|WikiProject Occupations||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
removal of redirect and rewrite
People no longer become spokesmen just by being a public figure: It is now a profession.
Removed the redirect from 'spokesperson', which is a redirection in the wrong direction. Spokesman has been in existence much longer that Spokesperson, and has been derived from same.
Expanded the description of the role and skill-set of company spokesmen. I have not dealt with governments and public organisations, but there ought to be enormous similarities of the roles, responsibilities and skill sets of the representatives.
The references to Bob Uecker or Kent Hrbek have been removed. They appear to be sports commentators and not spokesmen as such, and there are no citations to back up the claim that they are spokesmen for this or that organisation. Ohconfucius 04:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The redirect is also per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I was going to move it myself, but you beat me to it. Bayerischermann 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just for reference on the "spokesperson" and "spokesman" comparison: 39,600,000 Google results versus 98,400,000. 62,300 Google Scholar results versus 31,300 results. "Spokesman" clearly is more common. Bayerischermann 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe this is because most spokespeople are men. That doesn't make it any less sexist. Note that fireman has 60,700 Google Scholar references, whereas firefighter has 16,300, yet firefighter is the name of the article. Policeman has 154,000 articles, whereas police office has 88,600, yet police officer is the name of the article. COGDEN 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My response to previous comments
Showing that there are more Google hits for "spokesman" than "spokesperson" proves nothing: Why? Because "spokeswoman" is also a word.
If the writer wants to specify gender, then the words "spokesman," and "spokeswoman" are both used, and the writer will select the one that specifies the exact gender.
On the other hand, if the writer wants to use a word which is at a higher categorical level, and includes both "spokesman" and "spokeswoman," then the writer will use "spokesperson."
Discussion of the categorical level of three words: Spokesperson, Spokesman, Spokeswoman
Both "spokesman" and "spokeswoman" are sub-categories of the word "spokesperson," and should both redirect to "spokesperson." (That is not the case now: Right now we have the bizarre situation where "spokeswoman" redirects to "spokesman." That situation is at odds with the Wikipedia policy of clarity.)
Discussion of the function of three words: Spokesperson, Spokesman, Spokeswoman
"Spokesman," and "spokeswoman" are used to specify gender. That "use" for them, or the "function" for them, puts them in a separate class than the word "spokesperson," which has a distinctly separate function. It has a different function, and, as an "operative word," operates differently within its linguistic setting.
Summary and my recommendation
All of the above shows that the argument of "Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms" is not applicable to this discussion. All of the above illustrates that nothing is proven if there are more Google hits for "spokesman" than "spokesperson."
Both "spokesman" and "spokeswoman" are sub-categories of the word "spokesperson," and should therefore both redirect to "spokesperson."
- Other reasons for changing the redirects
- Reason One
- In this edit you can see that in 2003 the Wikipedia administrator User:Evil saltine originally had "spokeswoman" redirecting to "spokesperson." Then on July 6, 2006 someone changed "spokesperson" to redirect to "spokesman." This created a disruptive double redirect, which alerted a robot on July 24, 2006. In response to this disruption of the original administrator's organization of Wikipedia, the robot then created the bizarre situation where "spokeswoman" redirected to "spokesman."
- Reason Two
- The above comments show that only two editors want "spokesperson" to redirect to "spokesman." However now a total of five editors (including myself, the original administrator who set up things in 2003, and another administrator User:COGDEN) want the reverse.
- Lacking an answer I'm just going to pull the whole skill-set section as original research. Anyone? Bueller? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we find any material to explore "spokesmodel"?
I don't remember ever hearing this term before the 1980s talent-show program Star Search. Does anyone know if they originated the term? It was a category in the talent competition, which consisted largely of modeling shoots but also included the spokesmodel contestants speaking the pre-commercial-break lines. Lawikitejana 07:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)