This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
What an atrociously written article. It needs a total overhaul but I’m not interested in putting the effort in just to see it reverted. One example: " This means that a speaker may themselves declare the launch . . . "
It horrible English. It should read "a Speaker may himself declare the launch. . . "
In Wokepedia world changing for the better is rarely approved unless it is biased to the political left substantively no matter what the issue is. Sychonic (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sychonic Your wording is not gender-neutral. Speakers are allowed to be women, and the last time an inquiry was launched the speaker WAS a women. "Themself" was clearly intended. And no, grammar editing is not rejected on "biased" political grounds here. SecretName101 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Themself" is not a word. Sychonic (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I’d be happy to rewrite this abysmal article to make it at least close to a reasonable approximation of the English language, but it would be reverted by a social justice harlequin. As with Wokepedia, the deterioration of the culture has found its way into various professional organizations. They have allowed political bias, ideological decadence, in the appropriate denotation of the term, to guide their decisions. We’ve seen this before, as the 1970s saw degradation in somewhat similar fashion. To be fair, this is worse by far and perhaps a return to decent, formal, appropriate language may become a thing of the past.
I remain optimistic, that this trashing of the English language will be reversed and sanity will return as the radicals age out of their juvenile and misguided narcissism. For now, Wokepedia will continue to allow and even insist on these kinds of embarrassing expressions, but that is why its reputation has collapsed among serious analysts, commentators, and people. Sychonic (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sychonic "Themself" is not a new creation. It's been around since 14th century Middle English, when it was spelled "theimself". Your ignorance of it does not make it a new invention. Unless you are an immortal wizard, this word predates you. SecretName101 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s very nice for Middle English—but that’s not modern English and it was not used for hundreds of years until tortured back into existence by the political inclinations of those who care little for language and much for forcing changes to accommodate their notions of gender. "Them" is plural and "self" is singular and the proper pronoun is "themselves" when speaking of more than one individual. This is a basic rule of grammar and should be observed. I’m under no illusion that the illiterati at Wokepedia believe in the formality of appropriate language use when political interests are involved, but that’s why it’s reputation has taken such a beating in the past decade or so.
This gender nonsensicality is a fad, one can only hope, and a return to rational formal language cannot come soon enough Sychonic (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, we are not a soapbox as you should know. This is not a place for you to rampage against language. This is language that simply reflects the fact (newsflash) women now are able to actually serve in positions of power in the USA. Newsflash: the singular "they" is not only. for non-binary people (let's put your anger at them aside), but simply for when an gender identity of a subject is not linguistically defined. Such as when talking about hypothetic speakers of the house: they could be of any gender identity because the role is not gender-specific (there has been a woman speaker already). Would you prefer we only use "she", with the false presumption that only women hold that role? SecretName101 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
