensus reached is documented at MOS:GNL. Levivich 04:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Did you notice that the article helmsman refers to it as the "helm" in the body? When's the last time you asked someone what they did for a living and the said, "I'm a journeyman" or "I'm a marksman". Showman and milkman are dead professions. The reason it's not "milkperson" is because there are no "milk carriers" and haven't been for over fifty years. Helmsman is called the "helm" or "helm officer", a craftsman is an "artisan", and a doorman is now known as a "porter", even in the United States. Meanwhile, we have mailman -> mail carrier or postal worker, fireman -> firefighter, policeman -> police officer, waiter/waitress -> server, stewardess -> flight attendant, cameraman -> camera operator, businessman -> businessperson, councilman -> council member, clergyman -> pastor or minister, anchorman -> anchor, crewman -> crew member, longshoreman -> stevedore, garbage man -> trash collector, weatherman -> meterologist, foreman -> supervisor, maintenance man -> janitor or custodian, salesman -> salesperson, workman -> worker, deliveryman -> delivery driver, layman -> layperson, man hours -> labor hours, manpower -> workforce, headmaster/headmistress -> principal, groundsman -> groundskeeper or gardener... gender-neutral language is the new normal. It's been the trend for decades. But none of that matters, because this discussion is only about "chairman", and not any other -men. Levivich 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: I've reviewed your list, and I see why you didn't wiki-link any of them. You say "we have... (these examples)... gender-neutral language is the new normal" (implying that your examples are explicit cases of Wikipedia "gender neutral" handling), bur most of your "examples" are just observably false: waiter/waitress redirect to waiting staff (not "server"), councilman redirects to councillor (not council member), clergyman actually redirects to clergy (not separate topics like pastor or minister), anchorman redirects to news presenter (not anchor), crewman exists (crew member redirects to it), garbage man actually redirects to waste collector (not trash collector), weatherman is a DAB and meterologist redirects to the field of study,foreman (DAB) exists as construction foreman and shop foreman, maintenance man doesn't even exist, salesman redirects to the broader topic sales (not salesperson which actually redirects to retail clerk - an odd disparity between the two), workman is a DAB (worker redirects to workforce), deliveryman redirects to delivery (commerce) (as does delivery driver), layman/layperson are redirects to a religious article (odd handling), man hours exists as man-hour, manpower is at human resources (workforce is different), headmaster is at head teacher (principal is a DAB), groundsman actually redirects to the broader groundskeeping topic. Overall, your list of "examples" are not that at all - just guesses on your part that miss more often than they hit. The reasons for specific handling of any of those varies quite a lot - redirecting to fields of study or fields of work, standing as genuine WP:COMMONNAME terms, never having any earnest naming discussion, or in other ways that probably have not been through any sort of "gender neutrality" discussions at all. I am at a total loss as to why you would misrepresent Wikipedia's handling of these terms in this blatant way to try and make your claim. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn’t talking about Wikipedia. I was talking about the English language. I can see how "we have" would be confusing, but I meant, "We have [in English]'s been the trend [in English] for decades." Levivich 13:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if this is ultimately kept at the current title (which is being discussed at move review), we should strive to use gender-neutral language, despite whatever regional variations there may be at play here. – bradv🍁 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    MOS:GNL is a guideline. It is secondary to foundational policies of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NPOV. -- Netoholic @ 04:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Either way, gender neutral language is not a violation of NPOV or V – that's a preposterous proposition. I support using "chair" throughout the body of this article, even it the title is not changed. – bradv🍁 05:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose change for now. If the article changes title then it should follow the title. So long as the existing title is retained it looks strange to avoid actually using the common name for the subject of the article. Springee (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I second that. If you are going to base the article text on "chair", that's what the title should be, not "chairman" or "chairperson". I would defer this until resolution of the RM situation. Jmar67 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    I third that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Use of chair throughout body per nom. —В²C 05:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the MRV is decided. As it currently stands, these edits are disrupting the article, because we're not sure what to use where. We should wait until the title stabilizes before reducing the use of "chairman". ONR (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Springee. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support—"chair" has been common as far back as my memory goes. This is hardly an SJW "PC run amok"-ism. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: parliamentary authorities distinguish between the "chair" as a role in a meeting and "chairman" as the person who fills it. They are not the same idea. Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: If the article title stays at "Chairman" or is changed to Chairperson, arguably, that is WP:NATURAL disambiguation of "Chair". That is, the article could be "Chair (role)" or "Chairperson" or "Chairman", but can't be "Chair" because that's ambiguous with Chair. But if the article was "Chair (role)", there would be no dispute as to whether we could use "Chair" throughout the article. So, there is no requirement to use the full disambiguated title to reference the article topic throughout the article. I don't see why that should depend on whether the disambiguation is parenthetic or natural; it should apply either way. --В²C 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Response to Jmar67's question below (from the RM discussion): Please explain why you would want to do that. The primary term used in the article should match the title. 1. I believe chair is the most-used gender-neutral alternative to chairman. 2. I don't see an issue with an article using a shortened form of the title in the body. The Metropolitan Museum of Art article often uses the term The Met. African Americans often uses black. Transgender uses both transgender and trans. Albert Einstein often refers to him as just Einstein. Etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you. I don't consider "chair" to be an abbreviated form of "chairman/chairwoman/chairperson" but rather a separate, independent term. I can only reiterate that it would be very strange to use "chair" as the primary term in the article if the title is not "chair (disambiguation)". Jmar67 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    You might update your post above to clarify that my question was posed in the RM discussion. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding this edit: the move discussion reflects a consensus that chairperson is a gender neutral equivalent, citing WP:V here seems like a very wikilawyer-y reason to oppose the changes. Several editors above expressed good faith reservations about making this change before finishing the move discussion, but that discussion is now finished, and it seems incredibly implausible to think that the results of this discussion would play out any differently. Nblund talk 22:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:V is a core policy. Take for example this line: Companies with both an executive chairperson and a CEO include Ford,[1] HSBC,[2] Alphabet Inc.,[3] HP,[4] and Apple.[5]. Apart from the HP one (that I can't verify because the link is incorrect/broken), all of these sources say the title is "chairman". This is failed verification. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed a core policy, but I've looked pretty hard and I can't find the part that prohibits the use of synonyms. Nblund talk 23:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That is here WP:STICKTOSOURCE: Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Use of "chairperson" is not a synonym because it the well-cited problem (Ehrlich and King, 1994, p. 63 of meaning or implying that the office is occupied by a woman. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The gender of the subject is not relevant here. This is why we use gender neutral language. If we were writing a section comparing chairmen to chairwomen, then we would use gendered terms. – bradv🍁 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you see the irony in citing a policy that does not contain the term "synonym" to support a claim that Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of synonyms? The terms "summarized" and "rephrased" are actually a recommendation to use different words with the same meanings. Regarding gendered meanings of "chairperson": It's well established that "chairperson" (and "chair") are commonly used gender-neutral terms for this subject. There's no reason to think this would apply any differently here. Surely there are more important windmills for you to tilt at.Nblund talk 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Netoholic, the notion that use of "chairperson" (or "chair", which would be more pertinent to this discussion) implies occupation by a woman is dated. I note that source is from a quarter of a century ago. --В²C 23:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I linked the way I did so you could view the citations. As recently as 2018, this concern over "chairperson" has continued to be cited as valid. There is no valid reason to deviate from the sources. The sections do not have to use a questionable synonym when you can just use the word the sources do in the context the sources are being used to verify. The current title of the page is not open license to Newspeak the word "chairman" out of existence - it is after all established that "chairman" remains the most common name in the sources. -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
MOS:GNL would be the primary reason. I think that's an interesting point about the linguistics. It was even more interesting the first time you brought it up, in the move discussion that was just closed. Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, but i'm fairly confident that "fuck it, let's just say chairman" is not really what they're advocating in that article. Nblund talk 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Using a synonym for a word in a source doesn't violate WP:V, because WP:V allows us to restate things in our own words, because of course it does. If it didn't the encyclopedia would have to consist entirely of exact quotes from sources! (With that said, when talking about a specific individual person, we should probably defer to the terminology that person prefers. I think it would be bad form, in particular, to second-guess a woman who verifiably refers to herself as a chairman, for example.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree on that point.Nblund talk 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with WanderingWanda's position here. If the article is referring to a particular position or person we should follow that source. Thus a reference to Mary Barra should be Chairman of GM [[6]]. We shouldn't automatically follow a generalized source. So a reference talking about "chairman" and corporate governance could be chairperson. However, I agree with Amakuru and Cygnis insignis that it makes more sense to generally use "chair" in the article. Amakuru noted that chair is the more common gender neutral term. Cygnis insignis noted that "chairperson" is somewhat female vs neutral gendered and, and this is the big one for me, it doesn't roll of the tongue as nicely. Chair is conversationally easy while chairperson is much less so. Since the context in the article is clear, using chair vs chairperson should make it read better without gender specific concerns. Springee (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2019[edit]

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: Move. There are a few things to cover here, but I believe there is a clear consensus to move to chairperson. First, it appears established that "chairman" remains the most common name in the sources. That's a fair argument for the oppose !votes, but as multiple editors pointed out, WP:COMMONNAME includes the caveat that When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. It's well established that many people consider the term "chairman" to be problematic for being gendered. This is borne out not only by the fact that approximately 2/3 of the participants here favored a move as well as the sources provided that cover why gender-neutral alternatives are increasingly used. Several oppose !voters also noted that chairman is problematic even if they preferred not to move to this title. Additionally, the guideline on gender-neutral language recommends that we Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. It's well established that "chairperson" (and "chair") are commonly used gender-neutral terms for this subject. As such, the local consensus to move is inline with Wikipedia's guidelines. As many people here preferred "chair (officer)" or similar over "chairperson", it wouldn't be a bad idea to have another RM in the future to hash that out, though it's strongly advised to wait at least a few months before opening yet another RM here. Cúchullain t/c 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

ChairmanChairperson – Now that the move review for #Requested move 22 March 2019 has been closed, it's appropriate to make this more specific proposal (notwithstanding the identical interim #Requested move 17 April 2019 which was premature since the review was still ongoing and was speedily closed accordingly). Chairperson is clearly gender-neutral and, though it's difficult to ascertain for sure, it appears to be more common in recent usage than chairman. Also, the second poll in the 22 March RM did indicate that most participants favored Chairperson over Chairman. Let's verify and be done with this one way or another. В²C 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, per WP:CONSISTENCY, see also:
--В²C 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 11:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey (RM 8 May 2019)[edit]

Levivich 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You made a COMMONNAME claim, yet only WP:CHERRYPICK a few sources, and in fact one of those sources points out, in its only mention of 'chairperson', that coinages designed to be gender-neutral can easily become feminized when they are only used to refer to women - for example, when a woman is referred to as "chairperson" but a man is "chairman". In effect, your own evidence points out that supporting this move retains a gendered meaning. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow...those are some SERIOUSLY biased sources with a significant political/PC/postmodernist bent ("scholarly" or not). Buffs (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Colonestarrice (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to the gender neutral title Chairperson. See: all the arguments and evidence I presented in the move discussion above, including an expert usage panel where a significant portion of the panel decided that referring to a woman as chairman was not just less-than-ideal but out-and-out couldn't be accepted:
expert usage panel

The American Heritage Dictionary's usage note on chairman is a worthwhile read. It says that Words that end with the element -man ...sometimes generate controversy because they are considered sexist by some people...This ongoing controversy is evident from our usage surveys. It says that its usage panel (which it describes as a a group of nearly 200 prominent scholars, creative writers, journalists, diplomats, etc.) was asked to look at a sentence that referred to a woman as a chairman. 57 percent accepted the sentence, which is a majority, but which means a large portion of the panel did not accept it. It goes on to say: For writers interested in avoiding -man compounds that have synonyms, alternatives include compounds employing -woman and -person, as in chairwoman and spokesperson, and more inclusive terms that avoid the gender-marked element entirely, such as chair for chairman, letter carrier for mailman, and first-year student for freshman.

  • Note 1: to avoid the vote splitting of last time, here's my recommendation to everyone: if you think chairperson is a better title than chairman, vote support, if you don't, don't. If you think another title would be better, such as Chair ([INSERT DISAMBIGUATION WORD HERE]), just wait a year or so then nominate it in a new RM.
  • Note 2: I still think that, regardless of whether the title is chairperson or chairman, the word should largely be shortened to chair in the article body.
WanderingWanda (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Please explain why you would want to do that. The primary term used in the article should match the title. In the first RM, I suggested that "Chair (role)" or something equivalent might be considered if there was a lack of consensus on a target designating the individual. And that idea is reinforced by preferring "chair" in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
See #chairman → chair in the article body - any discussion about which term to use in the article body to refer to the article topic probably belongs in that section, not this RM. Thanks. --В²C 21:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I did mention this there, but it also seems on topic here. If the intent is to use "chair" in the article, do we want to keep "chairman" or move to "chairperson"? Other opinions welcome. Jmar67 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
There's no reason to think "the intent is to use 'chair' in the article" just because one editor mentions it in clarifying their !vote. The idea about using chair in the article can be (and is being) separately evaluated on its merits, in the thread above. Levivich 23:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Speedy Close - Per WP:COMMONNAME. We just went through this and it was speedy closed per my request. It was opened before the review was started. Talk about chutzpah to open it again so soon. Per the previous closed discussion, most voices wanted either Chairman or Chairperson (it was 12–12 in !votes). There are multiple style guides that prefer Chairman and tell us the term is gender-neutral, some sources even using Mr. or Madam Chairman in formal settings. An RM had no consensus (twice). I feel chairman is the most common term and is gender neutral. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Starting a second RM hours after the first one was closed–only to oppose it–and after it received a bunch of blowback and was speedy closed, claiming that "RM had no consensus (twice)"... that's chutzpah. Levivich 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    As stated, it was done because we so often see that potential move challenges go nowhere and cause more animosity towards our fellow editors in the process. My crystal ball was obviously correct and yours was not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    The MRV process had already begun with requests to reopen the previous RM at the closer's talk page when you started that RM, which was inappropriate. To have the audacity to start that one, revert its speedy closure, and then call for this one to be speedy closed, takes Trumpian level audacity. --В²C 21:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    And he said go ahead and start another two item RM at the time of our choosing. So I did to help the process. Your input towards me on this issue has been less than favorable from the getgo and I don't appreciate it at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Speedy Close - This has been discussed and closed. Constantly resurrecting the same argument shows an inability to accept consensus and an arrogance towards other editors that is not welcome. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note – After the close and before the MRV, the closer wrote on their talk page: "Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title, at the timeframe of your choosing." Levivich 21:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer Chair (officer), but Chairperson is fine too. The important thing is to move it away from the current title. It makes Wikipedia look bad, and it excludes a lot of our readers. That feeling of exclusion will intensify as readers become more conscious of sexism and gender issues, so we might as well move it now, rather than wait until we're the last organization standing to realize the world has changed. SarahSV (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Toosoon. Give it a break, push push push annoys people and filters out calm dispassion. Wait two months post “no consensus”, counting from the close of the MRV. It takes time for the non-obsessed to get a clean perspective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    SmokeyJoe, this looks like an oppose, but you've supported below. Could you clarify? SarahSV (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    I oppose immediate relists, even two weeks would have improved the discussion, but if we have to make a decision here and now then I restate my previous position. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – like SlimVirgin, I prefer Chair (officer), but either title is better than what we have now. – bradv🍁 23:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hasn't this been discussed recently? Chairman is fine, chair is fine, chairperson is uncommon usage. Natureium (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes it has, Natureium. Did you read the nom? Did you read #RM meta discussion? This has been addressed. Even the previous closer confirms it's appropriate to have this RM now. What's your point? --В²C 00:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the support !votes above, and a general inclination to catch up with at least the late 20th century. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per support votes above. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support almost anything reasonable is preferable to the current title. Since chairperson seems to have the most support, good god please yes move it there. Citing to COMMONNAME over common sense and NPOV is unreasonable IMHO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support chairperson per nom. Oppose chair (officer) as failing WP:NATURAL. If the only two choices were chair (officer) and chairman, I would prefer chairman. Also, don't speedy close this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support chairperson, and thank you for posting this to WP:CENT. It is hard to imagine anyone in the year 2019 still thinks chairman is COMMONNAME; most of us switched to person years ago. Plain "chair" works, but is inelegant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. (Though I agree with others that Chair (officer) is good, too, perhaps even better than Chairperson.) --JBL (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but prefer "Chair", which is well-established (going back centuries) and makes linking easier: "Curly Turkey was the [[Chair (officer)|]]bird of his coop." or "Curly Turkey [[Chair (officer)|Chair]]ed the meeting on that date." Reject all calls to WP:COMMONNAME on both sides, which fundamentally misunderstand both the letter and spirit of the guideline. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Per the notice at the top of every RM - arguments should be made with respect to Wikipedia:Article titles policy. You have both failed to do so and reject one of the key provisions of that policy. Who exactly is the one that misunderstands the letter and spirit of the policy? -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Netoholic: We've already been through how inappropriate WP:COMMONNAME is to this case at Talk:MOS. You misunderstand both the letter and spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, which does not apply in a case where there are multiple established "common" names. I'm not going to re-explain things that you're not interested in trying to understand, especially when you're on the attack. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chairperson same as last time. Oppose Chair as ambiguous abbreviated jargon, in meeting contexts it is even more often used as a verb than the noun. The current is OK, with "man" being etymologically gender-neutral, although that is view tending archaic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC).
    Oppose Chair (officer) same as last time. All the ongoing discussion of Chair (officer) demonstrates the problem of rapid renomination, past comments have not been digested, there’s a lot of repetition, the non-obsessed fade away. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support chairperson (or chair) as the term most commonly used in the last forty-plus years. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Article titles are solely governed by Wikipedia:Article titles policy. Nothing in there says anything about gender neutrality and, in fact, there is ample evidence that 'chairman' is widely considered gender-neutral anyway as given in prior RMs above. This move positively defies all of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA listed. Per WP:TITLECHANGES: do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view and "chairperson" is an extremely uncommon name by any measure. Wikipedia names its articles how the world names the topic... there is no policy which allows naming to be based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. A local consensus in favor of a "feel good" measure like this cannot be allowed. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Have you been to a meeting in the last forty years? Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Born2cycle: - your WP:CONSISTENCY examples are irrelevant as that criteria only relates to Wikipedia-generated parts of titles (like how we name things in the singular, use "List of ---", or how our naming conventions define disambiguations). Also, you've WP:CHERRYPICKED, a small set but left out gendered occupations to which male or gender-neutral terms redirect like call girl (escort (sex worker) redirects), nanny (childminder redirects), or midwifery (maternity care redirects); or for which males in the role are left out like in Lunch lady; or the vast number of occupation articles that include the suffix "-man" like journeyman, master craftsman, doorman, showman, marksman, milkman, helmsman, alderman, tallyman, ombudsman, shop foreman, coachman, crewman, and far too many more to list (the work of whom is often measured in man-hours). The examples you cited are likely genuine WP:COMMONNAME - not evidence of gender overriding WP:Article titles policy. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    It's not true at all that CONSISTENCY only applies "to WP-generated parts of titles". Of course, there is WP:OTHERSTUFF (see, for example, this article that actually specifically mentions WP's continued use of journeyman rather than journeyperson), and most of your examples don't have gender-neutral terms in common use. --В²C
    В²C: If common use was your concern, you'd not have opened this RM because it is provably not common, even for women. I'd call your examples, the WP:OTHERSTUFF - certainly off-topic if you're going to dismiss my examples and claim to want to talk about common use of this term. -- Netoholic @ 23:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think you're conflating common use and most common use. There is no question that Chairperson is in common use, and that Chairman is still more commonly used in general. Whether it's more commonly used in contexts where the gender is unknown is unclear. Do most bylaws, for example, use Chairperson or Chairman or Chair? But that's all besides the point, which is that Chairperson is in common use. Unlike any gender-neutral term of ombudsman, for example. --В²C 00:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    "I think you're conflating common use and most common use."—Netholic's had this pointed out to them multiple times, both here and at the MOS tlak page. This is why WP:COMMONNAME cannot apply, but without WP:COMMONNAME, what weapon does Netholic have left? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. There is, in fact, clear evidence that, even for women, there is a single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic - and that is "chairman". As there is no problem with disambiguation or other technical concerns, there is no policy-based reason to use anything else. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, we've been round in circles with this and are totally aware that you just don't care what problem WP:COMMONNAME aims to solve. But you also assert that "the world does not use the words" "chairperson" and "chairwoman", so why would anyone even bother trying to get through to you? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Gender neutrality is not necessary in all cases. Do we need a gender-neutral title for Her Majesty's Ship? I also agree with the points made by SmokeyJoe and Martin of Sheffield. I did not participate in the previous RM. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    All ships are female. English speakers decided that. The current speakers of English language also chose to deprecate chairman. And they show no indication of reversing course. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    If they have it's news to the sources. I rarely hear anything but chairman. It might be madam chairman or it's sometimes just the chair. But in meetings I can't recall a single "chairperson" no matter if a woman or not. To each her own I guess. But changing all instances of chairman to chair in the article while this is going on is not cool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note "Her Majesty" refers to the queen, and not the ship. However, it's not relevant for this move discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    The article Her Majesty's Ship begins His or Her Majesty's Ship, abbreviated HMS, is the ship prefix used for ships of the navy in some monarchies. Levivich 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It appears that "chairman" is far more common that "chairperson", to an extreme degree. (I am a bit surprised by this, as all stats available do not seem to match my personal experiences, but I guess that says more about the kinds of things I read than the state of the English language.) Ngrams shows a very large gap, and for those concerned about whether that's changed in the decade since NGrams was last updated, the NOW Corpus shows "chairman" with 646,437 uses and "chairperson" with 76,080, for text since 2017. "Chairman" is more common both when referring to men and when referring to women. --Yair rand (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, even for women "chairman" is much more often used than "chairperson". -- Netoholic @ 05:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Yair rand: Do a comparison on NOW Corpus between "Appointed chairperson" and "Appointed chairman" since 2017. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: "appointed chairperson" 207 hits, "appointed chairman" 1402 hits. --Yair rand (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, how about "appointed chair" since 2017? Sorry, I could never figure out how to use Corpus. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: 431 for "appointed chair". --Yair rand (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The opposition arguments made here are for the most part rooted in policy (common usage etc.), but IMO they are more persuasive in a discussion on whether to refer to a specific person as "chairman/chairwoman" or "chairperson". If a man is elected to this position it's not exclusionary to refer to him as "chairman"; likewise if a woman is elected to this position it's not exclusionary to refer to her as "chairwoman"; plus, I'd argue it's more natural to use the term "chairwoman" than "chairperson" (same with "businesswoman" etc.) While it is uncommon to refer to a specific person of known gender as "chairperson", it is a reasonably common term to refer to the role in general. WP:NAMECHANGES is persuasive on this issue as it shows that we can place higher weight on more recent trends and usage. I do find it interesting that we are more concerned about how this role should be named, than the responsibilities the role entails, as the duties of a chairperson would clearly be of more interest to the average reader. feminist (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Feminist: Let's see evidence for your points. Here's mine. First, women are referred to as "chairman" far more often than chairperson or chairwoman, which comes in last. Second, leaving out pronouns to test your claim about general usage when the sex isn't known, "a/an/the/etc chairman" soundly beats a/an/the/etc chairperson. I am sorry the world does not use the words how you think they do, but everything you've said is provably false. Simply stated - the world at large thinks "chairman" is gender-neutral, and the most common name for this topic. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    "I am sorry the world does not use the words how you think they do"—I don't think you said what you meant to say, as your own evidence shows "chairwoman" and "chairperson" are in common usage and not in the least unusual. "The world" uses these terms. What next—deprecate "big" because NGram says "large" is more frequent, thus "the world does not use the word"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Of course individuals should have the right to choose which term to use to refer to themselves: there is nothing wrong for a woman to refer to herself as a chairman, unlike what others may suggest. I think it's fine for articles like Robyn Denholm to use "chairman" as long as the subject prefers it and the usage is common among sources. But few news sources have the need to refer to chairmen/chairwomen/chairpeople as most readers would already be reasonably familiar with the concept. The only sources that would describe the concept of business executives in the way we do are reference work, such as Investopedia and business school textbooks. Ngram results would capture mostly news articles as they are far more common than reference works; they are useful for analyzing how news articles would report on changes in chairmen/chairs in specific companies, less so for a reference entry that describes what the role entails in a general context. feminist (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose in favour of "Chair" While becoming more frequent, Chairman remains the COMMONNAME. This is both from general/traditional usage but specific decisions from major company female Chairman stating that that is the title they desire to retain on taking the position. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — Using "chairman" as the name of the article is obviously inappropriate, as it serves to exclude non-male people, by etymology if not definition. There are two problems with exclusionary article titles like this. First, they create an air of hostility towards those they exclude, placing a needless barrier between the encyclopedia and its readers and contributors, and violating the project's goal of civility; second, they are inherently biased, violating the project's goal of a neutral point of view. The common-name policy should carry much less weight than these other two points, if it indeed contradicts them. (That said, I encounter "chair" way more often than the other forms of the word, it seems like; "chairperson" is a reasonable alternative for disambiguating from the furniture.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 09:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy or a guideline so unless we change it to a policy or guideline i would not support a move so there is no need to move Abote2 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Abote2: So, if we made into guideline you'd support the move, but would you support making WP:GNL into one? If the answer is yes, then I feel like WP:NOTBURO applies. If you do not support upgrading GNL, then at least I would get where you coming from.–MJLTalk 02:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Following the use of gender neutral terms such as Firefighter and Mail carrier, Wikipedia should not use a gender-specific term where a gender-neutral one is in common usage. I would prefer Chair, myself, as more common in everyday usage - and we could surely disambiguate it from the piece of furniture as "Chair (organisation)", or similar, just as we have Chair (railway) (and I notice that Chair (officer) already exists as a redirect term). But Chairperson is certainly preferable to Chairman. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose & speedy close this is disruptive. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support or mark as a separate article from Chairperson if the fuddy duddy old fashioned word needs its own article. I recall a time where saying "Madam Chairman" was acceptable, nobody does this today, though I guess you might be lucky enough to hear it in a pre-1970s film or used by someone idiotically self unaware <insert name of Bullingdon Club politician here>. As for the above speedy close because of disruption(?) please link to where the disruption is happening if you are serious. -- (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Noting that the article contains a photograph of Christina Magnuson as a "chairman". The photograph is an old one from 2008, and though the description uses the word "chairman", no sources are given to confirm that in the minutes her official title was "chairman" rather than chair or chairwoman. -- (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sarah and MOS:GNL and the fact that fireman and postman are not articles but redirects to firefighter and mail carrier. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    See though Fireman (steam engine). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support though I would prefer Chair, which has a long history of use. As many have indicated Chairperson is more gender neutral than Chairman and is in wide use. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SusunW: - that would actually be a great choice, as it can make a better claim to Commonname (though it's sort of the common functional name, with people who use it not thinking it's the actual full position) and would also fit gender-neutral etc Nosebagbear (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chairperson per my comments in previous discussions up page. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sarah and Ealdgyth, though I also would prefer Chair. — IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Ealdgyth. No one has made a good case as to why this term needs to be specifically gendered when other professions or titles are not. --LauraHale (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @LauraHale: In current common English usage, "chairman" is used as a gender-neutral term. See stats above showing that female chairmen are more frequently called "chairman" than "chairperson" or "chairwoman". --Yair rand (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Yair rand:, Common usage says that Chairperson is more neutral. It is how the Wikimedia Foundation refers to the chair of the board. It seems bizarre to me that these two are out of sync. --LauraHale (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    @LauraHale: I don't know what it means for common usage to say that something is more neutral. The WMF's preferred language usage bears no more relevance than any other organization's. --Yair rand (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose chairperson. Commenting only on the issue here, and not the process. Of all the options this is clearly the third best,[7] and barely features in analyses of which is the common name. As noted above, chairperson isn't even above chairman when it comes to female officers. But when you instead compare with chair, you find that is narrowly now the accepted term: [8]. If this is closed and reopened as an RM to Chair (officer) I would support it, as that's the accepted gender-neutral term. And it loons like several others above are the same. I can't support chairperson though, we'd rather remain at chairman than that. (And plenty of prominent women such as Christine Lagarde do use the term chairman so it's not an egregious error).  — Amakuru (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Amakuru, et al. I'm not implacably opposed to Chairperson, but it does seemingly fail on COMMONNAME, and not by a small margin. I can appreciate the goal of adopting a more neutral alternative term regardless of COMMONNAME, but in that case Chair (officer) would seem to be the preferable choice (and is one I'd support). ╠╣uw [talk] 10:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support We're doing this again? Well, my reasoning hasn't changed in the past month: chairperson is common enough to be recognizable and acceptable, naturally disambiguated, and gender-neutral. I'd note again that this article is extremely broad, covering all sorts of different types of chairs (from business, to politics, to committees in general), many of which may have somewhat different language preferences (as I noted last time we discussed this, an American academic committee such as a dissertation committee, search committee, Faculty Senate Committee on How Parking Stinks, etc., is pretty much always led by a "chair," but it wouldn't surprise me if businesses tend to prefer "chairman" for the same role). I suppose there also might be some dialect variation (e.g. US English vs. British) in terms of frequency, but that's beyond my knowledge (and I'm far to lazy to look it up). With such variety, there's no reason to stick with a masculine name. Just a Rube (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chairperson, chairman, chair, and chairwomen are all common names, so we should choose one that is NPOV and it seems to me that the choice is limited to chairperson or chair. I prefer chair, but chairperson is acceptable to me. I would add that I concur with Just a Rube and in my experience, chair is most common. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Like it or not, "Chairman" is still by far the most-used form of this title, therefore switching to "chairperson" would fail WP:COMMONNAME. I even know women who are happy to get called Chairman. Also, I'm not too impressed with the opening of this RM immediately after the previous one was closed and endorsed as no consensus. Sounds kind of like Brexit: never a consensus for anything, but oh boy are we gonna discuss it yet again.[FBDB] But here we are. Let's see. — JFG talk 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME. For the evidence, please see Yair rand's !vote. --MrClog (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The gender-neutral form is more frequently used in English in recent years; also, when in doubt, we should err on the side of more inclusive language. Sandstein 18:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Sandstein: I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to any corpus showing that chairperson is used more frequently than chairman in recent years. As mentioned above, the NOW Corpus shows "chairman" with 646,437 uses and "chairperson" with 76,080, for text since 2017. --Yair rand (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - "Chairperson" is common, natural, and gender neutral. And I strongly agree with what Sandstein said, "we should err on the side of more inclusive language". -Zanhe (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - "Man" is etymologically neutral as noted above, although I'm fine with either move, "Chair" being slightly better as it sounds more natural. (EDIT: In some other cases "-man" remains a gender-neutral ending as well, such as "alderman", although I'm not sure of detailed statistics on that matter. In any event my previous comment stands.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is the more common term these days for the role, and the more formal the context the more common it is. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. And I have a strong suspicion that if this article is moved to "Chairperson" that there will be endless complaints and move proposals to move the article to "Chair (some disambiguator)". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • support WikiProject Politics member In my state (Connecticut), almost always its chairperson (except when it's co-chairs). My preference personally is to use the singular term "chair" but I think that may or not be a better article title. Also, I just want to copy something B2C wrote below: I genuinely think Chairperson is far preferable to the sexist Chairman, and believe if we had more female editors this wouldn’t even be a question (notwithstanding the counter-examples of certain women going with the Chairman title). Yup. I one hundred percent agree with that as a very apt observation. –MJLTalk 02:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Chairman is still more common. Would support Chair (disambiguation word) as a gender-neutral option. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it's not the common name. Wikipedia reflects the real world and has no moral obligation to be unorganically more "progressive" than the real world. Perhaps this will be revisited in say, 10 years. --Pudeo (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. People are supporting and opposing both per COMMONNAME (and implicit assumptions about the commonality of "chairperson") but the evidence I've seen cited favours the support side—in the March move proposal text and Levivich's !vote. (Amakuru provides ngram links but unfortunately they only go to 2008, and language can change quite a lot in 11 years.) How natural a term sounds to you is not reflective of the world as a whole. But contemporary style guides should absolutely be one source we look to in our naming conventions. The guideline WP:GNL also biases us towards gender-neutral terms. "Chair (officer)" would also be acceptable to me but WP:NATURALDAB favours "Chairperson". Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Contemporary language guides mostly favor "chair" or "chairperson". See OED, The United Nations, the European Parliament The Purdue Online Writing Lab, The APA, and the Chicago Manual of Style (gated) all recommend "chair" or "chairperson". Several news-related style books recommend "chairman or chairwoman" where appropriate, but none of these sources support using "chairman" as a generic for all chairs, and virtually every contemporary style book (including our own) recommends avoiding gendered language where possible. Editors who are citing the N-gram viewer to support WP:COMMONNAME seem to be misreading the policy. It doesn't require us to replicate every thoughtless colloquialism regardless of accuracy or context. It says that we should use the common terms that occur in contemporary reliable sources, but eschew those terms when they are problematic. Where I'm from, "Coke" is far more common than "soft-drink", but we're not going to retitle the article that way because it's wrong and confusing even if it is common. Chairman is inaccurate because (according to basically every language authority) "chairman" is implies a gender. Nblund talk 01:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and without prejudice to any previous discussions.
    The English Oxford Dictionary - as embedded in MacOS 10.13.6 (2018) - states USAGE: The word chairman found itself accused of sexism in the 1970s, with critics opposed to the way it combined the notion of power with a grammatical gender bias. Two neutral alternatives were proposed, chair (which was actually recorded in this sense in the 17th century) and the neologism chairperson. Both terms faced initial resistance, and although they have now become accepted in standard English, the Oxford English Corpus shows that they are still far less common than chairman.
    What we have here on the en.Wiki is a case where commonsense should prevail over COMMONNAME. Per SandyGeorgia and SarahSV, I also concur with Sandstein's: we should err on the side of more inclusive language. Gender related words and pronouns are the hottest topic on Wikipedia (SMcCandlish's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, for example) and many people are very quick to examine others' semantics however innocent, in order to discover a reason to feel insulted - whether rightly or wrongly - and accuse each other of misoginy, misandry, or anti-LGBT, and in doing so, even resorting to personal attacks themselves. The anglophone world embraces many different cultures where offence in one may not necessarily be offence in another; en.Wikipedia is hence a cross-cultural project (not just America) and in that respect should strive to employ language that is acceptable to all editors and readers. Chairperson is one such compromise. In the body of a BLP or other article however, it would be perfectly appropriate to use chairwoman or chairman when the subject of the BLP is one or the other, or in whatever direct speech that person refers to the office held by themself.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons already covered in detail in previous rounds. Summary: chairperson is supported (as either an option or the favored option) by virtually all authoritative contemporary sources on English usage, while chair (also accepted and occasionally favored) is unfortunately ambiguous and potentially confusing (especially in an academic context, in which it may refer to an endowment not an elected/appointed committee-chairing role), and thus is a much poorer choice than chairperson in an encyclopedia.
    This is not a speedy-close candidate, because the previous round's closure ended with consensus to move but no consensus yet on what to move to, making this follow-up discussion essentially mandatory. Yes, we're tired of going over it, but that is the price of uncertain closes and unclear prior consensus discussions. We all know this, so please do not add further to the WP:DRAMA and inter-editor tension level by injecting hyperbole and finger-pointing.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedurally poor leave it six months then try again and just notify WP:CENT rather than a slew of projects that might skew the outcome. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given above. Not convinced at all by COMMONNAME arguments, see eg this. GiantSnowman 07:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Please try to avoid accidental cherry picking it gives a false impression of the facts. The same source has another page and the synonms list chair, chairman, chairwoman in that order, so very clearly "chairman" is not listed in preference to the other terms in that source. -- (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Or they listed them in alphabetical order. Springee (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    i.e. so very clearly "chairman" is not listed in preference to the other terms in that source -- (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Your use of "in that order" suggested you felt the order of the list was order of preference. However the text of the listing does support that Chairman is the COMMONNAME. I'm going to again throw out a plug for Chair (office) or similar since the two are related and avoids both the appearance of gender preference (chairman) and the appearance of changing a word to avoid implied gender (chairperson). Chairman/person/woman can be a subset of the topic chair. Springee (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the WP:COMMONNAME arguments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Vulphere 12:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support either "Chair" – with parenthetical disambiguation such as (officer) – or "Chairperson", although I prefer Chair. There's no doubt in my mind that an increasing proportion of people find "Chairman" not to be gender-neutral, and we should avoid using such terms where possible. There are two perfectly good alternatives that are incontrovertibly gender-neutral and we should be using them. --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • comment. On examination, chairman has always been gender neutral. If there is a perceived concern, or attempt at drama-mongering, then use 'chair'. The association with males is a product of the patriarchy, and a predictable mocking reaction, "you are assuming that role, we will have to change the title to postperson [sarcastic grin]". Altering the suffix '-man' to '-person' is accommodating a reactionary position, that something that seemingly contradicts the language produced by a hegemony be mangled to produce a term that flags it as an awkward fad of current parlance (because Marxists). So move to Chair? No, that is a solution and not the problem ('which we need to have a discussion about …') being elevated. How about no, and the misogynistic language champions get some new material, rather than seeding our community with hackneyed 'issues' to wedge and divide the community. cygnis insignis 13:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    I would sympathize with this idea, because the socio-political point about what is happening on/to Wikipedia is generally correct, and of course we wouldn't go along with "postperson", as a bogus neologism. However, "chairperson", like "spokesperson" and "salesperson" (all very business-centric terms) isn't a bogus neologism. It's been well-attested, normal English (albeit not the only form thereof, and more common in particular contexts) for several generations now. Not everything similar to PoV-pushing language-change activism (and favored by PoV-pushing language-change activists) is actually PoV-pushing language-change activism. The fallacy here is a disguised form of the one that goes "Falafel must be bad because Saddam Hussain liked falafel." :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This nonsense has been going on since at least the 1970s, but doesn't look like there's ever been much traction in the outside world. But if we are to really go down the so-called gender neutral route, I would much prefer Chair (officer). As purists kept arguing back in the heyday, use of "person" is flawed for exactly the same reason that "chairman" is. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    They're wrong, though. It's pure folk etymology. While the -son in -person does, in a very roundabout way, go back to the same Proto-Indo-European root as the stand-alone word son, they're unrelated morphemes that just coincidentally look the same. Son is Germanic, and comes from Anglo-Saxon sunu; person is a truncation of Latin persona, which had nothing to do with sons (male offspring) but already meant in Ancient Roman times what it means today: 'human being'. By contrast, the -man in chairman is exactly the same morpheme as the English word man, which since at least Middle English has done double duty as 'human being' and 'male human being' after truncation of Anglo-Saxon wermann, 'male-human').  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ehrlich and King, 1994 is cited in several books on linguistics for a passage specifically about "chairperson" where the authors (Susan Ehrlich, Ruth King) point out that true generics such as chairperson and spokesperson, introduced to replace masculine generics like chairman and spokesman, seem to have lost their neutrality in that they are often only used for women ... Rather than ridding the language of a masculine generic, then, the introduction of neutral generic forms such as chairperson or chair has led to a gender-based distinction between forms such as chairperson or chair (used to designate females) vs. chairman (used to designate males). While this was published in 1994, it is still cited and acknowledged even in feminist books as recent as 2018 that chairperson continues to be "resisted very strongly". By so often pointing out that society hasn't adopted this term, they establish that it is not WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per COMMONNAME as evident in NGRAM and Oxford English dictionary entry. Should chair or chairperson overtake chairman - then we should consider changing this - at present this is premature.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, what do you make of these N-grams [9] [10] that only go up to 2008, plus the post-2009 sources in my !vote above? Doesn't convince you that chairman has fallen out of favor? Levivich 00:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    I'll comment. Your Ngrams are deliberately cherry-picked and intentionally misleading. You picked uncommon phrases (which I assume you had to spend quite some time using trial and error to find). In your "board ---"/"committee ---" examples, you left out the more common and natural phrases "--- of the board" and "--- of the committee" variants, which when combined with yours show a commanding lead for "chairman" in both cases (and more last-place finishes for "chairperson"). Nice try. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    Following up from Netoholic - I'm unimpressed with your references - as they are sources promoting gender-neutral language, and do not document language usage in a gender-activism-neutral perspective - in this respect a sources such as a dictionary documenting word usage - e.g. this presented above is preferred. As for NGRAM - the comparison of chairperson vs. chairman in that NGRAM is valid, however chair has its own set of problems - as searching for "board chair" may yield results for "board-suffix chair" (e.g. "card-(linebreak) board chair) as well as possibly confusing the "seat (chair) on the board" with "chair of the board". In this regard a search for "chair* of the board" removes such ambiguities - NGRAM. "chair of" may catch on (my read of the situation is that for board of directors - this is far less common, in academia use of "chair" is more common) as may "chairperson" - however we should update Wikipedia after such a change is established - not prior to it happening (after all - we don't want to WP:CITOGENSIS/advocate for language change - we follow common name, we don't lead for a change). Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chair (officer) as first choice per WP:COMMONNAME. As a man in my early 40s, I can't recall ever actually hearing someone use the term 'chairperson'; on the other hand, I can't remember the last time I heard someone say 'chairman' - I'm sure I must have heard it, but I literally can't remember when I last did. It's much more natural to say 'he's the chair of the board of studies', or 'she's the chair of the promotions committee' or whatever - that's the word that people actually use, at least wherever I've lived and worked.GirthSummit (blether) 20:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Part of me wants to vote support, but Chairman is its most common form (for whatever reason).Slatersteven (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think its clear "chairperson" is a valid term (not a NEO), and while there are arguments for what is more common, this seems like a case of IAR for something that benefits the work down the road later. Also, I would not be against the suggestion above from Girth Summit of "Chair (officier)" that eliminates much of the question. --Masem (t) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonable and well supported. Parabolist (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support chairperson, but that's a politically biased vote from my side and is explicitly independent of any policy or guideline, in response to this appearing in WP:CENT. In any other case, I would not respond. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. and MOS:GNL. COMMONNAME doesn't force us to use whatever term has the highest line on Ngrams; it's based around the insight that the most common name usually is the one that best fits the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but it's a presumption not a guarantee. There have been arguments advanced that the current name does not satisfy the criteria, and few if any of the opposes have actually articulated why "Chairman" fulfills the naming criteria better than "chairperson" (at best simply saying it's more common and at worst saying they don't like chairperson). On the other hand, many support votes have offered multiple independent justifications for why "Chairperson" better satisfies the naming criteria and our various guidelines. It's more consistent (e.g. Born2Cycle), it's it's more neutral (e.g. Goldenshimmer), it's used in other professional style guides (e.g. Nblund), we should put more weight on recent changes in usage (e.g., feminist), it makes sense (e.g. Kudpung). Oppose arguments are that chairman is more common (e.g., YairRand, though B2C and CurleyTurkey rebutt this well above: COMMONNAME means it should be in common usage not that it is the most common), we have other pages that end with -man (e.g. Netholic citing Alderman), gender neutrality is not necessary (e.g. Srnec), and "chairman" is gender neutral (e.g. John M Wolfson, though as a counterpoint, consider the existence of this discussion). I don't find any of the oppose arguments compelling, and certainly not enough to outweight the support arguments. Even a number of oppose !votes are in favor of a move (e.g. Huwmanbeing and Ohconfucious) but to some variant of "Chair" (which I also support). Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per clear conformity with WP:COMMONNAME On Google, I find 36,400,000 search results for Chairperson, but a whopping 372,000,000 for Chairman. The argument for WP:CONSISTENCY can be dismissed for all the examples given by B2C above, as WP:COMMONNAME clearly applies to each of them, as demonstrated by the Google search results shown below:
  • Bartender: (171,000,000 results) (Barman redirects: 34,800,000 results)
  • Firefighter: (198,000,000 results) (Fireman redirects: 74,500,000 results)
  • Mail carrier: (499,000,000 results) (Mailman redirects: 23,900,000 results and Postman: 31,100,000 results)
  • Police officer: (1,320,000,000 results (Policeman redirects: 77,700,000 results)
  • Spokesperson: 868,000,000 results (Spokesman redirects: 90,900,000 results)
I genuinely strive for gender equality whenever I can, but not to the extent of changing an article title to suit a gender neutrality approach when that would trump common usage. Wikipedia should reflect what words are notable and in common usage in English in the real world, not attempt to change that usage from within, no matter how laudable that might actually be. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
This really doesn't help us much. Google doesn't discriminate reliable from unreliable sources, or new from old, and "chairman" is common, in part, because there have historically been more men in those positions than women. Naturally, "chairman" is more common when we're talking about a specific man who presiding over a meeting, but the question is: "is chairman the best term for a position that could be filled by a person of any gender?". Nblund talk 15:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Not much to add beyond Wugapodes' nice summary above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is a push amongst the PC crowd to redefine our entire language on gender neutral terms. In many cases, it's a push back against what they feel is a "patriarchal tyranny". It's a straw man argument. Language will evolve and we should change it AS it evolves...we should NOT be the leading edge of "righting great wrongs". Buffs (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom and chairperson, chairman, chair, and chairwomen are all common names, therefore per WP:COMMONNAME: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. and MOS:GNL, as mentioned above. oncamera 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The evidence presented by Nick Moyes and others is convincing. shoy (reactions) 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common usage and the argument stated by Pudeo. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Copy and paste previous vote) Support for any gender-neutral name, with preference for Chairperson, then Chair (role), then Chair (office). I think MOS:GNL is more applicable than WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Recognizability is one of the five pillars, two others are precision and clarity. MOS:GNL gives specific examples of what shouldn't it shouldn't apply to: titles of works, or things that are in fact single-gendered. It noticeably doesn't say "Applies unless the gendered version is more common". WP:GNL I think also supports this interpretation. Safrolic (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As per Wugapodes and Nblund. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Gender-neutral and commonly used. While not quite as common as "chair", it obviously can't occupy the title Chair, and like Association football I think a longer term beats out an awkward parenthetical disambiguation. -- King of ♠ 02:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Yes for sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The rationale given is correct.  — Scott talk 13:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RM meta discussion[edit]

My vote above should not necessarily be seen as an endorsement of this new RM existing in the first place. Obviously, in general, I think starting a new RM or RfC right after one closes should be discouraged. But maybe this is a special case considering there was an issue with vote-splitting, and a strong majority of participants (more than 2-to-1) favored a move of some kind. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In actuality it was 12 for chairman, 12 for chairperson, 4 for chair officer, and 2 for chair role. So not more than 2–1 nor even 2–1. As to whether it's a "special case" I can't say, but those "special cases" can come back to bite the next time an RfC or RM happens in some other article and someone uses this "special case" as an example. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
But the second poll indicated most if not all of the "other" supporters (first pick is neither chairman nor chairperson), including Yours Truly, favored chairperson over chairman as well. The point here is to figure this out for sure once and for all. --В²C 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am emphatically not involving myself but am in fact pausing to mention that there is absolutely no requirement for any sort of waiting period to raise a second move request, especially a second move request to a different name. Red Slash 23:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    What Red Slash said. There is no policy-based reason why we cannot have this discussion. See WP:THREEOUTCOMES and WP:CCC. – bradv🍁 23:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    It's called Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process until you have exhausted the opposition and got what you want. This is not a time-critical decision. I don't believe that most of the participants have digested others opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: How do you explain this clear indication for fall of the term? COMMONNAME or any policy should not overrule good faith consensus. Commonsense and the majority opinion/advise of reliable sources also advocate for the term be deprecated. Throughout much of history the accepted term for me was Negro. Are you saying we should have waited until 1997 before we stopped using that term? Wasn't 1986 long enough? Sure advocate for any/* Requested move 8 May 2019 */ other term but opposing the removal chairman is nonsense. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Follow WP:Article titles policy - that's our only option. As for the rest, I'm not going to fall into a discussion with your race-baiting. Your search terms aren't even equivalent meanings and miss other relevant search terms entirely, and so present a false choice fallacy. -- Netoholic @ 02:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
That is fair point. But Wikipedia policies change. And this is how we change them. One consensus at a time. It is called common law --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Hard cases make bad law. -- Netoholic @ 02:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a hard case. Redirects are cheap and work just fine. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
And now Coffeeandcrumbs has made a second attempt to change all instances of chairman to chair. He was told not to do it and reverted anyways. Very uncool during this discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Please undo your reverts that removed dead link fixes. I have placed a neutrality tag instead. I am not interested in an edit war. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It was already reverted by someone else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - Usually, these requested moves are posted to the projects listed on the talk page and perhaps past participants. Sometimes to a central project, which can be helpful because it brings in a group of unknowns whose opinions will vary greatly. But we have had a huge number of one-sided respondents in this that have suddenly appeared and that seems a bit odd when looking at the last couple of RMs. Were some opinionated people/groups/projects canvassed or is this just natural? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    I haven't checked for canvassing or whether these are mostly repeats or new contributors, but these responses seem totally consistent with the consensus favoring Chairperson over Chairman in the first RM that seemed obvious to me and some others, but apparently was not so clear to you, the closer and about half the participants at the MRV. Frankly, I don't get why those of you who didn't see it didn't see it, but this result is no surprise to me, for one. --В²C 18:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Considering it was 12–12 last time, with a few others wanting a move to something else, you would think the numbers would be similar. I'm not sure why this RM topic is so popular this time. If it changes it changes, but it feels strange with these new fans. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know how you get 12-12. There was an undisputed consensus, even noted in the MRV, to move away from Chairman in the first survey of the first RM, and in the second #Ranked choice survey of the first RM:
    • 8 Favored Chairman over Chairperson: Martin, Fyunck, Jmar, Necro, ONR, Serge, Springv, Nec
    • 12 Favored Chairperson over Chairman: Lev, Wanda, SJ, Sarah, Timp, King, Granger, B2C, Ajax, SMc, Evergreen, DJ.
    Not to mention that this second Ranked survey was prematurely closed and was moving in the direction of more support for Chairperson. So, yeah, I don't see why these results would be a surprise to anyone. It confirms exactly what Sarah, Lev, I and others pointed out was going on. --В²C 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    In actuality it was 12 for chairman, 12 for chairperson, 4 for chair officer, and 2 for chair role. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Why would you consider only the first choice in a Ranked choice survey if you're generally trying to determine consensus support between any two choices? For example, your approach misses my favoring of Chairperson over Chairman (first choice was chair officer). That's a misreading of the effort everyone is putting in, and explains why you're surprised at the results here. --В²C 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    I went by the numbers. Sure you can say it was 18 to 12 in favor of moving, and it might even move with those numbers. I would expect after weeks of discussion that the numbers would be similar with perhaps a move, perhaps not. But it's moot as I found the reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    I also went by the numbers; that's how I got the 3 to 2 ratio (18 to 12) favoring Chairperson over Chairman on top of the clear consensus favoring moving from Chairman. That's why I was surprised it was closed as "no consensus", and why I was further surprised to see so many endorse that close. It's not moot. What you found has nothing to do with these numbers. -В²C 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    And like in politics, numbers can be contexted into looking so different depending on how those numbers are conveyed... we all know that. And baloney... the canvassing I found may have had a huge impact. 5–4 before and 17-6 after. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    The canvassing you found may affect the current survey, but it can't have affected the numbers we've been discussing here - the ones from the first RM. As to how those numbers can be "contexted", yeah, you can ignore the rankings in a ranked survey or take them into account. If you ignore them you misread consensus. If you account for them you read consensus correctly. Your choice. --В²C 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE - FOUND IT! What the cr@p!!! It appears I was correct in my observations. We have an editor (an administrator too) who listed this RM survey at Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, WikiProject Feminism, and Women in Red! No wonder the new blood and all one sided! Any closer should note the bias in the choices and the tainting of the survey. My goodness. Why not list it in military and firearms groups, or capitalism and Trump groups? That narrow slice of the pie answers my original query. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    Fyunck(click), you should ping me when you talk about me. You omitted to say that I also left a note at WikiProject Business, [11] WikiProject Politics, [12] and as B2C points out below, WP:CENT. [13] SarahSV (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SlimVirgin: I didn't use your name, but I should have pinged you anyway. At the top I mentioned that notifying the article projects and cent was a good idea. You missed "WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure" but a bot caught that. The project articles were also notified in the other RM requests, either by me or someone else. It was the other three new groups that concerns me greatly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Also: Template:Centralized_discussion and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style_discussions_elsewhere_[keep_at_top_of_page]. --В²C 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Fyunck is surprised an RfC listed at CENT is getting traffic. Fyunck, new editors joining the conversation is a good thing. It's not some grand conspiracy you've uncovered. Levivich 20:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, as I said, CENT is a good thing. A large melting pot of varying ideas. The other three are terribly out of place and canvassing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Whether our article is titled "Chairman" or "Chairperson" is "terribly out of place" for the Gender Gap Task Force, WP Feminism, and WiR? You don't think editors in those projects would be interested in this? Or do you think they shouldn't have a say because they're participants in those projects? Please explain how posting on the talk page of a WikiProject is canvassing, which says (right at the beginning of the first section): An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. Levivich 21:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
          • What does that have to do with the price of eggs? I'm sure there's any number of editors, groups, or forums, that would be interested in this. Shall we post to some political correctness groups? Perhaps India since they have English as an official language? Maybe some I hate gov't groups to see what they think? The point is you don't canvass groups that are predisposed to your own position. Maybe we should poll the Russians since they seem to like meddling in things these days? ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
            Yeah but you can easily tell the canvassed Russian !votes because they're !voting for ChairmanPremier. The Chinese, meanwhile, think it should stay at Chairman. :-) Levivich 22:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    My limited interactions with SV have been positive and I'm sure canvasing was not the intent. However, I think it's very likely that the notifications in question are likely to result in a biased response. Fyunck's concerns are valid in this case. While, as I stated above, think that per COMMONNAME we shouldn't change the title (Wikipedia by its nature should lag such changes rather than lead them), I don't think "Chairperson" is so terrible a title that we should be making such a big deal out of it (that includes the improper NPOV tag for using "Chairman" instead of "Chairperson". Springee (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Which of the above !votes should be discounted due to bias? Just the ones you disagree with, or...? This line of argument is like, "All editors who care about the gender gap or feminism will !vote for chairperson, therefore we shouldn't invite them to join the discussion." Levivich 03:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah well, the damage is done and is impossible to undo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)That is always the problem if there is improper notification of a group of editors. So let's suppose I'm part of "project don't mess with old school language" and I found out about this discussion when an editor posted a notice on the DMWOSL project page. Should my opinions count? I would say yes. After all, even if it was decided the posting to project:DMWOSL was absolutely wrong and clear canvasing, I wasn't an active participant in the canvasing. Once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back and you shouldn't blame the cat for the troubles. Things might be different if, for example, I found out because an editor specifically notified me or asked me to vote. Then I would be foolish to weigh in as I should know I was being recruited (the usual proper notifications excluded of course). Regardless we now have two issues. First, the closing editor really needs to take NOTAVOTE to heart. If 1 editor makes a killer argument while 10 say "oppose" without reason then the 1 killer argument should carry the day. The second is if the result is "change" then a strong case could be made that the RfC was invalid due to the canvasing and the results should be thrown out. I personally do not care strongly enough about the issue to do this myself. Springee (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Springee: I posted the same message to, in order, GGTF, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Politics, Women in Red, WikiProject Feminism, and CENT. I did almost the same last time, except for CENT, so I suspect that's the one that made the difference. I can tell you of GGTF that you're as likely to find opponents on that watchlist as supporters. What we're seeing here is a fresh group of people, rather than the ones who already had this page on their watchlists. That's why you're seeing the view change—not because of canvassing, but simply because of fresh eyes. SarahSV (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    SV, like I said, my previous experience coming to you for advice was very positive so I don't want this to come across as any type of criticism of your integrity. That said, I do think the groups like Gender gap task force, and Feminism etc are very likely to have strong feelings in one direction. It's also not clear that this name is strictly a Feminism or Gender gap task force question. Consider if we were debating "Chair (roll)" vs "Chairperson", would it have made sense to notify those projects? Springee (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Springee: GGTF watchers are a very mixed bag, because people who opposed the project began watching it too. WikiProject Feminism isn't active. I alerted GGTF and WikiProject Feminism in March, and as you saw it didn't help. The thing that made the difference here is CENT. I used CENT this time, but not last time, because now the issue has become really intractable, and I felt I could justify it. It's important to stay away from the idea that it's canvassing if we inform a page where most people might want change, but pages with watchers more likely to want chairman are neutral. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    It's only "intractable" because one or two of the original correspondents refused to accept the closures and kept opening it up again. Presumably they will continue this behaviour until they get their way at which point all we'll hear is "it's been decided". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Fyunck(click), Springee Just thought I'd comment that I, though a member of WiR, was not aware of previous proposals on this title, and discovered the current one through CENT. I do not look at WiR every day, but I do look at AfD, where CENT appears - and where all the other editors, of wildly varying views, who participate in AfDs would see it too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SarahSV: That is not a diff for WikiProject Politics this is. lolMJLTalk 02:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    MJL, that is most peculiar. This is my post. The diff looks okay, but it goes to the wrong page. Thanks for pointing it out. SarahSV (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    I tend to concur with Fyunck that selectively notifying GGTF, etc., is obviously canvassing; the only effect it could possibly have is vote-stacking by bringing in editors who almost uniformly share the same viewpoint on such matters (and I say that as someone who also shares it). However, the CENT notification probably mitigates the actual effect of this, in this case. Still, the canvasser, being an admin, certainly knows better.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: if you talk about me, please ping me. I'm very familiar with the GGTF. A significant number of editors arrived there over the years with strong views against the kinds of changes that a lot of us want to see. If I were deliberately canvassing to achieve one result, I'd consider not posting there. Ditto WikiProject Feminism. I intend to continue letting people on those pages know about feminist and gender issues they might be interested in, because it would be absurd not to. See WP:APPNOTE: "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." SarahSV (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Selective quotation. The important part you left off is "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", which is exactly what's happening when you notify GGTF of something like this (which has nothing to do with closing the gender gap in our article coverage, but plays directly to the politics of the vast majority of that project's participants. The fact that some trolling happened a long time ago is irrelevant; anyone watching/participating there knows WT:GGTF is overwhelmingly dominated by a left-progressive Gestalt. I'm making a general point here, since I also share most of the politics of the bulk of the GGTF regulars. If you were going to notify cent, there was no reason to attract the specific attention of GGTF which will predictably produce a bloc vote (they'll find out about it in their own time like the rest of the editorship). It's a bloc vote in favor of the result you and I both want from this RM, but it's still a bloc vote. The effect one has is to temporarily bolster one side of a discussion, but at the cost of the resulting consensus (if any) looking less real and more a WP:FALSECONSENSUS the more that a clear bloc responds. It's a "win the battle to lose the war" problem. Starting a few years ago, I noticed this effect happening, and avoidance of it has been very effective. E.g., for WP:BREEDCAPSRFC, I used VPPOL and CENT but studiously avoided attracting the individual or group attention of breeds-focused editors (e.g. by pining individuals or by spamming the breeds-focused wikiprojects) because I knew that, while obviously interested, they were almost unanimously of a single opinion on the matter (they form a bloc). They got their say the same way everyone else did, trickling in as they noticed the discussion was open. The resulting outcome was what I predicted it would be, and what those people argued for, but it's a strong consensus because the community made it organically; it wasn't piled-on by a canvassed [on purpose or inadvertently] faction. It matters.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    You're factually wrong about the GGTF re: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." That's all I'm going to say, because there's no point in arguing about it. Informing the GGTF about gender-related discussions is perfectly valid. If you want it to stop, you'll have to gain consensus for your position. SarahSV (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    I came here because of the WP:MOS talk page link, but GGTF seems like an obvious choice for a place to put this conversation. Looking at the discussion a above, it looks like editors who follow gender issues and edit in that topic area are participating in the RfC, and I have a really hard time seeing why that shouldn't be the case given the subject matter. If there are other pages that are also relevant, then maybe someone should add more notifications, but I don't think the purpose of prohibiting canvassing is to limit participation by interested and knowledgeable editors. Nblund talk 05:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I made my !vote on the since we're discussing process down here, I concur with the other comments that opening this RM was very poor judgement. Born2cycle I am usually a strong defender of you and your conduct, because you care deeply about the RM process and article titling and more often than not the thing that people label as "tendentious conduct" is simply an attempt to uphold well-trodden Wikipedia protocol and policy. You've got this one badly wrong, though. The original RM was contentious, the MRV equally so, and it was closed as endorse. That means it's time to leave the issue be for some time. JFG suggested a moratorium of a year, and I think that's sensible. Starting a fresh RM, proposing a title which is very clearly much worse than the originally proposed title of Chair (officer), is not helpful to anyone and just prolongs the agony further, because I highly doubt this will achieve consensus. Crucially, there's nothing broken about the current title - it is demonstrably far and away the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, and there is also plenty of evidence that the term "chairman" is valid for women as well as men. In short, there is WP:NODEADLINE for any possible moves that might take place. Please withdraw this RM, and let's come back in a year with a fresh proposal to move to Chair (officer), and I imagine I will support that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Amakuru, as is usual, we agree about the main point; in this case that Chair (officer) is the best title choice for this article per WP:CRITERIA. And of course we’re not the only ones who see this. But the fact is that that first RM at the top of this page, which expressly proposed moving this article to that title, did not gain consensus for that. That particular ship has sailed and reproposing that would be disruptive. Surely you agree with that too?
    Where we disagree is about whether Chairperson or Chairman is the better title of the two (my support is in the nom, your oppose is in the survey), and whether the first RM showed consensus for Chairperson. Since recognizing that consensus in the first RM required some inference that many were unwilling to do, it became obvious to me that the only way to persuade many of the existence of that consensus is with an RM making this particular proposal to move to Chairperson. As to the appropriateness of this RM at this time, even the closer of the first RM, Red Slash, notes “that there is absolutely no requirement for any sort of waiting period to raise a second move request, especially a second move request to a different name”.
    If I was wrong and this RM was getting pummeled with Opposes calling for a SNOW close, as was the case with the previous RM which was started while negotiations with the closer of the first RM were underway, and pressure for the MRV was building, then I would withdraw. But that’s clearly not the case. In fact, it looks like we’re moving towards a consensus for a title that I genuinely believe will remain stable here. And title stability is of course my ultimate goal, as always. —В²C 11:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Born2cycle: so you're happy to move to the third best title for the article? I strongly dispute that that would lead to any kind of stability of the Yogurt or New York type. The only title that can achieve that is Chair (officer). You support that, I support "Chair (officer)", several other opposers above also do, and it's the only title that really has a hope of getting consensus in an RM, perhaps in six months or so if you think it's too soon to try that again now. That should be the goal here, not moving to a title that nobody really likes, and which frankly is hardly used in the real world. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not quite. I genuinely think Chairperson is far preferable to the sexist Chairman, and believe if we had more female editors this wouldn’t even be a question (notwithstanding the counter-examples of certain women going with the Chairman title). I think this move succeeding gets us to stability one of two ways. Either it becomes the stable title itself or it is the stepping stone that gets us away from Chairman and eventually allows choosing between Chairperson and a disambiguated Chair title which may in turn be the eventual stable choice. Either way, it’s a step towards stability. —В²C 12:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For anyone who might be worried that all the participants here are acting in good faith, check out this recent edit. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel B. Lewis (talkcontribs) 12:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding N-grams and WP:COMMONNAME: Mental retardation, wet dream, and Gypsy are all more common than intellectual disability, nocturnal emission, or Romani, respectively, in the google N-grams corpus. Wikipedia uses the less common names for article titles in all three cases. The google corpus is not necessarily a great metric for encyclopedic language, and WP:COMMONNAME is just one consideration out of many in article titles. I think it would be heavy-handed to completely dismiss editors who are citing that policy without any additional context, but I do think that !voters who just say "chairman is more common" really need come up with something better than N-gram results if their !votes going to be given full weight. Nblund talk 03:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    WP:COMMONNAME is not just "one consideration" - it is the predominant one representing Recognizability under the WP:CRITERIA. Gender neutrality or any other MOS considerations are not at all part of WP:TITLES. In fact, WP:POVNAME explicitly points out that sometimes our titles are not neutral in the conventional sense. Your claims are simply an attempt to undermine TITLES, the -only- policy which governs page names, because you know that doing so is the only tactic for excusing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS claims of the Support votes. The only votes that should have full weight here are the ones that argue on TITLES grounds, as stated in the header of this RM and in keeping with RM closing instructions. As for your list of WP:OTHERSTUFF, perhaps those need to be re-evaluated. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    The policy itself says that editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles. Precision, consistency, and accuracy often trump commonality. More importantly, WP:COMMONNAME specifies that we're looking for common names in reliable sources, and the google N-grams corpus doesn't account for reliability at all. Intellectual disability is a useful illustration of why that is a problem: the term "mental retardation" is far more common in the corpus, but it's virtually non-existent in high-quality reliable sources published in the last decade or so. Nblund talk 04:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Didn't want to forget to disprove this assertion. Searching in Google Scholar for these terms from 2009-2019 (aka "the last decade") - "mental retardation" gets 119k results, "intellectual disability" gets 115k results. Not quite, as you said, "virtually non-existent in high-quality reliable sources". Please, please stop making things up that can be so easily shown to be false statements. Its almost seeming like you're intentionally trying to obfuscate and mislead. -- Netoholic @ 14:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The the DSM-V adopted new terminology in 2013, and "intellectual disability" has become far more prevalent in the ensuing years in the relevant literature. It's not the name of the condition, and it's silly to cite a corpus that includes fiction and other non-medical texts to try to name something. "Common" doesn't mean common for everyone. It means "common" in reliable sources, and assessing reliability depends on context and requires a modicum of effort beyond Googling. Case in point: the first page of results "mental retardation" after 2013 turns up three books that are actually from the 80s and 90s, a number of papers from open access journals in genetics, and one article that is actually about the changing terminology itself. None of these are particularly compelling compared to the position of the APA. Nblund talk 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Anything to avoid apologizing for using the phrase "virtually non-existent in high-quality reliable sources", eh? Even if you cut it to just Google Scholar sources to 2018-present, there are still 17,400 results for MR and 18,400 results for ID. Please just apologize for using a clearly misleading and provable falsehood. APA guideline is a consideration, but as you know we don't use WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and if the mental health industry is slow to accept new terminology, then wider society is even slower too. -- Netoholic @ 16:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
When I say "high quality reliable sources" I mean top journals in the relevant field. I definitely don't mean a pre-print server paper, or a book from 1986, or a book from 1985,or a patent appliction. You misinterpreted me if you thought that was my argument. "Wider society" is not a reliable source, and I'm not aware of a policy that says that prohibits the use official names. Reasonable people can disagree over how to weight these considerations, but the argument that common name is the only policy and google searches are the only metric is just silly. We often use less popular titles when popular titles are problematic. WP:COMMONNAME even says this. Nblund talk 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
More moving the goalposts, avoidance of intellectual responsibility, strawmanning, cherrypicking, and obfuscation. I'm done with your dishonest tactics and will leave it to others. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Cherry picking? I listed the first four search results in order. Nblund talk 17:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, N-grams are basically useless on matters like this, for numerous reasons, including unreliability of the indexed material, impossibility of being certain of the context (e.g. use in cases where the gender of the referent is actually known), the corpora including a lot of fiction, uncertainty of the age of the material (republication and quotation of material from, say, 1942 in a book published in 2007 will count as "2007" material in the corpora), etc., etc. A N-gram can be very partial evidence in cases where one usage is vastly preferable, regardless of dialect, and has been so for several generations, but it can be misleading, useless data in edge cases like this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    The above is just simply more deconstruction of our policy and the tools we use. N-grams are basically useless on matters like this has no proof, no justification, its just a statement of opinion. "Use commonly recognizable names" is our policy - and Ngrams is a measure of common use of terms. Its a tool we use very often in move discussions, and there is nothing about this one that, despite your uncited claims, makes it an "edge case" with a disparity such as this - even for women only. There is NO SOURCE presented anywhere in this RM discussion which counters the well-established fact that "chairman" is the most commonly-used term - even prescriptive sources like style guides acknowledge that this to still be the case. Yair rand also brought evidence above from the NOW Corpus which indexes web-based newspapers and magazines from 2010 to the present - nicely filling the gap in Ngrams reports and again demonstrating the common use of "chairman". You are trying to turn Wikipedia into another of these prescriptive resources that tells the world how you think it should speak, rather than humbly describing the world as it is. You know, I can somewhat respect the support voters that are at least honest with their feelings about this even when they acknowledge it to be against our policies - but I don't think anyone should respect those that want to tear down those fundamental policies just because they are inconvenient to a prescriptive agenda. -- Netoholic @ 11:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The justification is in the next clause of the sentence. If the policy is "always use the N-gram viewer" then it would say that, and I'd be starting the discussion to move Sexual intercourse -> fuck. But the actual policy says that we should consider accuracy, neutrality, precision, and consistency and that we should measure commonality by looking at reliable sources, not just counting books. Nblund talk 13:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Your novice use of Ngrams may be the reason you distrust it (or claim to in this one circumstance to get your way). First, you are comparing a verb to a noun, and second, as I'm sure is obvious, "fuck" is often simply an exclamation unrelated to sex, so your comparison is hardly representative. -- Netoholic @ 13:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Good lord. It's a joke dude. I gave substantive examples above. I'm glad to see you at least acknowledge that context and parts of speech matter, but I don't distrust N-grams corpus at all: Google never claimed that they were assembling a database of appropriate Wikipedia titles based on an authoritative compendium of reliable sources. I trust hammers to drive in nails, but you're trying to wipe your ass with one. "Don't use the claw end you rube, hold it backward and wipe with the handle!" Nblund talk 14:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh yep, I liked your "substantive example" above about mental retardation. Take about a joke. -- Netoholic @ 14:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A pretty strong case is made at Talk:Mail carrier#Mail carrier that "Mail carrier" is an awful neologism without sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @SmokeyJoe: exactly. And yet the title remains Mail carrier. How long do you think an RM there would last before it was SNOW closed? 2 days? Or 2 hours? Why do you think that is, and why do you think the similar reasoning does not apply here? By the way, USPS is using "carrier" in the job listings (City Carrier and Rural Carrier) at And mail carrier is a common description on job search websites. --В²C 15:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Just saying. Mail carrier is a poor example, unlike the others, I’d have not included it. I guess, give it a few more years, and either there will be no more physical letter deliveries, or humans won’t be doing them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fyunck(click): You are very active in this discussion, and I wish to note your partisan 'gotcha' comment above. Explain, like I am five, how the two groups of sub-projects [Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, Feminism, Women in Red] and [military, firearms, capitalism, Trump] are diametrically opposed. Posting on those latter projects would be absurd, so what are you implying about those users who respond at either (presumably mutually exclusive) sets of projects. What is the purpose of your commentary? cygnis insignis 15:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Born2cycle: I've posted a request at WP:AN/RFC for one or more closers. Given how contentious this is, it might make sense to have more than one. SarahSV (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment: Interesting consistent trend. Back in the second (ranked) survey of the earlier RM I note 18 out of 30 favored Chairperson over Chairman - that's 60%. For some reason this consensus was not recognized by the closer of that RM, which is why I nominated this move, to confirm what I thought was already clear. And the consensus here does seem to be the same; even a bit stronger. As of now, over 60% of the respondents (42/68) support the move to Chairperson, and that's how it was last week too (28/43). --В²C 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I just did the same count and got about the same result though I did count the "too soon" and similar replies in the total so I said 42/70. This is about at my threshold where I would argue that a pure vote changes from "no consensus" to "consensus for change". Since we have to show a consensus to change I've always felt that was something more than just a simple majority. However I also see two factors working against a simple vote (beyond WP:NOTAVOTE). I think both sides have made some good arguments and if I were the closing editor (which I cannot be) I'm not sure I would feel that the "support" side has made a stronger case vs the "oppose" side. But if the balance of facts/arguments are about equal then perhaps numbers should force the issue. Then I return to my question regarding is the vote sufficiently in favor of change to call it a new consensus. By numbers alone I think we have crossed that line but... I think a case for improper notification can be made. Earlier I supported that view and along with stating I don't think it was done in any type of bad faith. Regardless, it muddies the water regarding numbers. Of course my read should be seen in context of my opposing "Chairperson" but supporting "Chair (office/position)". Springee (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I think the results of the ranked survey in the earlier RM, where there was no "improper notification" AFAIK, tracking the results here should remove any concern about the effect of "improper notification". As to preferring disambiguated Chair, quite a few of us do, but that was clearly/explicitly not favored by consensus in the previous RM. As I noted below, I think our best bet to get there is via "Chairperson", though I think this title ending up at Chairperson is still far better than the sexist Chairman. I agree there are strong arguments on both sides, and as a champion of COMMONNAME I sure do appreciate the chief opposition argument here, but I have been convinced that in some cases we do have to make other considerations and sometimes have to choose a title other than the most commonly used name. Especially in a case like this where usage is clearly changing. The ngrams data only takes us to around 2000, so that's not much help except to confirm that Chairman usage has been in a nosedive since the 1970s. And that's in published book usage which is inherently on a significant delay relative to modern everyday usage that governs user expectations. Even investopedia doesn't use chairman. Nor should we, and Chairperson is a reasonable alternative natural disambiguation to Chair. --В²C 18:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It is both misleading and inappropriate for a nom to do this kind of calculation. What purpose does it serve? The closer will not simply do a strict count of votes, but will look at the arguments made WP:RMCI#Determining consensus) in recognition primarily of WP:Article titles policy. Also, at this moment, we're still two days away from the end of the standard one-week RM discussion period, and they may even relist it for longer, so this "count" is premature. Maybe the strategy is to try to get this closed early, at a moment when you think the raw numbers are in your favor? -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for moving this down here; better. While consensus is not determined by simply counting votes, vote counts do matter, a lot, especially in cases like this where there are strong arguments on both sides. I'm not the first participant/nom to comment on how a discussion is going before it has concluded, but my point in this case is to bring attention to the fact that the Chairperson:Chairman support ratio here closely matches that in the ranked survey of the first RM, about 60:40, which I think is interesting. Your mileage may vary. I'm in no hurry get this closed; that was a problem with the first RM. --В²C 19:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
        • The full survey in the last RM was 12–12–4–2, but certainly there is no reason to hurry to close this. Maybe someone will come up with an argument no one else has thought of. Strength of argument is still the key for a closer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Looking only at the first choice of each participant in a ranked survey is missing the point of a ranked survey, especially if you're trying to determine if there is consensus favoring one between any two of the choices, like between Chairperson and Chairman. That's my point. That looking deeper in the ranked survey is accurate. That is, the 60/40 preference of Chairperson over Chairman elicited from that multi-choice ranking survey matches, so far, the more traditional A vs B direct survey results between the two we're getting here. --В²C 20:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
            • The survey in the last RM was a non-starter and was already considered in that RM close and move review. This whole thread about point-in-time vote tallies by the nom and reminiscing about that survey is irrelevant to the current RM, and I'd suggest hatting this whole thread. -- Netoholic @ 20:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
              • The whole point of both surveys was the same: to determine if there is consensus to change this article's title. The fact that both are indicating similar results about 60:40 consensus between Chairperson and Chairman is very pertinent to the whole point of this RM. Of course, if you don't like those results and their similarities an immature response would be to hat the discussion that brings attention this fact. --В²C 21:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
                The ranking section of the survey really only helped to see if there were two that stood out so that we could have a runoff two-item RM. It did help to establish chairman and chairperson as the choices, which we have here and in the last RM. So now we let this RM run its course to see what the (mostly) general populous wants between the two. Time will tell. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
                The ranking section did far more than that. Each participant ranked all four choices relative to each other, so for each participant you can easily determine preferences between any two choices, including whether each favors Chairman over Chairperson or vice versa. For example, I ranked Chairperson 3rd and Chairman 4th, indicating I preferred Chairperson over Chairman, even though Chairperson was only my 3rd choice. And the results of doing that for each person is that 60% favor Chairperson over Chairman, which, again, is very similar to what we're seeing here. Surprise, surprise? Not much. --В²C 23:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of "Neutrality" template[edit]

A Neutrality (meaning NPOV) template was added to the article by this edit. My impression is that the current discussion on using the word "chair" in the article concerns gender neutrality. Is the template appropriate? Is there a similar template for gender neutrality issues? Jmar67 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Other than the question of Chairman vs Chairperson etc I don't see what is claimed to be in dispute. Tag removed. The editor who feels the tag is needed should make their case here first. Springee (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I've restored the tag. The article is not neutral. It pushes the "chairman" issue hard, and the sources are out of date, e.g "A 1994 Canadian study found ..." Who cares what a 1994 study found? SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Definitely neutrality issues that need to be resolved. The text "Companies with both an executive chairman and a CEO include Ford,[44] HSBC,[45] Alphabet Inc.,[46] HP,[47] and Apple.[48]" is sourced entirely to primary sources, which is WP:OR that appears to push a POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That is an issue of sourcing, not NPOV. If changing between two synonyms addressed the issue then this was never a NPOV question. Springee (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we need some sort of concrete example of this non-neutral material. If changing from "chairman" to "chairperson" fixes the NPOV issue then we don't have a NPOV issue. We would have a NPOV issue if the article put effort into arguing that people who push for Chairperson vs Chairman or the reverse are wrong. I think the editor who placed the NPOV tag should have posted a talk section explaining its inclusion. If an editor places that type of tag and can't support it, it should be removed. Springee (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for the editors who placed or restored the tag, but the NPOV problems I see in the article currently are that the Terminology section covers the chairman/chair/chairperson issue in an undue way, the Roles and responsibilities section has a low-quality photograph that I think was added primarily because it's an example of a woman using the title "chairman", the Public corporations and Vice chairman sections lists only examples of men in the position, and almost the entire article uses "chairman" even when the sources use some other term. In all, the whole article reads to me like it was written to defend the article title being "chairman". In addition, it may be US-centric, there are non-NPOV problems like unsourced sections, and it could use reorganization and expansion. Levivich 03:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The picture problem can be rectified and doesn't need a full article tag. The second issue, using a specific synonym isn't a NPOV issue even if the source doesn't use the exact term. Are you going to argue that if the title changes it will be a NPOV issue if we change the various examples of "Chairman" to "Chairperson"? The specific question of changing examples of chairman to something else was addressed above and consensus was clearly to use the title word throughout the article. Sorry, the justification for the tag seems to be based in nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs any part of WP:NPOV. Springee (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
More than one of us has pointed out POV issues. How about solving them before removing the tag? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
They aren't POV issues. Chairman is a neutral word. Changing it to Chairperson doesn't change the meaning of the sentence so it doesn't change the neutrality of the article. This is basically an abuse of the NPOV tag. Which of these NPOV issues are we dealing with? Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view I don't see the article stating opinion as fact. I don't see the article stating contested assertions as fact. I don't see the article stating facts as opinions. I don't see the article using judgmental language. I don't see the article creating a false balance between opposing points of view. So where is the NPOV issue? We had a discussion above regarding changing Chairman to other terms in the body of the article and consensus clearly was against that change assuming the current article title. The editor who placed the tag has yet to weigh in. This is really poor form to keep the tag in place if changing a synonym is all that is needed to fix the issue. Imagine if a person placed a NPOV tag on an article about a particular type of automobile because they felt "car" was the better word. That is what we are seeing here. Springee (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Springee: "They aren't POV issues. Chairman is a neutral word."—the concern I raised was not "chairman is a non-neutral word", so why is this your response to me? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!
The wording of the template is vague in that it does not refer specifically to NPOV. The template could be replaced with a hatnote referring to gender neutrality. Jmar67 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I think this tag may be more appropriate.
The issue I see is cherry-picking of sources, examples, and too much focus on #Public corporations. While there is almost no mention of how governmental bodies and non-profit organizations define the role. Almost every person linked is a white male. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Expanding the examples in the non-corporate world is fine. I don't think the article needs a tag for that, just be bold and fix things. I'm not at all sure you are making a good argument since the subject of the article is not inherently race or gender based hence I don't see why the mention of "white males" is relevant. Does the role of say the chairman of a company or university department chair change if the person in that position changes from/to a white male to/from a non-white (and/or) female? Anyway, rather than adding the questionable tag, add more examples and examples outside of the corporate world. It might be of interest to add some history of the term and it's use. Springee (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
When almost every example we give for a chairperson is a white male, the reader gets the false impression that all chairpersons are white and male. This is an accusation I levy against the article and is separate from the discussion about the title of the article. As for editing the article and being bold, trust me I will. I am going to wait till this all dies down. In the mean time, the tag is there to alert the reader that this article does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to address the claim that 'Chairman is a neutral word'. In nearly every usage search that I've done, Chairman appears as an example of problematic language. For instance, in Chicago Manual of Style. The usage pattern of chairman in google books shows that its usage has dropped by nearly 2/3s since 1970, coinciding with the advent of usage guidelines recommending more neutral terminology. The waters are a bit muddy because the context is important. Style guidelines for generic titles are distinct from the style recommendations for titles for individuals. Chairman of the Board is a common generic position title, and Chairman is the proper title in parliamentary usage, while the style guidelines recommend respecting the individual's preference when using the title for a specific person. A look at the US House of Representatives and Senate website shows that the usage of chairman as a title for individuals is inconsistent and probably based on their individual preference. A news search on Janet Yellen showed references overwhelmingly used the term chair. Again, most likely a reflection of her preference. —IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. The AP style guide apparently used to prohibit "chairwoman" all together, but now it actually endorses chairwoman even if woman's actual preference is chairman. The fact that we have a widely accepted gender neutral term and a widely accepted term for women and men makes it really implausible to say that this is a genderless term. Nblund talk 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Chairperson is not "widely" accepted is an alternative to the neutral use of chairman. Real-world business and political usage is actually very minimal no matter what some style guides tell us. Chairman is what I almost always hear. I have heard chairwoman and chair used. I honestly can't recall anyone ever using chairperson. Of course all terms usually take a back seat to the chairman's first name. So one can say that in written text, it is minimally common to see "chairperson", "chairman" is far more common. Using the term "widely" seems an exaggeration. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
You're conflating acceptance with use. I can see a case for saying that "chairman" is more widely used, but "chair", "chairwoman" and "chairperson" are all recognized and accepted as grammatical, making "chairman" sound even more gendered and imprecise for this article. The AP style guide, which tends to be relatively slow on these things, now accepts chairperson and obligates "chairwoman" for female chairs. Naturally, "chairman" is common, in part, because there are a lot of men who are chairs of things so that's not especially informative here. At best it's sort of like saying "man" is more common than "woman" or "human". Nblund talk 03:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
AP still says to use Chairman, and says to use Chairwoman if it's a woman. It says you can use chairperson and chair if the organization demands it. That's far from widely accepted. They still say to use chairmanship, not chairpersonship. Now, there are plenty of titles here at wikipedia that don't use the common spelling or even close to it. That may happen here also, and so be it if it does. I have no issue with a fair consensus being different than my own usage. But chairperson is a minor term not much used in the real world, and I'll bet it stays that way for quite awhile (if not forever). To say it's a "widely accepted term for women and men" (especially men!) is really stretching the truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think "accepted" means. My grocery accepts personal checks, it doesn't mean that they prefer or demand them. To be clear: I was saying that "chairperson" is a widely accepted gender neutral term, and that "chairwoman" and "chairman" are accepted for women and men, respectively. The AP says that chairman should be used for men. It does not say that women should be called "chairman". So there's a male version and a female version. There is also an un-gendered version that has been "accepted as standard English" according to reliable sources like the OED. Nblund talk 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually both chairperson and chairman have been accepted as neutral. But there is a difference of acceptance by the grammar police as opposed to being accepted by those living in the English speaking world. I will use the term "stocky" even though "pyknic" is "accepted as standard English." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Now that's stretching the truth. I don't want to just copy-paste the discussion above, but most of the style guides specifically recommend against applying "chairman" for women (AP) or outright recommend against using it as gender neutral (Chicago) altogether. I actually haven't come across any contemporary language manual that recommends chairman as gender neutral. At best, chairman has a gendered and a non-gendered implication. So why would we use an imprecise and potentially misleading term when we have a perfectly acceptable alternative that avoids ambiguity? Nblund talk 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't see that Fyunck(click) is stretching anything. He's clearly making a distinction between the grammar police with their style guides and ordinary people who just live their lives thinking, speaking and reading English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misreading, but I understood the sentence beginning with "Actually" to imply that they were directly disagreeing with my contention that the grammar police view chairman as gendered. If the argument is simply "grammar police say it's gendered, but ordinary people don't", I'm not sure that's true either: "chairman" may be common in cases where the a chair is a man, but I'm not sure it's a common address for female chairs. I usually hear "chair" or "chairwoman" in those cases, and C-Span transcripts suggest that "Madam chair" is far more common than "Madam chairman", particularly in the last decade. In any case: Wikipedia is written in "plain English", but not vernacular English, and I haven't seen anyone offer a reason to eschew "chair" or "chairperson" when a gender is truly unknown. Why would we use a term that is potentially gendered when we have another term that avoids that problem? Nblund talk 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have to say that whilst I think this is a misuse there are users who are saying this article is pushing a POV in violation of policy, and we must respect that. But at the same time I do not think they have made a good case here. So I think taking this to DR might be the best option.Slatersteven (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Could someone who supports the Too few opinions tag succinctly explain the reason for it's use here? I originally, and perhaps mistakenly, assumed the issue was the use of "Chairman" vs other terms in the article and thus my assumption was the editors would have agreed to remove the tag if, for example, we replaced "chairman" with "chairperson". However, I was told that wasn't correct. So what is correct and is anyone actually trying to resist that change? Springee (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What is happening?[edit]

RfC was closed with consensus that the common name is Chairperson. Yet people from the minority who opposed that outcome are still repeatedly changing instances in the text to "chairman" and then "chair"...? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Specifically: ?? ?? ??. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was not closed with the common name being "Chairperson." That is overwhelmingly "Chairman." It was closed with the best choice being "Chairperson." It should be "chairperson" throughout as per the article title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I should've allcapsed for clarity. WP:COMMONNAME (which includes a caveat), if not "the common name". Regardless, yes, closed with consensus for chairperson. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The previous version repeated "chairman" over 80 times. Now "chairperson" is being repeated. It's the title, and it's the first term used in the lead. The rest of the article needs a copy edit and update. SarahSV (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that a rewrite with the term being used less would be ideal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And yet you're the one that keeps adding it. ? SarahSV (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you have mistaken my post. If the term chairman or chair is used it should be changed to chairperson. It is the title, not CHAIR. If you want to rewrite the article with the term chairperson/chair/chairman occurring less often, that would be ideal. Whether you use the wording of chairperson or chair or chairman, it all the same redundancy. Find another way to write the sentences without those words being used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That's what I started doing. A copy edit involves moving and removing text, reading (note: reading!) and updating sources, perhaps restoring text that was earlier removed, saving a few times and checking how things look. None of that can happen if people are reverting, so I'm going to leave you to it. SarahSV (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As I suggested here [[14]] I would say follow the source when talking about a specific person or position. In general terms I would prefer chair vs chairperson since it just reads much better and as others have pointed out, it's actually the less common term. Springee (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made the case above for Chairperson in the title but chair in the article body. Chair is more concise and more commonly used in sources, and I don't see an issue with the article body using a shortened form of the word in the title. But it seems like consensus might be against me. My feelings about it aren't that strong, in any case. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that is a very sensible way to handle it. Springee (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Chairperson in the article title makes sense as a natural disambiguator, but "chair" is the clear, concise term that should be used throughout the article. I'd offer this as an example of how well that works. – bradv🍁 01:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Levivich 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's the problem with that. Sure, synonyms can certainly be used occasionally in an article, however this just came off a contentious move. Using "chair" seems like an end-run around consensus "chairperson" right now. Plus if you are talking synonyms then chairman is by far the most common used word to describe the position in the real world so that should also be sprinkled in throughout, along with chair and chairperson. Chairman was moved... it was not banned. In this case, with all the voting and re-voting, and move reviews it's best to stick to the term it was just moved to. It just doesn't need to used as often as it is now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Feminist, I've already reverted this kind of edit once, so I don't want to again, but it's inappropriate. The consensus was for chairperson, so that's the title, and it's what the article should lead with, not chair. SarahSV (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I did not look at the talk page before performing the edit. Though I do think that the article body should use "chair" instead, it's more common than "chairperson". I see that many editors above agree. feminist (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
But not in the first sentence. The RM was closed in favour of chairperson, so that's what we lead with. SarahSV (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
chairman [...] should also be sprinkled in throughout, along with chair and chairperson. Chairman was moved... it was not banned. Per MOS:GNL we should use gender neutral terminology when possible. There might be specific cases where it would be better to use the word chairman, but I wouldn't support just "sprinkling in" chairman randomly. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

Leena Al-Hadid, IAEA, 2018
John Ging, Syria Humanitarian Forum, 2012

I think the lead sentence should be:

The chairperson (also chairman, chairwoman, or simply chair) is the leader of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

Three items of note:

  1. "Chairperson" should be the first version of the word used, because it's the article title, per MOS:BOLDLEAD. (This doesn't mean "chair" can't be used in the body.)
  2. Although "chair" is more common, I suggest it should be the last version of the word used, because that makes it clear to the reader why it's called "chair" (it's short for all the other versions, i.e., chairperson, chairman and chairwoman). I don't think it matters which is the most common; readability and understandability is more important.
  3. My proposed first sentence changes "highest officer" to "leader" because, at least in the United States, the chairperson of a corporation is not an "officer" of the corporation; the highest officer is usually the CEO/President. Sometimes the CEO is also the Chairperson (known as an Executive Chair), in which case they would be the highest officer, but it's because they're CEO, not because they're Chairperson.

TIA for your thoughts. Levivich 02:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. SarahSV (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"Chairperson" is used as the title not because it's the most common term (it's not), but because it satisfies WP:NCs, in particular WP:NATURAL. The term "chair" (or even "chairman" since it's still more common) should be used throughout the article, not "chairperson". feminist (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I support this approach. Start with the lead sentence above, and then use "chair" as the default term in the rest of the article. – bradv🍁 03:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree with Bradv here. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  05:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No. It's fairly clear that we would normally be using "chair" for this article title, and people's only objection to that as a title is that it fails WP:NATURALDIS. That issue doesn't affect the article text though, and we should absolutely be listing the more common "chair" first, with chairperson as an alt title, and referring to the concept as such in the article. At least where I come from, chairperson is a very unusual term and makes the article look strange if we keep using it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Several editors argued that chairperson is unusual, but it really isn't. 29,700,000 hits on Google, and images of international bodies using it. SarahSV (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say awkward rather than unusual, as with "leader' and much of the article, awkwardly skewed to focus on the individual and gender and away from the various definitions of the role (which range from 'what I say goes' to 'as chair, I have no say in this'). Like the hangman, or those who can man the tiller or the pumps, the identity and their gender is often irrelevant to a usually well defined role. cygnis insignis 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I like the proposed lead sentence and agree with the reasoning for it. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
For what reason? Chair is a gender neutral term, that's what people wanted. And it is the most used and recognised gender neutral term. Chairperson is an alternative lesser used term which should be in the "also" section.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you might be misunderstanding me, or else I'm misunderstanding you, but I support Levivich's version of the lead sentence for all the reasons Levivich gave, and I support chair in the article body for reasons I've given elsewhere. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that chairperson should be first and chair last. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and WanderingWanda: Is it even necessary to mention gendered alternatives at all? If so, why? This is English Wikipedia, and the fact that there are gendered versions should be no suprise to anyone, and isn't worth mentioning. I reworded the lead (before I saw this) because it was quite silly. Guywan (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes, most of which involve matters that are actively under discussion here (all editors are of course encouraged to join those discussions). Let me know if you have any questions that weren't answered in my edit summary. IMO, yes, it is necessary for the article to tell the reader that "chairperson" is the same thing as "chairman" or "chairwoman". Levivich 16:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's an interesting point. It's probably true that most people understand that chairperson is the same thing as chairman. But still, wouldn't it be odd to not include the most-used form of the word in the lead? And if you include chairman, it would seem odd to not include chairwoman. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Guywan: That's not a bad point at all. They really don't need to be there at all since it is covered in the Terminology/Overview section. Multiple extra names (when there are more than one or two extras) are not supposed to be listed in the lead and instead should be in a naming section. The Overview handles this well. Per MOS, the lead should have only one or two alternative names in parentheses. That's it. Anything more than two and they should all be moved and discussed in a separate section of prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: IMO, yes, it is necessary for the article to tell the reader that "chairperson" is the same thing as "chairman" or "chairwoman". I'd like to hear your reasoning for that. Any person with an average command of the English language knows that "Chairman" and "Chairwoman" both mean "Chair" and "Chairperson". It is an unnecessary verbosity to include all of the alternative terms in the lead.
The article states: Chairman has been criticized as sexist. I don't see how this can possibly be so. I also don't see what encyclopedic value this offers. If we must keep it, which I hope we shant, can someone at least go into more detail, and explain why it is considered sexist? And by whom? And why we should care about their fringe opinion?
The unsourced statement about Chairs referring to themselves in the third-person is from my copy of Robert's Rules of Order, pg. 82. (The 1876 edition, granted it is probably outdated.)
Regards, Guywan (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────── With the current article title being "chairperson", the first bit of the lead sentence need sto be The chairperson (also... per the MOS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I disagree. Since "Chair" is the root word of "Chairperson", it should be stated first. (In fact, this article should probably be named "Chair" as well.) Also, which MOS guideline are you referencing? Guywan (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Guywan: WP:LEADSENTENCE and MOS:BOLDLEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Thank you. Just in case, I wasn't accusing you of referencing non-existent guidelines. I was merely curious. Guywan (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is my proposed lead:

The chair or chairperson is the highest-ranking officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

The chair is not a "leader". The chair is more akin to a moderator. It is their duty to oversee meetings and make sure they proceed in accordance with the rules of the group. Chairs are a neutral party. "Leader" implies authority, influence, and decision making, whereas "officer" implies guidance (in the sense of, one who holds a position of trust). Guywan (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the majority here - the title is the title due to NATURALDIS, and would be Chair of not for the ambiguity. Also, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[4] Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, such as Egg (food), "(food)" should be omitted in the text. So we can use the undisambiguated term, "a slightly different form", in the lead, exactly as Guywan proposes. --В²C 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent about whether "chairman" and "chairwoman" should be just in the terminology section or also in the lead, and about "The chair or chairperson..." v. "The chairperson or chair...", though I think MOS supports the latter. Cygnis is right that the authority of a chairperson ranges from "absolute" to "none" depending on the organization, but I think "leader" works because even in organizations where the chair doesn't vote, they still lead (preside over) the meeting/organization. In a corporation, the chairperson is very much the leader of the corporation, and often the majority owner, and often also the CEO. Nevertheless, there are probably better words than "leader", though not "officer" in my opinion, and I can't think of any other good ones ("head" and "chief" seem overly colloquial, "boss" and "most senior" are not always accurate, etc.). Levivich 20:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: Let us both compromise so that we may reach an agreement and table this matter :) Revised lead:

    The chairperson or chair is the chief presiding member of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

    How do you feel about this? Guywan (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. That works for me, thank you. Obligatory note that it is, of course, not up to just me and you, these other peons our colleagues also have a say. Levivich 21:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me :P I suppose a few days may be given to allow others to have their say .... Guywan (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Chairman should definitely be in the lead, it still has a load of usage (compare Flight attendant which includes the archaic "steward/stewardess" in the lead sentence). For many (I dare say most) people, "chairman" is the most recognizable term. feminist (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To help sort this out, I've created the #Lead sentence ranked survey below. --В²C 22:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit late with this suggestion but... we could bypass the "leader" vs. "officer" question with a construction like: A chairperson (or chair) presides over an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • My bad. I should have had a pre-survey survey to identify more reasonable candidates before created the ranked survey. Lesson learned. --В²C 16:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2019[edit]

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 and speedy closed (again). The last RM was closed only hours ago, and in the closing Cuchullain strongly advised to wait at least a few months before opening yet another RM here. There is a current discussion on their talk page about the close, and there is still the possibility of a move review to be opened. At this point, it is too soon to open another move request. Mindful of not overstepping, but also cognizant that the discussions about moving this page have been ongoing since March, I am also imposing a one-month moratorium on further move requests: no new requested moves should be opened in the next month (not applicable to any move reviews). If you have any questions about this close, please ask me. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ChairpersonChair (presiding officer) – The closer of the previous move request states that "chairman" is the most common term, but that the term is problematic because it is gendered. Okay, well then the most common non-gendered term for the subject of this article is "chair". Therefore, the article should be moved. The closer also stated that a subsequent move request on this issue wouldn't be a bad idea, but suggests waiting. I see no reason to wait. We should hash this out now while this issue is currently fresh in everyone's minds. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment @Rreagan007: can we make the proposal be for Chair (officer) please? That's the variant that has generally been considered appropriate in the discussions above, and I would strongly support it over the current bad title.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Chair (officer) is the March 22 one that just ran. Levivich 05:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    It didn't gain consensus in that RM because "chairman" was still in the mix, and there was a three way split. The chairman variant is now seemingly dead and buried, so it's a straight choice between Chairperson and Chair (officer). COMMON NAME heavily favours Chair, while NATURALDIS favours Chairperson. And unless I'm wrong, there's unlikely to be much more support for "presiding officer" than "officer". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Has "presiding officer" been proposed before? This RM will become difficult to close if it turns into a discussion about dabs, which is partly what happened in the March 22 RM. It took shelving the dab issue to focus consensus on moving the page. A discussion about dabs might be helpful before an RM to a dabbed page title is launched. Levivich 05:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Levivich 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, good point, and I don't actually kind which dab is used if it comes to it. Would certainly support Chair (presiding officer) over Chairperson. Hopefully that won't be the sticking point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close - you have to be freaking kidding me? Again? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. As suggested in the close above. Because the current title is a disaster, and is hated by a lot of editors. You supported a gender neutral version, that was the purpose of the move, so let's use the common variant rather than a hardly used term. That is what will put the issue to bed, not the current half-baked title.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Since February, we've had four RMs (one speedy closed) and a move review. Please wait several months before proposing anything else. SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sarah, you got what you wanted, the gender neutral term, but now let's move to the commonly used gender neutral term. Why do you object to this proposal? Just support it and we can move on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Archiving comments made while RM was temporarily reopened - doesn't make sense to invite more input on a closed RM.
The following discussion 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.

  •  Note: My closure above was reverted improperly. I have reinstated it; the below comments were added after it was closed the first time. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712: I would strongly request you to reopen this nomination. There is a strong feeling among a number of editors that the wrong gender-neutral term was chosen, and we should discuss this now while everyone is still engaged with this issue. I also would like to know under what authority specifically do you have the power to impose a one-month moratorium on further move reviews? If you do not reopen this move discussion, I will initiate a move review about your closing. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no "power to impose a one-month moratorium on further move reviews", but please note that I explicitly said it was not applicable to move reviews. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Will come back with more evidence later, most of it is in the sections above. Ngrams show conclusively that Chair is the established gender neutral term for this. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy close A RM just concluded that addressed this issue. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That didn't stop it being immediately reopened on the previous two occasions though. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (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.

Move moratorium proposal[edit]

I'm sorry, but looking at the bunch of RM history, it seems that it is necessary to have a move moratorium of six months on this article. Although I see that some users think that this may not be the best title, we have to follow the previous consensus. --B dash (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. --B dash (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – there is a good argument to be made for "Chair (officer)", and #Requested move 8 May 2019 did not settle the issue. Stopping the conversation is no way to determine consensus. – bradv🍁 13:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I'll further note that I count 19 people in the above discussion who expressed a preference for "Chair", so this cannot be described as a settled issue. – bradv🍁 13:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's safe to say that Chair is preferred over Chairperson, but given that Chair must be disambiguated, for better or for worse, it has recently been repeatedly demonstrated that natural disambiguation of Chair as Chairperson is preferred over a parenthetically disambiguated Chair (e.g., 11 out of 18 participants in the #Ranked survey preferred "Chairperson" over either disambiguated Chair option). And I say that as one who prefers the parenthetically disambiguated Chair. At some point you have to admit your view is in the minority and move on. --В²C 18:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Over 75 people participated in the RM above. How many participated in the ranked survey? If we're going to achieve consensus, we need to be allowed to have the conversation. That's my point. – bradv🍁 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    18 participated in the ranked survey but the preference of Chairperson over Chairman was almost exactly the same in both, about a 60/40 distribution, indicating those 18 were just as representative of the larger community as were the 75+ in the subsequent survey. Furthermore, there is nothing new or complex to discuss here. Most people seem to feel nist strongly against one the three main choices here, for varying reasons. These particular preferences are highly subjective and unlikely to be changed by reason or argument, so I don't see the preference distribution changing much due to discussion, at least not in the near term. While there is considerable antipathy for Chairperson, it's clearly not as widely shared as the antipathy for Chairman, and I think it's clear that the antipathy for disambiguated Chair is even stronger. Consider that Chairman was favored over disambiguated Chair in the first RM, and then Chairperson was favored over Chairman in the most recent one. That strongly suggests an overall preference of Chairperson > Chairman > Chair (disambiguation), and this is supported in the Ranked Survey. I'm not against having a Chairperson → Chair (disambiguation) RM to humor you, but the outcome is already clear to me. By the way, I think our chances of getting a change (remember, I favor Chair (role)) will be higher in 6 months or a year than today, as today you'll get a lot of opposes based on frustration/annoyance alone. --В²C 19:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chair (officer) has already been considered in the current batch of RMs and launching yet another is wearisome. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose six months but I think we need pre-MR discussion before the next MR is posted. I think the best way forward is for those editors who prefer "chair" to have a discussion about what disambiguator to use, see if consensus can be formed around that, and then post a move request to "chair" with the chosen disambiguator. Otherwise, the MR will become that discussion, which is what happened in prior MRs, and that will make for a mess. I don't know how long such a discussion will last, but one month sounds like it's enough time, and for that reason, I support Danny's one-month moratorium. Six months, on the other hand, is long enough for everybody to forget everything, for some participants to leave the project, for new participants to join the project... it would essentially mean starting over from square one. I don't really see the benefit of a moratorium of that length. Truth is, there is nothing magical about one month or two months or two weeks, etc.; any time period we chose for a moratorium would be arbitrary. I think it would be fine to say "don't formally start another move request until you have solid support for it on the talk page first". Or, barring that, one month. Levivich 14:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How about just one month to let things settle a bit. I was opposed to Chairperson (preferring Chair (___) or Chairman) but in the end I don't think it's going to be a big deal. "Chairperson" at least is an accurate, single word name and functionally is the same as Chairman. So long as people aren't going to be dogmatic about changing all examples of chair, chairman, chairwoman to chairperson in the article text/captions etc, I don't see having the article title as "Chairperson" as that big an issue. When the original change discussion came up I had assumed the article would also be "find-replaced". Since that didn't happen I think the Chairperson -> Chair discussion is less important. I would personally rather see the name good enough and stable vs perfect with more fights. Springee (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support one month moratorium per Levivich and Springee. There's likely to be a move review regarding the 8 May discussion, whether that comes from those who prefer Chair (officer) or those who prefer Chairman is anybody's guess, however the process of move review is solely for examining the closure itself, not to rehash the discussion. I'd endorse the closure, but I also agree with Bradv that there's still a discussion to be had regarding Chair (officer). I think a one-month moratorium is a good idea because it allows any move reviews to be opened, discussed and closed, it stops spurious requested moves being started which will inevitably be speedily closed, and it gives ample time to those who prefer Chair (officer) to put together a well-sourced proposal. SITH (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any moratorium. It has been decided that there was consensus to move to a gender-neutral term, but now we need to have a discussion about which gender-neutral term is the most appropriate one while the issue is still fresh in everyone's mind. That's a discussion that desperately needs to take place now, and waiting one month or six months is not appropriate. Having one more discussion over which gender-neutral term to use isn't going to hurt anything, and it will settle the question. After that discussion is had and the issue is decided one way or the other, then you can have your moratorium if you still want it. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    There was no consensus to move to some random gender-neutral term at all. There was consensus to move to chairperson only. Many had looked at anything with () as clumsy and unnecessary. I would expect that chairman will be reintroduced at an RM monthly if chair() becomes a reality. That's not what we need. We need some closure on this. And talk about hypocrisy... no moratorium now but one later? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose moratorium beyond waiting for MRV outcome, same as last time. I generally oppose all moratoriums, but when there is an ongoing MRV the outcome of which could potentially invalidate whatever an RM is presuming, the RM should not be proposed until after the MRV has been closed and the outcome known and stable. That said, even once the MRV is closed, presuming it endorses, I still think an RM to move to a disambiguated Chair (e.g., Chair (role)) is likely to fail, given that 11 out of 18 participants in the #Ranked survey preferred "Chairperson" over either disambiguated Chair option, presumably due to a general preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetic. --В²C 18:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 6 month moratorium before any further rename proposals to give respect to the consensus just achieved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Propose confiscation of all WP:STICKs and the passage of the Equine Protection Act - I wouldn't oppose a moratorium, but I'd rather editors be adults, realize there is WP:NODEADLINE, and be patient. We don't need to start a new RM immediately after the previous one was closed. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 6 month moratorium. Agree with SmokeyJoe. Guywan (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support six months per nom. SarahSV (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is absurd Buffs (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support one year moratorium. Six months is kind of short in the scope of these kinds of articles, right? Either way, we're circling back to the same arguments, and this proposal will be good for stability. By the way, some of the above arguments for chairperson have convinced me to support chairperson over chair because WP:NATURALDAB. I just wanted to throw that out there.MJLTalk 22:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—I can sympathize with those wanting a break, but six months is much longer than is needed, and the number of those who support or do not oppose "chair (xxx)" is very significant. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Having said that, there should be a discussion on what the disambiguator should be before another move request takes place, so that doesn't turn into yet another move request. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Evergreen, Curly, and Bradv. I sympathize with wanting a break, and if we all drop the stick we can get one without needless bureaucracy. But there's no reason to tie our hands on finding consensus. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. We just demonstrated that discussion about a different proposal can lead to uncovering consensus. Imposing a moratorium here is a form of status quo stonewalling. --В²C 17:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe give it a week, but it does seem like there's a good case for "chair" over "chairperson". If we can do it without just re-litigating the previous move discussion entirely, then I don't see any reason not to. Nblund talk 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence ranked survey[edit]

See related discussion above at #Lead sentence.

Order your preferences from highest to lowest for the leading clause of the lead sentence...

1) The chairperson (also chairman, chairwoman, or simply chair) is the ...
2) The chair (also chairperson, chairman, or chairwoman) is the ...
3) The chair or chairperson is the ...
4) The chairperson or chair is the ...

... and the trailing clause:

A) ...leader of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.
B) ...highest-ranking officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.
C) ...chief presiding member of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly.

--В²C 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • 3,2,4,1; C,B,A. --В²C 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC) changed 2,3 to 3,2 to prefer title term first per SlimVirgin/MOS:LEADSENTENCE, but I still think prominent synonyms should be listed in parentheses. --В²C 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 2,1,3,4; C,B,A...though I prefer just "presiding officer". defines "chairman" as "the presiding officer of a meeting, committee, board, etc." and I think that's a good definiting first sentence for the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC) defines "chairman" as "presiding officer" [15], but its definition of "chairperson" doesn't use the word "officer" [16]. MW also uses "presiding officer" [17], but OLD [18], Cambridge [19], Macmillan [20] and Collins [21] use "person in charge of". (Proof that encyclopedias > dictionaries.) Levivich 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 4,3,1,2; C,A,B. Levivich 23:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 3,1,4,2; C,A,B. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not specifically #1 but "chairperson" first because that is now the title of the article. Include the other three either as listed or alphabetically. While it's generally best to have just 2 or 3 synonyms, I think 4 is OK in this case. It isn't a burden to read. No opinion on A-C. Springee (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 1, 4, or the current first sentence: "The chairperson (also chair, chairman, or chairwoman) is". The lead should begin with the title. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." There's no reason here to deviate from that; if you do, it will look so odd that you'll probably have people constantly changing it. As for the rest, I prefer the current version: "is the presiding officer of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly". SarahSV (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 5; C - 5 being The chairperson is the .... 1 and 2 would be going against Wikipedia MOS by having so many secondary choices in the lead. C seems the best fit of those 3 choices, though their may be better wording to be found. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) 4, 3, 1, 2; A, B, C. I can see the value of pointing out that "chairwoman"/"chairman" are the same thing as the subject of this article, but since that's already covered in the "Terminology" section I don't think it's necessary in the lede. 04:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Oh, and I'm in agreement with the above comments that the first bolded word should match the article title for clarity. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 04:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • {3, 4}, 1, 2; C, B, A. I agree with the position the discussants above eventually reached, namely, the "-man" and "-woman" forms are just std English variations and don't need to be spelled out. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Almost persuaded to change, but I have noticed a convention or tendency, perhaps undocumented, to include prominent alternative names that redirect to an article in the lead sentence in parentheses like we have in choices 1 and 2. --В²C 23:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Born2cycle: Yeah, it's MOS:BOLD. "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement." --JBL (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's a good convention, as anyone who gets to the article by searching for a synonym is quickly and easily reassured that they got to the right spot. --В²C 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    The convention is definitely reasonable in general, but we don't (for example) include plural forms of words in bold (even though they are often redirects) because they come from a standard English construction and no one should be confused by clicking on a link that says "mathematicians" and ending up at the article "mathematician". --JBL (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 2,1,3,4; C,B,A. Chairman/chairwoman are far too common terms to avoid in the lead sentence. Compare this with Flight attendant, which lists the archaic terms "stewards/stewardesses", "air hosts/hostesses" in the first sentence. The goal of a lead sentence is to allow readers to quickly recognize a topic. We must be aware that many of our readers are socially conservative and are thus used to using the term "chairman". feminist (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    The difference is that it's not a standard rule of English that "steward" is the masculine form of "flight attendant". --JBL (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    We must be aware that many of our readers are socially conservative and are thus used to using the term "chairman".[citation needed] Guywan (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 3, 4, 2, 1; C, B, A. Made my points already, nothing more to be added. Guywan (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • 4, 3, 1, 2; C, B, A. Second thoughts. Guywan (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 2,1,3,4; no preference on A,B,C. So let me get this straight? Having just come through a contentious move, in which a large minority favoured the previous title "chairman" (which is still, rightly or wrongly, the most used term for this concept in reliable sources), people are now proposing to airbrush that variant even as an alternative name in the lede? Absolutely not. At least people looking for chairman or chairwoman, who aren't aware of alternative titles, will immediately know where they are. Other than that, "chair" should be listed first as it's the most commonly used of the gender-neutral terms.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Consider two typical English speakers, one of whom puts "stewardess" into the search box and ends up at flight attendant, the other of whom puts in "chairman" and ends up at chairperson. Could you give your subjective assessment of the levels of confusion of these two people, assuming that the word they searched for does not appear in the first sentence of the article on which they land? --JBL (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes history?[edit]

Per Nblund and WP:NOTFORUM -- no content related to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is this the first English-language encyclopedia in the world to use "Chairperson" for the name of its article on this business position? If so, should we be proud and celebrate that we are way way way in the forefront of things? Or should we be embarassed and ashamed because that (trendsetting) is exactly what we're not supposed to be doing? Just askin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: 1. Who knows how long the move will last. 2. The opposition to the move was certainly interesting from an academic perspective: a denial of agency ("wikipedia only reflects sources so blame them for systemic bias") combined with a naiveté (or feigned ignorance) about the power and reach of Wikipedia to determine what the sources say. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also the first English-language encyclopedia in the world to have entries on open-crotch pants, 69 (sex position), Mewtwo, and about five million other topics. How many English-language encyclopedias are there these days? How many have millions of entries? How many have an entry on "chairman" or "chairperson" at all? Britannica and Columbia don't have this article. If you look at dictionaries, American Heritage, Cambridge, Macmillan, Collins, Oxford and Merriam-Webster all have entries for "chairperson" (and the usage notes almost universally note that "chairman" is considered sexist). So we should be neither proud, as we're not in the forefront, nor embarrassed, since we're finally in the 21st century. In all the discussion that's taken place here so far, this diff has been my favorite:

Dude! I feel like I just walked into an Elks Club from the 1950s. Who in their right mind still uses the word chairman when referring to a woman? That's been stilted and obsolete for, like, 30 years. At least 25, and during that time the usage has been essentially absent from mainstream newspapers and textbooks.
— User:COGDEN 22:06, 12 April 2007

That was posted here 12 years ago. Levivich 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The fifth edit to the page in April 2003—16 years ago—noted: "In order to avoid sexist assumptions, the position is nowadays more often called chairperson or simply the chair." SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
People make a lot of unsourced claims. In 2003, that person was demonstrably wrong overall, and mostly wrong even about women. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
What we care about is not raw frequency. Levivich 21:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia's claims of what it's not supposed to be doing, disappeared long ago... Wikipedia is a trendsetter. We work by consensus not sourcing, so it's not happy or ashamed really... it just is what it is. We gather consensus, a decision is made, and we move on to more editing. There is nothing to be embarrassed about unless it's for naivete on how we work here. It's not like academics would use wikipedia as a major resource. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's really true. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and all our other policies telling us to reflect the real world rather than to try to change it, are still as relevant now as they ever were. The page here was moved primarily because enough people felt that the world really had changed in this regard, and that it was time for us to follow. If the motivation for the consensus had simply been trend-setting then it's unlikely a seasoned admin would have closed it as move.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It is true. Seasoned closers move to consensus (not sourcing) all the time here. Chairman is overwhelmingly used outside of wikipedia. And it's like the counting of votes that was mentioned so often... That is consensus, not sourcing. The fact we have gender-neutral clauses in our MOS... that is trendsetting, not sourcing. It's not a complaint as much as it is an observation. Wikimedia Foundation can set the rules it wants to its own company website. But make no mistake that we trendset and self-prophesize. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of a 6 month moratorium on move proposals, how about a permanent moratorium on shitposting on article talk? Someone should hat this. Nblund talk 21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Or a moratorium on bullying? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman (version 2) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chairman (version 2). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Chairman as sexist[edit]

Chairman has been criticized as sexist.

That kind of generic statement leaves much to be desired.

  • Two of the citations point to the same source (, so we shall count them as one.
  • The last two point to books, which are likely filled with the authors' non-notable opinions.
  1. How can a word be sexist? Is "waiter" sexist? What about "actor"?
  2. Why is this opinion important to mention? What notability does it have?

I assert that clarification and more notable sources are needed. I have removed the statement as it may be misleading. Guywan (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. pass; no; no.
  2. The fact is mentioned in … actually, pass on that question too.
Anyway, I would prefer that was returned and discussed, or until I find out what "more notable sources" might be. cygnis insignis 16:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You removed it once, and you were reverted. Per BRD, you should not have removed it again without getting consensus. I suggest you self-revert to the existing consensus reversion until you gain consensus that its removal is appropriate. Beyond that, you don't have to agree with the opinion in order for it to be an appropriately sourced and included statement that is clearly (given all the gender-based argumentation around this page) relevant and notable. You have offered no rationale for its removal other than your personal disagreement and your belief that words can't be sexist. Further reliable sources which, while not unanimous in their embrace of the use of chairperson, all agree it arose out of a concern that the use of chairman was sexist: [22][23][24][25] Grandpallama (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I like chair, its not prejudiced at all, even to our species. Actually, it is ergonomically biased, and not at all suited to candidates like octopoids and cetaceans. I guess a llama wouldn't mind standing as chair, and I think they would be good at the job. cygnis insignis 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Grandpallama: I tried to broach the issue, but there were no takers. See Talk:Chairperson#Lead sentence. I assumed that it would then be fine to remove the statement.
Thank you for the sources! That is all I ask. And perhaps you can improve the statement and go into further detail about what the sources say? Those who use Wikipedia as a primary source, such as myself, will find that statement lacking. Guywan (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources pulled from my bookshelf:
  • "Typically, these analyses pointed out the use of so-called generic male terms as sexist... As a consequence of these critiques, guides were published that replaced so-called generic male terms with truly generic terms: policeman became police officer; fireman, fire fighter; postman, mail carrier; workman, worker; chairman, chairperson; mankind, humanity; and so on."[1]
  • "Is it possible to change sexist language? ... Much of the debate has centered around two types of change: the coining of new terms (such as Ms. to replace Miss/Mrs., and chairperson to replace chairman and chairwoman), and various proposal to replace he as the generic third person singular pronoun."[2]
  • "Following Tajfel's work, Williams and Giles (1978) propose that strong action from a subordinate group will be met with strong action from the dominant group attempting to maintain its superiority and control. Their discussion appears valuable for an analysis of the opposition many people are making to women's proposals for alleviating sex bias in language... One strategy is to accept, seemingly, the changes women advocate but then to redefine the situation so that the meaning of the change is diminished or lost. Such a strategy has been used by critics of women's proposals to change the language structure. One instance of such a redefinition: the acceptance of the label chairpersons, but the use of it only in reference to women. Thus chairman and chairperson have become gender labels."[3]
  • "Another factor which we must bear in mind is that women need more words - and more positive words - not less. The removal of sexist words would not leave a large repertoire of words for women to draw upon! ... Some attempts have been made to modify sexist words and there arc signs that this on its own is insufficient to reduce sexism in language. Words such as police officer and chairperson have been an attempt to break away from the negative value which female words acquire by the creation of sex-neutral terms."[4]


  1. ^ Margrit Eichler (28 October 2013). Nonsexist Research Methods: A Practical Guide. Routledge. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-134-97797-0.
  2. ^ Barrie Thorne; Nancy Henley (1975). Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Newbury House Publishers. p. 28.
  3. ^ Cheris Kramarae (1981). Women and men speaking: frameworks for analysis. Newbury House Publishers. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-88377-179-2.
  4. ^ Dale Spender (1990). Man Made Language. Pandora. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-0-04-440766-9.
EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Thanks for adding the reference bundle. Should I add a few of these ones I listed so we don't rely so heavily on style guides and dictionaries? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Generally dictionaries aren't the best sources available–although, on a point of the usage of a word, maybe they are? I really don't know. The dictionary usage notes are modern, and some of the academic sources posted here are older, so there's probably a benefit to including both some newer and older sources. I don't think we need as many dictionary entries as I put in the bundle, but I'm not sure which are the best to keep. Also, the sentence could be expanded to discuss more about the sexist history of the word, which would allow spreading the cites out somewhat. So in conclusion, I'm sure the citation would benefit from some appropriate mixture of old and new, dictionaries and academic sources, but I'm not sure of the right mix exactly. :-) I'd very much appreciate another editor improving the cite–feel free to take out anything that I just put in and keep just what's useful. Thank you! Levivich 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not heavy reliance on dictionaries, but the presence of OED lends some significant weight, I'd say, and is reliable on the etymology and evolution of English language usage. Grandpallama (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This has the significant danger of giving a minority view WP:UNDUE prevalence. One must consider that those who call a word "sexist" are the most vocal, ideological, and zealous. It is relatively easy to cherrypick and find such statements - and harder to find specific statements that refute them. What goes more unseen is the majority trend that does not consider these words sexist, and we must ensure that the majority view is presented foremost. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary entry for "chairman" mentions that surveys of their Usage Panel of experts time-and-again show a majority accept "chairman" and other -man words as not sexist. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC) what? You don't have to agree that the use of "chairman" is sexist, or inferior to "chairperson." It might be a minority view to say "chairman" is sexist (or may not), but it's not a minority view to say that the word arose from the belief that the use of "chairman" is sexist. That's just reporting what the reliable sources say. I don't understand the controversy around that. Grandpallama (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Oxford "chairman" entry states it succinctly: "The word chairman found itself accused of sexism in the 1970s, with critics opposed to the way it combined the notion of power with a grammatical gender bias. Two neutral alternatives were proposed, chair (which was actually recorded in this sense in the 17th century) and the neologism chairperson. Both terms faced initial resistance, and although they have now become accepted in standard English, the Oxford English Corpus shows that they are still far less common than chairman." So yes, describing "chairperson" as a failed neologism created as a reaction by a minority who perceived sexism in "chairman" would be correct. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC) it just a matter of wording? "The use of 'chairperson' arose as a result of perceived sexism in the use of the term 'chairman'". I don't think WP needs to weigh in on the appropriateness of the use of "chairperson", but it seems clear (now that it's the title of the article) that there should be an explanation of its origin. Your argument particularly supports that, I think, because if its usage is as low as you are arguing, there is all the more reason to include an explanation as to where it came from. Grandpallama (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the concern that the article discusses the view that "chairman" is seen as gendered or is the issue that the term is being called "sexist" the same way a derogatory name for an unset female would be "sexist". In other words, would the problem go away if the word "sexist" were replaced with a more clinical sounding word? I would support such a change as I think "sexist" does have a negative implications for the user. I fully support the material having the material but perhaps we could sidestep the issue by using "gendered" or similar. Springee (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The sources use sexist, sexually discriminatory, etc. Let's use those words. Levivich 18:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just using the phrase "Chairman has been criticized as sexist" is quite poor and really incorrect. There are certainly some groups and sources that say it's sexist, and that's how it should be written. "Some sources criticize 'chairman' as being sexist." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Per my comment above, how about changing the focus here? Instead of making the sentence about "chairman", make the sentence an explanation as to the origin of "chairperson". Something like "The creation and use of 'chairperson' was a reaction to perceived sexism in the use of 'chairman'". That, after all, gets at the actual point of the sentence and the sources that are being employed while being neutral in terms of whether or not the sexism allegation is justified. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It brings me much joy to see such constructive discussion :'). If my understanding is correct, the sources are saying that it is not the word "Chairman" that is criticized as sexist, but the usage of the term. Specifically, its usage to refer to a woman who holds the position. Thus, the current sentence is misleading. This was my original fear. I am in agreement with Grandpallama's suggestion. A short history of the term is needed which explains when and why the politically correct terminology was introduced. Guywan (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The sources also say it is sexist to use Chairman to refer to the position itself, as in, "Okay, now it's time to elect a chairman". That's sexist, obviously. --В²C 00:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sue Gardner added the following in 2012, which could be restored. I don't have access to the source:

Although many experts maintain that use of the term chairman is not sexist because it is meant to encompass both genders, feminists argue otherwise, saying that using an andro-centric generic to stand in for all humans is assymetrical and therefore biased, because men are allowed to represent all people while women are not. Feminists also say that psycholingual studies find that when people are asked to imagine which gender is represented by a male-specific term, they are likelier to choose men than women.[1]


  1. ^ Kremer, Marion (1997). Person reference and gender in translation: A contrastive investigation of English and German. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. p. 109. ISBN 3823349376.
SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: the source is available here: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you! Will take a look. SarahSV (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)