Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's impact scale.


I have looked around to see if there exists a template for tagging non gender-neutral language in articles but can't seem to find one. Does anyone know of one? Obviously fixing the article is preferable to drive by tagging but some people don't feel confident rewording passages and it may be challenging for a user who's first language is not English. I assumed there'd be a tag similar to the reference and notability tags that could provide a warning like "the following section may not follow Wikipedia Policy on gender neutral language. Please reword to avoid unnecessary gender specific phasing." Thanks for any help Storeye (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say it's challenging for you as well. (I've seen some of your GNL rewrites and am not impressed. I think the "clarity and precision" part has been forgotten in lieu of an obsessive agenda to "fix" something not broken. I can provide examples what I think sucks about some of your changes if you like that. But no, I'm currently not touching those sub-project articles myself, for reasons unrelated.) p.s. That's all we need are more templates to unnecessarily junk-up articles. IHTS (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I do find it challenging and 100% agree with you my GNL rewrites are not as elegant as Cobblet's but having waited for someone to do a better job I figured a sub-par job was better than none at all. I absolutely invite you to do a cleaner job and am happy to direct you to the pages that need fixing if you'd rather. In the meantime I'll continue to fix the instances I notice the best way I know how and would be delighted if you or someone else beats me to them or rewrites my edits to do a better job. The reason I requested a template was specifically to avoid the distress on editors like you from editors like me fixing these things ourselves. All the best Storeye (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of WP:DIVA[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

The outcome of this RM may be of interest: Wikipedia talk:Don't feed the divas#Requested move. Is it addressing a real issue or just being politically correct? Answer that after you read the discussion. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is more important, GNL or PNL??[edit]

User:Thomas.W says that PNL (politically neutral language) is more important than GNL. Anyone have any thoughts on whether GNL or PNL is more important??

(For clarification, politically-neutral language contrasts with politically correct and politically incorrect.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No, I do not say that, and have in fact never commented on PNL (see see this discussion on my talk page, where Georgia guy starts to make some kind of comparison, a comparison that I'm not going to get dragged into). So what Georgia guy writes above is a blatant lie. Thomas.W talk 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To clear up what I mean, I'm not saying Thomas is actually using the term PNL; I'm saying that Thomas considers PNL (politically neutral language) more important than GNL. For clarification on what I mean, PNL is neutral with respect to politically correct and politically incorrect language (you should know what these terms mean.) Politically correct would be using GNL all the time; politically incorrect would be considering GNL totally unimportant. Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You know absolutely nothing about what I think or what my opinion about PNL is. And I want a full and unreserved apology for the blatant lie you posted above ("User:Thomas.W says that PNL (politically neutral language) is more important than GNL"). I have never said that, neither on-Wikipedia nor off-Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 17:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Gender-generic man (as it says in this essay) is not GNL. I can easily conclude that you think GNL is only moderately important, and I'm trying to describe what you think is more important than GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It is still just an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors. It does not give you the right to edit-war over changes you make in articles. And I demand a full and unreserved apology for the lie about me that you posted here, in an attempt to get sympathy and support from other editors here. Thomas.W talk 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Calling it a lie doesn't help. What you should do is reveal a better term than PNL for me to use to describe what you think is more important than GNL. Georgia guy (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a blatant lie. And why would you need to describe what I think is "more important than GNL"? It's none of your business what I think about things, or what I consider more or less important than whatever else. If my editing on Wikipedia had shown any form of bias, which it doesn't, you would have a right to comment about that, but what you're doing is trying to invent some kind of bias so that you can portray yourself as a victim, which you aren't, and I'm not going to help you with that. All I have done is reprimand you for edit-warring, and for trying to present an essay as a rule, both in an edit summary to an IP and on my talk page. And I'm still waiting for the apology. Thomas.W talk 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Somebody other than the 2 of us please reveal your thoughts on this discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: I'm still waiting for an apology. Posting lies about other editors in order to get sympathy and support is not acceptable behaviour. Thomas.W talk 10:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize how strict I was being with describing what you said. But it's important for this discussion not to just be between the 2 of us without anyone else revealing their comments. Georgia guy (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is nothing wrong with using the term man-made as it implies made by mankind which is gender neutral.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Those term are using the word "man" as a gender-generic term. Why do children always learn that "person" and "human being" are gender-generic terms and that "man" is gender-specific?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Do they? What has that to do with anything assuming it to be true? Their teachers would be ignorant and perhaps victims to the arrogance of the political correctness movement. Please see this to understand why.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Political correctness?? Note that one very important fact about this discussion is that you're saying that "Wikipedia is not supposed to be politically correct; it's supposed to be politically neutral, which means neutral with respect to politically correct and politically incorrect". This is why I'm referring to the question as "Which is more important, GNL (gender-neutral language) or PNL (politically-neutral language)??" (If you don't like the term "politically neutral" please reveal a better term.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
This is about you edit warring over this change and whether man-made is acceptable usage. Your efforts to put words in Thomas' mouth as well as mine falls short. Straw much? A person may be a Freshman but never a Freshperson when referring to a first year college student. The latter would be a poorly and ignorantly derived neologism. In other words, man-made is gender neutral and fine to doesn't need correcting in the first place and efforts to do so may be seen as hyper-vigilant political correctness. This post is enlightening.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Read this essay very carefully. Thomas, despite having read the essay, says we don't need to follow it because it's an essay and not a policy; while some people agree with it, others don't. (Go to the section of the talk page immediately after this one that reveals an important problem relating to this fact.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thomas is correct.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There's still a question you're ignoring though. How does the edit to Swimming pool that I made that Thomas reverted violate Wikipedia policies?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Am I? Can you supply a diff apart from your last comment which poses that question in the above? This is the first time that I've seen you admit to the actual crux of the problem. Corollary question: How did Thomas' revert violate policies or guidelines?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ Georgia guy: The edit as such doesn't violate the policies, but edit-warring to keep your preferred version in the article does. What you should have done, already after the first revert of the edit, was discussing it on the talk page of the article (see WP:BRD), to get support for your version. Trying to mislead the IP by pointing to an essay, as if it was a policy, isn't the right thing to do either. Thomas.W talk 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A good way to understand the meaning of this question is to note that it is not analogous to changing the word cat to the misspelling kat. "Cat" is spelled with a C; something we cannot change. Had I chose to edit an article by changing the everyday English word cat to kat, it would make sense to take the edit as vandalism and revert. The only thing I see Thomas's revert to my edit as consistent with is "Either following or breaking an essay (as distinct from a policy) is acceptable; please retain the first version in the article even if it breaks the essay because the essay is not a policy." Alternately, I see it as consistent with the alternate statement "Either gender-neutral language or gender-generic "man" is acceptable; please retain the version used in the first well-written version of the article", a statement that interprets GNL as a totally optional variant of English the same way American English and British English are. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Que? What has cat/kat got to do with what we're discussing? I reverted your edit on Swimming pool because a) your edit was bad English and b) there's no need to "neuter" a word that by definition already is gender-neutral. You then started a discussion on my talk page, waving WP:GNL at me as if it was a policy, and I replied there, followed by you then starting another discussion here, posting a blatant lie about me. So if don't like the way this discussion is going blame yourself, because you were the one who started it, not me. Thomas.W talk 16:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As for "edit warring", the real thing here is that the first edit I made was only reverted by an IP a few days after I made it. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For clarification, it was an IP, not Thomas himself, who initially didn't like my change. If only the IP had a registered account so we can know what the IP's thoughts are. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That is quite misleading as your first addition came couched with the edit summary "Gender-neutral language; feel free to improve but please don't simply revert" and the IP clearly wrote the summary ""Man made" refers to the race of Man, not a specific man, and IS gender neutral." which is correct. The next time they reverted you they left the summary "How about not just reverting. No-one cares about your gender neutral crap, "man-made" is the correct term". You didn't follow BRD and take the issue to Talk:Swimming pool as you should have done. Frankly, your change was very poor grammar and not an improvement.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Poor grammar?? If it's poor grammar, what a good Wikipedian who understands the edit would do is simply improve it rather than reverting it. I didn't really think about taking it to the talk page of Swimming pool as a better choice than taking it here; I was informed of the statement that only people interested in swimming pools would participate in revealing their thoughts. Taking the discussion here would allow any Wikipedian aware of this essay to reveal their thoughts. Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
They improved it by reverting you. The premise that if it isn't broken don't try to fix it comes to mind. What do you mean that "I was informed of the statement that only people interested in swimming pools would participate in revealing their thoughts."? <== diff please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
More generally, talk pages are usually watched by people interested in the articles' subjects rather than the English variant (e.g. American, British, gender-neutral, male-centric) that is being thought of in an edit. Something I still haven't brought up yet: the main WP:MOS page already says "Use gender-neutral language..." in the area that links to this essay. Section 16.2 of the MOS needs to change its terminology to be consistent with the statement that it's just an essay. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Georgia guy: Your edit should be discussed on the talk page of the article you edited, i.e. Talk:Swimming pool, so that people interested in that article can take part in it, not here. The only reason I can see for why you try to keep the discussion here and not on the talk page of the article is that you count on getting more support for your edit here than you would get there. Which IMO is a sneaky form of canvassing. Thomas.W talk 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── He posted it there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, five minutes after I posted my comment here. Thomas.W talk 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is an essay and not a policy, then...[edit]

Although there's a template at the top of the essay saying it's an essay and not a policy, the essay is giving too much weight to what it means, pointing towards the idea that it's a policy. Any way to alter the essay so that it doesn't give so much weight to its meaning as if it were a policy?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I clarified this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)