Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1,623: | Line 1,623: | ||
*'''Fowler&fowler's''' guide to those who might be depressed that liberals, hunchbacks, and the cripple are getting away with murder. I speak of the murder of our cherished English language (which we can't really write with any felicity, but no matter) and old ways (which we would be hard-pressed to describe, but no matter) Don't be deterred if they tell you that the Google search: "wheelchair-bound" site:guardian.co.uk for the period after January 1, 2016, returns only one link, their style guide, which says: " '''wheelchair''' Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate." Don't be depressed if you've never read the Guardian or think it has to do with Angels. Go back in time, open the trapdoors to the past, the bottomless past of prejudice, and persist until you catch the Guardian using "wheelchair-bound." Remember Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger (or some other liberal)'s very accurate perception: "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Remember we have nothing at stake in this, so we can go on abusing anyone verbally, engage in dumping data of the most trivial variety, interpret the policy literally, make its implementation hinge on the presence of even one example to the contrary. We will outlast them. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Fowler&fowler's''' guide to those who might be depressed that liberals, hunchbacks, and the cripple are getting away with murder. I speak of the murder of our cherished English language (which we can't really write with any felicity, but no matter) and old ways (which we would be hard-pressed to describe, but no matter) Don't be deterred if they tell you that the Google search: "wheelchair-bound" site:guardian.co.uk for the period after January 1, 2016, returns only one link, their style guide, which says: " '''wheelchair''' Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate." Don't be depressed if you've never read the Guardian or think it has to do with Angels. Go back in time, open the trapdoors to the past, the bottomless past of prejudice, and persist until you catch the Guardian using "wheelchair-bound." Remember Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger (or some other liberal)'s very accurate perception: "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Remember we have nothing at stake in this, so we can go on abusing anyone verbally, engage in dumping data of the most trivial variety, interpret the policy literally, make its implementation hinge on the presence of even one example to the contrary. We will outlast them. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::You're lapsing in unintelligibility again. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:The ''have empathy'' bit just doesn't impress me, in ''any'' discussion. Already today (at another RFC) somebody said my position (in that other RFC) might offend people. So again, I re-state my position on ''this'' topic, we should <u>not</u> be softening words on this project, on the basis that those words - might hurt somebody's feelings-. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:The ''have empathy'' bit just doesn't impress me, in ''any'' discussion. Already today (at another RFC) somebody said my position (in that other RFC) might offend people. So again, I re-state my position on ''this'' topic, we should <u>not</u> be softening words on this project, on the basis that those words - might hurt somebody's feelings-. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::I already said, "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Wikipedia remains a preserve of young males of the Anglosphere, most of whom have technical backgrounds, and most are socially conservative. There is a reason that women stay away in droves from Wikipedia. There is a reason that minorities anywhere stay away in droves from Wikipedia. It is that WP has become a preserve of amateur majoritarianism. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*::I already said, "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Wikipedia remains a preserve of young males of the Anglosphere, most of whom have technical backgrounds, and most are socially conservative. There is a reason that women stay away in droves from Wikipedia. There is a reason that minorities anywhere stay away in droves from Wikipedia. It is that WP has become a preserve of amateur majoritarianism. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::::Ah yes, the ol' stakes-are-so-low bromide{{snd}}always good in a pinch. And while the "Wikipedia is socially conservative" bit rings a bit hollow, nonetheless we can all agree that whatever the problem is, the white males are at fault. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::That is a load of complete and utter bollocks. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:::That is a load of complete and utter bollocks. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 12:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::::Thus spake who? Not: [https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia "Why do so few women edit Wikipedia," Harvard Business Review], nor [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ "Wikipedia's hostility to women," The Atlantic], nor [https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2019/nov/28/making-the-edit-why-we-need-more-women-in-wikipedia "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia, Guardian"], nor yet [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html "Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly." New York Times], which says, "when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years." Like I said, (paraphrasing): The preserve of males of the Anglosphere, generally with technical backgrounds, with unreconstructed views of the world, .... [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*::::Thus spake who? Not: [https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia "Why do so few women edit Wikipedia," Harvard Business Review], nor [https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ "Wikipedia's hostility to women," The Atlantic], nor [https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2019/nov/28/making-the-edit-why-we-need-more-women-in-wikipedia "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia, Guardian"], nor yet [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html "Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly." New York Times], which says, "when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years." Like I said, (paraphrasing): The preserve of males of the Anglosphere, generally with technical backgrounds, with unreconstructed views of the world, .... [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::::::The article that quotes Ms. Poore also says {{Tq|A spirited debate over a detail in an article can spiral into one user spewing personal attacks against another}}; sounds like she's been keeping an eye on you. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::In past discussions over 16+ years (please, don't ask me to look up the diffs), I've been called a ''"fascist"'', ''"homophobic"'', ''"xenophobe"'', ''"mentally ill"'', etc etc. None of that intimidated me (as I'm neither of those things) away from Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:::::In past discussions over 16+ years (please, don't ask me to look up the diffs), I've been called a ''"fascist"'', ''"homophobic"'', ''"xenophobe"'', ''"mentally ill"'', etc etc. None of that intimidated me (as I'm neither of those things) away from Wikipedia. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*:This is a purely emotional argument full of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] about anyone who might have a different opinion on a matter of language, and doesn't say anything of substance about the issue at hand. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:This is a purely emotional argument full of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] about anyone who might have a different opinion on a matter of language, and doesn't say anything of substance about the issue at hand. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 17:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::Emotional disputes are better then edit-warring, though. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*::Emotional disputes are better then edit-warring, though. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*:::But, {{re|The Wordsmith}}, that link says, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.". But I—in the more than two or three dozen posts—on this page alone, have made several different arguments. My latest is hardly calumny; it is an observation that there is a reliably sourced demographic of Wikipedia membership, which has reliably sourced implications about matters of equity. (Equity = a system of law based on general principles of justice that stands side-by-side with common law, but has precedence when there is a conflict. Almost all the major changes in America, women's suffrage, the repeal of separate but equal, belong to that realm.) [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
*:::But, {{re|The Wordsmith}}, that link says, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.". But I—in the more than two or three dozen posts—on this page alone, have made several different arguments. My latest is hardly calumny; it is an observation that there is a reliably sourced demographic of Wikipedia membership, which has reliably sourced implications about matters of equity. (Equity = a system of law based on general principles of justice that stands side-by-side with common law, but has precedence when there is a conflict. Almost all the major changes in America, women's suffrage, the repeal of separate but equal, belong to that realm.) [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*::::But anyway the while males are still the problem. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) <small>Also, ''side by side'' takes no hyphens in this context.</small> |
|||
===Not-at-all arbitrary break=== |
|||
A big part of why this proposal is so misbegotten is that -- instead of stating a general principle (applicable to a range of situations instead of just wheelchairs) and offering sample rewrites to inspire editors to craft the best approach according to the needs of a particular article and what the sources makes possible -- it rather picks that one[[WP:RGW|wrong to be righted]] and prescribes a verboten phrase to be blindly struck out. Here's a rough of something more useful, IMHO: |
|||
:''When discussing disability or medical conditions, strive to avoid broad or imprecise statements that may imply more limitation that is actually present.'' |
|||
:*''For example, instead of {{tq|The increasing weakness left her wheelchair-bound}}, sources may allow an article to explain that {{tq|As the weakness progressed, it became increasingly difficult for her to walk unassisted, and by 1977 she almost always used a wheelchair outside of her specially adapted home}}.'' |
|||
:*''Or, instead of {{tq|A series of strokes resulted in progressive dementia}}, readers would be better informed by {{tq|After a 1962 stroke he had sometimes missed cues or faltered in delivering scripted lines, though his talent for ad libbing seemed unaffected}}.'' |
|||
:''But where sources do not elaborate, it may be necessary to repeat what they say while highlighting their potential imprecision:'' |
|||
:*''{{tq|A few months after Smith's 1943 accident, his wife wrote to friends in America that he was "practically wheelchair-bound"}}.'' |
|||
:''Discussions of artistic works can present special problems, because they often present medical or disability issues in stereotyped ways for "shorthand" effect.'' [And here EEng runs our of gas for tonight, but maybe someone can pick up the baton.] |
|||
If something like the above had been presented (though I realize it doesn't advocate the blanket ban some would like, and there's a lot off-kilter about the way it's formulated) I think this discussion would have taken quite a different course. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Italics for "(pictured in XXXX)" == |
== Italics for "(pictured in XXXX)" == |
||
Revision as of 04:09, 9 November 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page. |
|
Frequently asked questions Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed. Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation?
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s?
Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021,
2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Style discussions elsewhere
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.
Current
(newest on top)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Determining whether bolding of names in lists, and any other contexts on which the MOS does not comment, are useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Talk:Vandana_Shiva#RfC:_Indian_English_or_American? - RfC on the application of WP:ENGVAR / WP:TIES
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people - Clarifying our deadname policy for biographies of deceased individuals
- Talk:Rolling block#Case and hyphen – "rolling block action" vs. "rolling-block action", and "Remington Rolling Block breech" vs. "Remington rolling-block breech".
- Template talk:Infobox person#Bolding of native names – MOS:BADITALICS? (May 2021)
- Template talk:Infobox racing driver#RfC on making an exception to MOS:FLAG for motorsports
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Hyphenating "virtual reality" as an adjective group – a MOS:HYPHEN and WP:CONSISTENT matter (April 2021); began as Talk:Virtual reality headset#Requested move 24 March 2021
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Mixed naming conventions – regarding MOS guidance for articles about "law by jurisdiction" (March 2021)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 20#MOS:SUFFIXDASH moves – seems, despite WP:C2D, to be an attempt to undo MOS:SUFFIXDASH, via CfD discussion instead of MoS proposal (March 2021)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Conflicting guidance on headers – regarding potentially conflicting table-related guidelines (March 2021)
- Talk:Isa Briones#RfC Lead sentence – are female thespians to be described as "actress" or "actor"? (March 2021)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention – about parameter names like
|url-status=vs.|urlstatus=; not strictly an MoS matter, but likely of interest to MoS regulars (February 2021 – April 2021) - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#MEDLEAD – RfC about whether to keep as-is, or delete (and possibly rewrite from scratch), the MEDMOS section MOS:MEDLEAD (February 2021).
- Talk:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed#Name throughout the article – Involves both MOS:HONORIFIC and MOS:GIVENNAME (January 2021).
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#RfC: Standardizing shortened reference column titles – On whether and how to abbreviate "References" as a table column heading (October 2020)
Capitalization-specific:
- Talk:Anglo-Mysore Wars#Requested move 29 November 2024 – lowercase "wars"?
- Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Requested move 28 November 2024 – Lowercase "civil war"?
- Talk:.22 Long Rifle#Requested move 27 November 2024 – Lowercase four articles?
- Talk:Wahhabi War#Requested move 26 November 2024 – Lowercase "war"?
- Talk:Adi Keyh Subregion#Requested move 25 November 2024 – Lowercase "subregion", "region", and "administration" in titles for subregions/regions of Eritrea?
- Talk:Korean decimal classification#Requested move 20 November 2024 – Uppercase "decimal" and "classification"?
- Talk:Mendocino Fracture Zone#Requested move 20 November 2024 – Lowercase fracture zone on these 19 titles?
- Talk:First battle of Öland (1564)#Requested move 13 November 2024 – Uppercase 13 enumerated "battle"s?
Other discussions:
- Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 November#Talk:England in the Late Middle Ages
- Talk:Fullbore target rifle#Major rework – Is it too risky to ask people who are carrying firearms to use lowercase?
- Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT
- Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen#Capitalization of the word mass – "her funeral Mass" vs "her funeral mass"
- Talk:Julian (emperor)#Capitalization of "emperor" – should "emperor" be capped when referring to a specific person?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Indigenous – continuation of an RM discussion on capitalization of "indigenous"
- Talk:War on terror#Capitalisation of "global war on terrorism" in prose
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#THEBAND disambiguators – what to do about "The" in parenthetical disambiguators?
- Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization – Should the online persona be called "F1NN5TER", "F1nn5ter" or "Finnster"?
- Talk:Union Jack#Case consistency – Union Flag, or Union flag?
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Capitalisation of "oblast" when used as the name of a Ukrainian administrative division – May affect other administrative divisions (e.g. raion) and other nations for which such terms are used
Pretty stale but not "concluded":
- Talk:Upstate New York#Other plausible capitalization issue – Capitalization of "Upstate" New York.
- Talk:Southern Italy#Lowercase or uppercase? – Capitalisation of "southern". Also "northern" and "central" in related articles.
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of geologic names – Despite being opened on an NC talk page, this is about usage in general not just in our article titles.
- Talk:Fall of Saigon#Names section and capitalisation – capitalisation of Vietnamese language names and capitalisation of their English translations?
Concluded
Extended content
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Non-breaking spaces with written-out units
As a follow-up to topic-specific discussions at Talk:Hassium and User talk:DePiep#MOS and NBSP, it seems that the current MOS guideline on the usage of non-breaking spaces when separating numbers from written-out units (e.g. 5 kilometers (instead of 5 km); 118 elements) is open to interpretation. It advises to use non-breaking spaces when line breaks are awkward, which they seem to be in this case; however, implementing this would apparently require making heavy changes to lots of articles, as it is not strongly established as are the examples given in the MOS section.
I thus ask, should the same guideline for quantities and abbreviated units be followed for fully spelled-out units? Should non-breaking spaces be used only with abbreviations, or always with units and quantities? I would like to establish a more definite MOS guideline, in which one or the other is widely agreed upon as common practice. ComplexRational (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I really, really wish people would stop jumping straight into a project-wide RfC before working with other editors to frame the questions to be posed. I urge you to withdraw this. And MOSNUM is probably the right place for this. (Main MOS vs subsidiary pages is a longstanding problem.) EEng 01:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC. Let's play it out as a regular discussion now; I apologize for being unaware of this potential complication. ComplexRational (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ping to prevent archiving. EEng 12:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here:
Okay, I withdrew it as an RfC
. 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)- I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- The most recent diff before I withdrew upon EEng's suggestion was [1]. All that changed since then was removal of the RfC template; the content of my original post is the same now as it was then. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the point that is puzzling both DePiep and me is there seems to be no trace of the !RfC for us to see what issues had been raised. Starting an RfC and then withdrawing it should surely leave something in a history somewhere. There are no links, nor anything in contributions that I can find. What am I missing? --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, the OP wrote, just above here:
- Eh, that 'obvious' part is not visible then?, like in an talk edited afterwards (ouch)? Must I do homework research to see it? -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously, like the OP said: he had set this up as an RfC but later withdrew it at my urging. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the "jumping into an RfC" that EEng is referring to here. I do see a reasonable description by ComplexRational of a MOS detail to be clarified somehow. Do I miss some invisible redacted editing? Please clarify. As it stands now, the OP is correct and relevant to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'd suggest discussing it right here (or at Talk:MOSNUM, but since ultimately it's an aesthetic, not technical, issue I guess here is fine.) There are plenty of people here who have thought a lot about formatting issues, and many have outside professional experience, and with their participation I suspect the issue can either be resolved or boiled down to a clearcut question. Open-ended RfCs like you've started, which pull random people from all over into an unstructured discussion, just end up a mess. EEng 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Where else would you suggest discussing this, seeing as its outcome is not specific to the articles for which this was discussed, and the question is pretty straightforward from these discussions? If it can be held elsewhere, I will withdraw; however, I don't think that place is MOSNUM because this issue pertains to MOS:NBSP, which is not its own MOS sub-page. I'm open to ideas. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
In traditional typography, typesetters would ensure that sentences didn't break onto another line at a point where the result was a new line starting with something that didn't make sense alone, or where the break would produce a semantic dissonance. So they would avoid lines starting with an abbreviation:
- something something ... a distance of 15
km
as well as lines that changed meaning when the next line was read:
- something something ... a cost of $5
million
In electronic document processing, when line length can change with screen resolution or window size, the non-breaking space was used to prevent those sort of breaks from happening. I don't believe there has ever been any rationale for placing a non-breaking space between numbers and normal recognisable English words, because those don't produce problems, other than in cases like the second example. There is really nothing wrong with seeing:
- something something ... a distance of 15
kilometres
and it is especially ludicrous to extend the fetish for non-breaking spaces in quantities to normal counted items. There is nothing wrong with reading:
- something something ... a squad of 24
football players
The examples at MOS:UNITNAMES reflect these simple principles, and I can't see what other interpretation could be made of the present guidance:
- Use a non-breaking space (
{{nbsp}}or ) between a number and a unit symbol, or use{{nowrap}}... - ... and a normal space is used between a number and a unit name.
If somebody wants to change those guidelines, then they really should be proposing what changes they want made and the reasons for them. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I wasn't proposing a change. I was merely asking for clarification, and if any disagreement were to arise, then firmly establish one way or another. What is written here makes sense, now I only propose that it is made crystal clear for other (copy)editors in the MOS:NBSP section (to use only with abbreviations). ComplexRational (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) @RexxS:, these examples are undisputed, and are clear by WP:NBSP and WP:MOSUNIT. Minor detail: your example of 15<regularspace>kilometres is not in the MOS explicitly, but well observed, also by {{Convert}} — end of detail.
- Note: for simplicity, an "_" (underscore) says NBSP.
- A question arose when reading in MOS:NBSP:
It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward.
-- note the criterium "awkward". The examples given are (1) unit symbols - no problem, see before, and (2) exampes of number-in-proper-name (Boeing_747). - Some editors state that the "awkward" situation may also occur in situations with a number inline, i.e. in running text. Examples (in here):
element_114
,the expected magic 114_protons, ...
. - My (opposing) point is that such number-word combinations are not awkward, can reasionably occur in any running sentence, are part of a reading habit, and so are not 'awkward' and do not allow an NBSP. Otherwise, this whole enwiki could require a MOS-change in ~every article, or have inconsistent styles between articles re this line-breaking.
- So, first question: do we recognise this is a Good MOS Question to discuss? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
- Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
protons, was first synthesized in 1998
- Flerovium, with the expected magic 114
- Although to get a line break there, you would have to be viewing on a screen with a maximum line length of less than 40 characters. Even my 1978 vintage TRS-80 could manage that. --RexxS (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- If
114 protons
can't be broken, then you may as well say that every number has to be followed by an nbsp, always, and that would be silly. - I do think
Z = 112
shouldn't break, though that would be better coded as{{nobr|Z = 112}}than the currentZ = 112 - I'm not sure that all the examples at MOS:NBSP belong there, and I wonder if there shouldn't be some other cases listed.
- If
- EEng 04:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:RexxS: that is my understanding of MOS:NBSP too, including its background (typography). It's just, I stopped editing because of EW, started a talk, and involved editors correctly started a wider talk here. But I see no need to admonish other editors, instead we could use a clearer MOS text and explanation here, for fellow editors. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- I now see that the section title here is a much narrower issue than the wide one ComplexRational and I were discussing/editing. As the Island of stability example show, it was and is about all of MOS:NBSP. This complicates/disturbs this talk flow, I must excuse. (how to proceed?). -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
- Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances.
- There are also many circumstances where a non-breaking space is unnecessary because a line break can't happen there. There are three examples in Island of stability: in the caption of the infobox (the width is fixed, regardless of window size); in reference number 5 (too close to the start of a line for a line break to be possible); and in the table caption
"Most stable isotopes of superheavy elements (Z ≥ 104)"
(the table can't become narrow enough to wrap the caption onto another line). I've tried pushing the zoom up to 250% and narrowing the window to its minimum, but I can't find a setting that could cause a line break where one had been placed. Nevertheless, I don't suppose that is anything we can, or should, try to give guidance about in MoS for fear of causing more confusion. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)- In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng –
There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved.
). ComplexRational (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)- Thanks for explaining how you got the line break in the image caption; I hadn't considered zooming out that far. But do you think anybody actually reads Wikipedia at 70% zoom? I can't even get any of my browsers to zoom at 70% to see the effect. Still, it's possible, so best to leave in the {{nowrap}} in that case. The general point about infobox images with captions shorter than the image width is worth understanding, though.
- What I am suggesting is that there are many cases where we simply don't need a non-breaking space, i.e. whenever it's not possible for the line to break at that point, but that it's difficult to try to give foolproof guidance to cover those cases, so I don't think we can come up with a form of words that would be helpful. Can you?
- Do you agree with my suggested clarification above: Numbers followed by an ordinary English word (not an abbreviation, or similar) do not require a non-breaking space between them in normal circumstances. and if not, why not? --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use
{{nobr|1=''Z'' = 114}}(for example) throughout the article, if this would be preferred to a pair of nbsp's? (On an unrelated note, maybe a new template should be created following whatever this discussion establishes, as this is pretty common in chemistry and physics articles.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC) - I agree with this wording, it addresses the elephant in the room and is easy enough to follow. I would specifically use it as an antithesis to the MOS points advising nbsp with units (70_km) or parts of the name (Airbus_A380), though I suppose saying "not an abbreviation" already addresses that. The only thing that may raise questions is "normal circumstances" – I'd rather leave that out and add an additional bullet point saying something along the lines of Non-breaking spaces are not required in fixed-with table cells or image captions, especially when the text is not long enough to wrap., or else work out through discussion what the most common exceptions would be (that would otherwise confuse editors unfamiliar or too familiar with MOS). ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Most editors, in my experience, prefer {{nowrap}} over multiple consecutive non-breaking spaces in a phrase. It makes the wikitext more readable for other editors (the same reason we prefer to avoid html entities where possible).
- The "normal circumstances" would be to cover exceptions like
- ... his fee for the service was $50
thousand.
- ... his fee for the service was $50
- where a non-breaking space between the number and the next word would avoid giving the reader the impression the fee was $50 until they read on to the next line. But I'm happy to accommodate other views such as giving examples of specific exceptions instead of stating "normal circumstances".
- While I think about it, there is a good case for what I called the "semantic dissonance" to be noted as a rule in other places as well:
- ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
II
- ... the great-grandnephew of Queen Mary
- To anyone familiar with Tudor/Stuart history of England, it first reads as Mary I of England, then as Mary II of England when the next line is reached and obviously should be avoided. That represents one of the very few phrases where I would have no hesitation in recommending the use of a non-breaking space for cogent, rather than aesthetic reasons.--RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I understand what you're saying about captions. Would it then also be better to use
- In the first image, a line break appeared at 70% zoom on my computer screen, and indeed was awkward. What exactly are you suggesting would risk more confusion? The MoS is supposed to make things as clear as possible, and I wouldn't have started this thread had it been clear from the beginning (echoing EEng –
- @EEng and DePiep: Apologies, I was too focused on the quantities issues and not enough on the general nbsp guidance, which does seem to be missing. IMHO, we should have a guideline that says something like
- @DePiep: It certainly seems that something ought to be done to educate editors about when to use (and not use) non-breaking spaces. I just looked at the Island of stability article you pointed out. Over 200 non-breaking spaces. Seriously? I've just removed four that you could see at a glance occur at places where the line could never break. No doubt somebody will revert me, citing MoS instead of thinking for themselves. I'm not sure repeating the already crystal clear guidance in MoS is the solution though. Either they never read MoS or they don't understand what a line break is. Either way, tinkering with the MoS won't have any effect on them. As for your actual examples, I've long ago given up trying to convince others that there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading
- There's long been a need for the nbsp/nobreak guidance to be improved. I've never done anything about it because I realized some cases would need a discussion. EEng 00:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is already covered at MOS:NUM, to the extent any of this needs any rule-mongering. It advises using non-breaking spaces in strings like 5 cm, but it does not advise doing this when using spelled-out words. It doesn't advise against it, either. Like most things, it is left to editorial discretion. Nothing is broken. No, we do not need another template, since
{{nobr}}and{{nbsp}}work fine. So does just using . Yes, it is WP:Common sense to non-breakify certain strings like "$50 thousand", and "Mary II". No, we don't need a rule about it, or we would've already had one by now. No, we do not need anyone going around inserting non-breaking spaces robotically in proximity to every number they see, per WP:MEATBOT ("ain't broke, don't 'fix' it"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
NBSP for numeric followed by words
Hi all, I recently put up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 for FAC. SandyGeorgia commented that there should be some additional non-breaking spaces for items such as "15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants". I don't really mind putting these in, but wanted to clarify our MOS, and how it effects these types of phrases. My understanding at WP:NBSP is that we should use these on names, such as World War 2, and measurements, such as 10 Miles. However, should we also use these on regular expressions, such as "20 people"? I don't mind either way, but wanted to clarify before I do wholesale changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The guideline gives patchy and somewhat conflicting advice on this entire subject. I'm going to give you what I think will be useful guidance, but we must brace ourselves for people to leap out at us from all corners of the project to denounce what I say as at best the product of unfathomable ignorance, and at worst detrimental to the moral fiber of the nation.
- There are two (maybe more, but two I can think of offhand) things we're trying to prevent:
- (1) You don't want tiny fragments that look odd alone stranded on the start of a line. Thus World War{nbsp}2 and Henry{nbsp}VIII.
- (2) You don't want two things separated by a linebreak if the reader, seeing just the first part, will be momentarily misled and have to back up and rethink when he sees the bit on the next line. Thus $2{nbsp}million, because if the million goes on the next line the reader first thinks "Two dollars", and then when he sees the million he has to back up and think "Oh, wait, Two million dollars". (This is a peculiarity of the fact that money symbols go at front of quantities rather than at the end as with other units. Can anyone think of a similar example not involving money?)
- (3) Notice that the logic of (2) doesn't arise with normal quantities like 15 seeds or 2 million dollars (i.e. no nbsp used in these cases) because as the reader scans "15<linebreak>seeds" there's nothing misleading about 15 alone at the end of the line, and the same for scanning "2<linebreak>million dollars" or "2 million<linebreak>dollars". When you think about it, if you required nbsp in constructions like that, then you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp, and that can't be right. So I would not put {nbsp} in your examples.
- (4) Units of measure are a special case. By the logic of (3), there's no {nbsp} in 10 kilometers. However, I think the guideline does recommend an {nbsp} in the case of 10{nbsp}km, because at the start of a line km looks weird in a way kilometer doesn't. (km is what's called a unit symbol, whereas kilometer is what's called a unit name, and there are several other ways in which unit symbols and unit names are treated differently, so there's nothing odd about treating them differently here.)
- Perhaps the principles laid out above can be the start of a revival of this thread. EEng 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or perhaps not. In the meantime, here are some other places I think (comment invited, of course) nbsp would be needed or not needed. Probably some or all of these are give by others in the posts above but I want to get them down while they're on my mind.
- Needed:
- In DMY dates e.g. 28{nbsp}May or 28{nbsp}May 1935, because at least some readers will find separation of the day-in-month from the month odd. (Further explanation on request as to why this is different from the case of 10 kilometers.)
- In MDY dates e.g. May{nbsp}28, 1935, because "28, 1935" looks ludicrous at the start of a line.
- He responded, "Better you than{nbsp}I." or The smallest reading was{nbsp}5.
- 9:30{nbsp}a.m. because I think it's somewhat analogous to a unit symbol (see above); and definitely 9:30{nbsp}am, because "am" alone and separated from the "9:30" could cause the reader to trip and fall.
- several{nbsp}.22 shells, because starting a line with a . looks weird
- <certain image caption situations, details to be supplied (centered captions, left-aligned captions)>
- Ellipsis or other fragments at the start of a quotation: He listed them as "1.{nbsp}Good goals, 2. Good planning, 3. Good execution; or The torn fragment read, "...{nbsp}for the love of God!"
July{{nbsp}}28, 1942????
- Not needed:
- 123 Main Street
- EEng 00:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not needed:
- I ask people here: how often have you struck a dangling numeral at the end of a line? Me: not that I can recall. Tony (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps that was meant to be "stuck", the synonym for "put". — BarrelProof (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- By struck do you mean "run into/happened to find" or "struck out/had to get rid of"? EEng 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I could see having a summary section somewhere (hopefully not in the main page, maybe in MOS:TEXT) about "Appropriate uses of non-breaking spaces" or some heading title like that, in which we could suggest these sorts of cases, without implying that they're required. People already rankle at the currently fairly-strongly-recommended ones in MOS:NUM and a few other places. So, there's opportunity to cry "WP:CREEP!" here if this discussion produces more rules, rather than optional tweaks for polishing up text for maximum usability. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely for FA-level polishing, mostly, but there's one situation where I've found it worth the trouble to apply nbsp/nobr fairly liberally: in image captions, because their short line length means bad breaks do occur now and then unless you prevent them. EEng 03:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm surprised to see the above quote from MOS:NUM (WP:UNITNAMES): "a normal space is used between a number and a unit name". Personally, I would find a line break within the example's "29
kilograms" rather ugly. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Me, too. The position "you're pretty much saying every number anywhere must be followed by an nbsp" that EEng spoke against earlier actually seems to me to be the best practice. Your example of a break between 29 and kilograms not only looks "ugly", but makes me think that there has been a misprint of some sort causing me to have trouble understanding what is written. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Somewhat related, but since the discussion here is almost-exclusively referencing insertion of NBSPs, I wanted to re-raise this previous discussion where I advocated for using Template:nowrap instead of NBSPs. The simple reason being that (at least on my system / in my browser)
{{nowrap}}has the same effect as the insertion of NBSPs, without affecting spacing of the text the way NBSP does (again, at least on my system). Here's the example I presented:
| Bare | Wikilinked | |
|---|---|---|
| Using {{nowrap}} | World War I | World War I |
Using
|
World War I | World War I |
- Looking at that on my screen, the
version has a much larger — in fact, uncomfortably large — space between "War" and "I", whereas the{{nowrap}}version is spaced normally. If we can protect phrases against wrapping without making the formatting look weird, I figure that makes the decision on when/whether to do so a bit less fraught. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Something from somewhere else
Non-breaking spaces. The narrower scope for using non-breaking (i.e., "hard") spaces was significantly clarified. They should be used:
- in compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space (17 kg, AD 565, 2:50 pm);
- between month and day in dates that are not autoformatted (August 3, 1979);
- on the left side of spaced en dashes; and
- in other places where displacement might be disruptive to the reader, such as £11 billion, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N, Boeing 747, and the first two items in 7 World Trade Center.
Improve Controlling line breaks section
It seems that it would be good if the example markup of 5° 24′ N included a non-breaking space between the 5degrees and the 24minutes and the N. DGerman (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Is using 'Latter' and 'Former' a bad idea?
Is using 'the latter' of 'the former' (as the subject of a sentence, not a point in time) a bad idea? Or indicative of a sentence that needs re-wording anyway?
For example in:
Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.
I would prefer something like:
Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with Iwamoto finishing fourth and Tomonaga second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.
My objections:
- It's poor for readability, you have to scan back and forth when reading, especially bad for screen readers and audio recordings, and even then the subject is often still unclear.
- It's brittle, if someone adds another example to a list or re-orders the list, then the whole construct has to be re-written.
- It's potentially harder to understand text out of context for e.g. 'did you know'
I'm tempted to edit these out whenever I see them, is there any existing discussion/guidance on this that I should take into account?
JeffUK (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Both sound fine to me, but I exercise caution when I repeat names in a sentence, as it can sound redundant. If I want to do a little repetition, I would personally go for:
—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places in the men's and women's events respectively: Iwamoto finished fourth, and Tomonaga second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China.
- Former and latter are way overused. In most cases they're simply one more form of WP:ELEVAR. The OP's rewrite is best. Tenryuu's rewrite is missing a comma after second (or you can omit the comma after fourth). EEng 19:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but is there a proposal here? Are we just commenting in general, or is a MOS rule forthcoming? If the former, is this the right forum? If the latter, don't we normally avoid being overly-proscriptive in MOS? --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely agree "latter/former" is rarely a good prose choice (see Wikipedia:The_problem_with_elegant_variation#Latter_/_former). I also feel it probably doesn't need to be in the MOS. Popcornfud (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, but is there a proposal here? Are we just commenting in general, or is a MOS rule forthcoming? If the former, is this the right forum? If the latter, don't we normally avoid being overly-proscriptive in MOS? --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I rarely see them on WP, perhaps too rarely. They are often better than repeating names, especially when only one of them is needed. This may be an ENGVAR style thing. Certainly no MOS change needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- No nothing wrong with using 'Latter' and 'Former', avoids repetitive tedious language. Also please do not cite ELEVAR at me, it is a user essay. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, someone sure got up on the wrong side of the style manual this morning, you have a comma splice too. Linking to a user essay informs (or reminds) our fellow editors of a particular line of reasoning without its having to be tediously pasted in; that's what essays are for. EEng 14:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with latter and former when referering to things that are sequential. But when one is referring to a sequence of words in the sentence, then it can be a sign of verbosity and complexity that could be eliminated with a rewrite. The proposed sentence is way too long and confuses the reader by combining "came fourth" and "came second" about separate events. The facts:
- Both Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga were Rio 2016 Olympians.
- Both compete in the modern pentathlon and sought qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China
- Iwamoto came fourth in the mens event
- Tomonaga came second in the womens event
- Both successfully qualified to compete at the 2020 Summer olympics.
- There are lots of way to write this to minimise redundancy while keeping separate things separate. In particular, I think it is important to keep the mens/womens events/results separate. For a data-heavy article like this, it is probably best to err on the side of short simple sentences, than attempting beautiful flowing prose. The reader is skimming for facts, not reading to be entertained. -- Colin°Talk 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it should be avoided wherever possible. I'm not talking about zero tolerance, but to only resort to it when repetition of the names/terms becomes truly clunky and repetitious. This was an example I found unnecessary – imo, the use of former/latter there came across as affected, and so caused more problems than it solved. WP:ELEVAR makes some good points, I think, because there's nothing worse, as a reader, than coming across a page that reads as if it's been authored a little too fussily. JG66 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Concur with EEng and Popcornfud. We have essays like ELEVAR to explain the reasons behind various good/bad writing choices, so we don't have to WP:CREEP-bloat MoS with rules that virtually no one actually needs. "ELEVAR is just an essay not a rule" is completely missing the point. See WP:MOSBLOAT: we don't want a rule about anything that doesn't need to be one. If something can be resolved on a case-by-case basis just by applying common sense, then we don't need a rule about it, and need to not have a rule about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- To respond to the initial question, yes, the way you have written it is a bad idea. The sentence as you wrote it is not proper encyclopedia style. The goal in encyclopedia writing is to express ideas in the simplest, most direct manner so as to aid in the reader's understanding.
- Your sentence "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places each in the men's and women's event, respectively, with the former finishing fourth and the latter second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China" is very badly written.
- It should be written "Rio 2016 Olympians Shōhei Iwamoto and Natsumi Tomonaga confirmed places in the men's and women's events. Iwamoto finished fourth and Tomonaga finished second among those eligible for Olympic qualification at the 2019 Asia & Oceania Championships in Kunming, China." God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Olympics etc: "400 metres" or "400-metres"
Some recent edits have been putting in "400-metres" for Olympic events, e.g. Ariarne Titmus. While it agrees with WP:HYPHEN, in my opinion it should be trumped by the fact that the Olympics and other sporting events rarely if ever include the hyphen. Thoughts? Adpete (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- We don't strictly follow sources' style guides. It also helps clear ambiguity: are we talking about a freestyle that is 400 metres long, or 400 freestyles that are a metre long? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Surely WP:COMMONNAME applies, though? And while WP:COMMONNAME generally only applies to titles, we are left with the situation that the text doesn't match the title, e.g. Swimming at the 2019 World Aquatics Championships – Women's 400 metre freestyle, which in my opinion is poor style. Adpete (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think COMMONNAME applies really - not only is it just about article titles, but it's also about choosing the name that we're going to call something by, not about how to punctuate it (so it requires that we call our article 'Triple jump' rather than Hop, skip and jump). From my reading of MOS:HYPHEN, these changes are correct, and titles without the hyphen probably ought to be changed. (Or, if people don't like hyphens, per MOS:HANGING it's OK not to hyphenate if the units are abbreviated, so 400 m freestyle would be.) Girth Summit (blether) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME does not apply. That only applies to article titles (which is why it's in the article titles policy and not the MoS), and it does not apply to style questions anyway. COMMONNAME is the policy that tells us to use a particular article title (in one spelling or another, which might be determined by MOS:ENGVAR or some other MoS criterion), e.g. David Johansen, rather that some totally different name, e.g. Buster Poindexter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The linked page uses the hyphen correctly, but "400-metres" in some other location is simply incorrect and is likely a result of hypercorrectness. The plural can't be correctly attributive. That is, "400-meters event" is clearly wrong. Case 3 of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens is the related case of correct use of a hyphen, and it specifically details in its third bullet why "400-meter event" is good and "event of 400-metres" would not be. Don't feel bad about this. Few professional journalists can get hyphens right in the analogous cases when they're reporting someone's age. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Is man-made undesirable gendered wording?
I moved "List of man-made disasters in South_Korea" to "List of human-caused disasters in South_Korea". I note the Gender-neutral language section overleaf.
Now there's friction at the talkpage. Anyone care to give an opinion (here or at that talkpage)? Tony (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with man-made. It is still the most common usage in English, and believe it or not, it IS gender neutral. Masterhatch (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would generally agree "man-made" still is one of those terms that is recognizes as not pushing a gender, and the switch to "human-made" is awkward. In this specific case, it may be possible to suggest "List of anthropogenic disasters..." if there really is issue with that. --Masem (t) 13:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also would prefer "anthropogenic". Putting aside the gendered aspect, it seems awkward to describe ferry accidents as "man-made" or "human-made" disasters. Humans were involved, but the only thing they made was a serious error. pburka (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Per [2] man made: "manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings", not sure how that excludes women. "Man-made" is short for mankind, i.e. humans as a whole for just "men". Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- In some cases artificial works as a synonym (as at swimming pool). I don't think that particularly works in that title there. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- True, but sometimes that carries the wrong implications. I think "man-made" is still ok, per others above. It's much clearer than the alternatives in most cases - how many people understand "anthropogenic"? I think "human-caused disasters" is the best for that page though, though User:Tony1 was completely (and typically, I'm afraid) wrong to move it without discussion. He can't have thought that would be uncontroversial. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- And Johnbod is being (typically, I'm afraid) insulting. Tony (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't dodge the issue - if you stop doing this stuff, I won't need to keep pointing it out. It wasn't relevant to mention how rude you often are yourself (see ANI archives) - perhaps now it is. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- And Johnbod is being (typically, I'm afraid) insulting. Tony (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- yeah, he's been around long enough to know about the MOS retaining existing styles. Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Right, as regard "anthropogenic". Nobody knows what that means. Step outside your shoes here, people. (On the proximate matter, "human caused" is preferable IMO, but only because "man-made" seems a bit off in this particular context). Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Erm, we have a strong predilection to the gender-neutral. MOS:RET doesn't apply in such cases. Izno (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's WP:RM that applies, and that makes no concessions to supposed PC. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- RM is neither policy nor guideline; WP:BOLD is. (Mind you, I don't care about this particular article - simply commenting that the RM process is not mandatory.) Wikipedia:Article_titles#Considering_changes is policy I suppose, so take that fwiw. Izno (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- As an interesting point on "anthropogenic", I was looking at what other articles started with "list of man-made..." and found that the redirect List of man-made disasters points to Anthropogenic hazard. So we sorta already support that. (The other two cases, List of man-made objects on the Moon goes to List of artificial objects on the Moon (which makes sense from above) and List of man-made mass poisoning incidents which is just there). --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's WP:RM that applies, and that makes no concessions to supposed PC. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Anthropogenic hazard is a man-made disaster of a title! Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- True, but sometimes that carries the wrong implications. I think "man-made" is still ok, per others above. It's much clearer than the alternatives in most cases - how many people understand "anthropogenic"? I think "human-caused disasters" is the best for that page though, though User:Tony1 was completely (and typically, I'm afraid) wrong to move it without discussion. He can't have thought that would be uncontroversial. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Can we use “man-made” if all the items listed were made by human males? Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- "man-made" has not just been applied to disasters. Once upon a time, it was applied to ice. Man-made ice was different from the one transported from the arctic and stored in ice houses. Now because pretty much all ice consumed by humans is human-made we just call it ice; "artificial ice," is now reserved for the one underfoot in rinks. In the early days of rayon or nylon, it was called man-made fiber; now it is just artificial or synthetic fiber; man-made grass or turf is artificial turf; man-made lakes are artificial lakes; man-made flavors are imitation flavors; man-made leather or fur is faux; man-made flowers are fake or artificial; man-made gems are imitation gems. So man-made has been continued to be replaced by gender-neutral terms for nearly 100 years now. And it doesn't just apply to Homo sapiens. The national bird of India used to be the peacock. But on WP it is now peafowl based on the principle that a national bird can't be born of a mother who is not. The European Parliament says in its pamphlet on gender-neutral language, "the use in many languages of the word 'man' in a wide range of idiomatic expressions which refer to both men and women, such as manpower, layman, man-made, statesmen, committee of wise men, should be discouraged. With increased awareness, such expressions can usually be made gender-neutral." I think the page move was needed because gender-neutral terms are inevitable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Anthropogenic" sounds good to me. Tony (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Anthropogenic" is too sesquipedalian to be used in an article title. WP:COMMONNAME y'know. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Anthropogenic" sounds good to me. Tony (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- "man-made" has not just been applied to disasters. Once upon a time, it was applied to ice. Man-made ice was different from the one transported from the arctic and stored in ice houses. Now because pretty much all ice consumed by humans is human-made we just call it ice; "artificial ice," is now reserved for the one underfoot in rinks. In the early days of rayon or nylon, it was called man-made fiber; now it is just artificial or synthetic fiber; man-made grass or turf is artificial turf; man-made lakes are artificial lakes; man-made flavors are imitation flavors; man-made leather or fur is faux; man-made flowers are fake or artificial; man-made gems are imitation gems. So man-made has been continued to be replaced by gender-neutral terms for nearly 100 years now. And it doesn't just apply to Homo sapiens. The national bird of India used to be the peacock. But on WP it is now peafowl based on the principle that a national bird can't be born of a mother who is not. The European Parliament says in its pamphlet on gender-neutral language, "the use in many languages of the word 'man' in a wide range of idiomatic expressions which refer to both men and women, such as manpower, layman, man-made, statesmen, committee of wise men, should be discouraged. With increased awareness, such expressions can usually be made gender-neutral." I think the page move was needed because gender-neutral terms are inevitable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we should avoid 'man-made' per existing language in MOS:GNL. I can't immediately generate an example of a usage of 'man-made' that wouldn't clearly or precisely be covered by 'human-made', 'human-caused', or a similar construction. If there continue to be 'man-made'-specific style disputes, I would support an explicit mention in GNL. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fiber, grass, and lakes listed in my post above have been purposefully made by humans. Disasters have typically not. So, "anthropogenic" (OED: originating in or caused by human activity) is certainly more accurate independent of the gender bias issue. "Anthropogenic" is applied to climate change (OED example: 2008 S. Vanderheiden Atmospheric Justice i. 38 By the time George W. Bush took office in early 2001, the existence of anthropogenic climate change was acknowledged by broad scientific consensus.), or to deforestation (OED example: 1963 E. Pyddoke Scientist & Archaeol. iii. 67 West has suggested that at Hoxne a phase of deforestation might be anthropogenic.) But in terms of human purposefulness, a disaster is somewhere in between fiber and climate change. That is why this morning, I'm leaning more toward "human provoked disasters," (which has some currency in the literature). They were provoked by human activity or agency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS So in terms of preference, I'd say: 1. "human provoked disasters" 2. "anthropogenic disasters" 3 "human-caused disasters." All are better than man-made. I don't buy that "anthropogenic" is unfamiliar. It might be a little, but probably not much more than "pandemic" was in 2019 (as opposed to epidemic). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- All three of these (as well as "man-made disasters") seem to be used in reliable academic sources, so they satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. All three also satisfy MOS:GNL so I'd be fine with any of them. pburka (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS So in terms of preference, I'd say: 1. "human provoked disasters" 2. "anthropogenic disasters" 3 "human-caused disasters." All are better than man-made. I don't buy that "anthropogenic" is unfamiliar. It might be a little, but probably not much more than "pandemic" was in 2019 (as opposed to epidemic). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- I probably should have clarified: my position above is focused on interpretation of our MOS, and the possibility that new language needs to be added to it for clarity. If I start to have an informed opinion on the list that's generated this discussion, I'll share it at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fiber, grass, and lakes listed in my post above have been purposefully made by humans. Disasters have typically not. So, "anthropogenic" (OED: originating in or caused by human activity) is certainly more accurate independent of the gender bias issue. "Anthropogenic" is applied to climate change (OED example: 2008 S. Vanderheiden Atmospheric Justice i. 38 By the time George W. Bush took office in early 2001, the existence of anthropogenic climate change was acknowledged by broad scientific consensus.), or to deforestation (OED example: 1963 E. Pyddoke Scientist & Archaeol. iii. 67 West has suggested that at Hoxne a phase of deforestation might be anthropogenic.) But in terms of human purposefulness, a disaster is somewhere in between fiber and climate change. That is why this morning, I'm leaning more toward "human provoked disasters," (which has some currency in the literature). They were provoked by human activity or agency. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is generally no problem with "man-made" in terms of gender neutrality, unless discussing specific objects made by an individual person. However, as noted above, there are in many cases different terms that are better for other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Under my interpretation of MOS:GNL, I would support using 'human-made' instead of 'man-made,' although I must admit it does sound a bit awkward, likely because it is not used in mainstream lexicon. However, using 'human' avoids either he/she, as set forth by MOS:GNL. Perhaps for each individual circumstance, we can consider alternative wording altogether, such as "artificial," which a user above has suggested. I also agree that 'anthropogenic' is an appropriate term in this case, which removes the need to use 'man-made' or 'human-made' at all, if causing contention. Alternatively, maybe in some cases, labelling something more specifically, like 'industrial disaster' avoids the issue, too. All in all, though, while there are alternatives, I see no reason to stick to the term 'man,' especially when MOS:GNL advises as such. Broadly, I see no harm done in using more gender-inclusive terminology in the English language more generally. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support either man-made (pithy, very common, and an alliteration that humans tend to like) , or human-made (more gender neutral, and still straightforward). Anthropogenic has its semantic merits, but as mentioned above is sesquipedalian and not commonly used in this context ("anthropogenic climate change" yes, "anthropogenic disasters" no).
- A key question is whether wikipedia wants to follow the literature per our basic pillars, or be at the forefront of leading the change in the use of language according to new mores. Al83tito (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd support either man-made or anthropogenic. I feel I have to dip in here - I may be a trans guy, but trans I still am, and though the sentiment is admirable, this feels like a strange move to make.
- 'Man', in this instance, seems to refer pretty obviously to humans in general, in the same sense of the phrase "when man first landed on the moon"; though gender neutral language is something I pick up on, I don't think I'd be alone in saying this isn't relevant to gender neutrality, because the usage of the word is not in a gendered context. I feel it's far less gendered than a phrase like "you guys", to the point where I wouldn't classify 'man-made' as gendered at all. People refer to humankind as 'man' on the whole. Though it is in somewhat of an edging-on older, more grandiose sense, it's not an egregious turn of phrase.
- However, I *would* imagine that 'anthropogenic' is a more *specific* turn of phrase than 'man-made'. I don't think it's too sesquipedalian for usage here at all. 'Anthropogenic' is close enough to 'anthropology' and 'anthropological' to be pretty clear at the very least what it probably means; something to do with humans, and human-caused disasters.
- At any rate, 'human-made', though it doesn't have the word 'man' in it, doesn't feel like an improvement towards gender neutrality, it just feels like a sideways change. I'd much rather see people focus on replacing 'he or she' with 'they'...-- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
-
- Ah, shit. 'Human' does have the word 'man' in it. There's a reason I didn't go to University for English Language Studies... -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it does not have the word man in it. Consult any dictionary that has etymological information. Human entirely coincidentally has the character string m-a-n in it, but the word man and the word human have unrelated origins. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, shit. 'Human' does have the word 'man' in it. There's a reason I didn't go to University for English Language Studies... -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- While I agree with observations that man has multiple uses in English, it probably cannot be escaped that some people will object to use of man to mean humans, including in man-[something] constructions, whether their objection is well-grounded or not. Ergo, it is better to use substitute terms like artificial, anthropogenic, human-[something], industrial, etc., and which to use will vary by context. There will be times that this may run into WP:COMMONNAME problems, but keep in mind WP:NTITLE and that COMMONNAME is just a restatement of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, which is only one of the five naming WP:CRITERIA. We can generally write around problems like this with some thought and judgment. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't think there's a one-sizes-fits-all substitute but each use-case will have something more in keeping with MOS:GNL that would fit. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Avoiding "man-[something]" or "man" when human or something else will do, in such a context when there are several alternatives is in keeping with GNL and it avoids the flowery over the specific, except in quotes, (in fact, individual men walked on the moon), or the ambiguous or archaic ('which man?' or 'which men?', or 'do you mean human?'). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep using "man-made". Let's not adopt Justin Trudeau views, claiming we Canadians use "people-kind", rather then "man-kind". GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Disagree Man-made is perfectly fine to express something wouldn’t’ve occurred without human intervention. Actually, if you wanted to say something was caused exclusively by male humans, you would need to write men‑made. (PS: Shouldn’t it have read “huwoman-caused”? 
)‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
RfC: LGBT
How should the use of the acronym that refers to the LGBT community be standardized (not including names of organizations)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen the usage lean mostly towards LGBT, but LGBTQ+ pops up in some article language, and LGBTQ appears in both article titles and text. Even the article LGBT isn't consistent in prose.
Options:
- A: Standardize the usage of the word/initialism
- A1: LGBT
- A2: LGBTQ
- A3: LGBTQ+
- A4: Queer
- B: Do not standardize, leave under MOS:VAR theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Survey
- B. I think an individual article should be internally consistent but sources used article to article may give a preference to one variation over another. Personally would prefer us to have one set standard but ultimately I think we're beholden to how our sources use it. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- We may not even be able to be consistent within the same article in some cases, since, for example, the scope of various events, laws, etc. have changed over time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- LGBT The reason why we need standardization is because various sources in many languages have many names for this concept, and for clarity we as Wikipedia editors can take an editorial position to use one term uniformly even if cited sources use another term.
- At meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ we had this discussion many times and the consensus came to "LGBT+". "LGBT" is the most common name and also historically accepted by the organized stakeholder communities. In acknowledgement that other demographics want separate recognition we added the plus.
- Problems with "Q" for queer include that 1) this was a slur term until recently 2) its definition varies broadly 3) it is a Western culture concept and increasing Western representation seems counterproductive to shifting the conversation globally. There is almost no non-Western development of the LGBT discourse but to the extent that it happens, I have not seen evidence that queer is anyone's preferred term for talking about how LGBT culture developed outside the Western world. As long as the term is LGBT or LGBT+ we retain more non-Western inclusivity. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are options not listed. The most inclusive variant (found in many sources) is: LBGTQIA+. This should at least be an option. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- B. Seems a bit too tricky to standardize, and I don't think there is likely to be a widely accepted standard anywhere anytime soon. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- B: The existence of these synonyms isn't a problem and doesn't require fixing; we can just follow the sources. As between LGBT and LGBTQ, the former is still the most popular, but the latter is rapidly gaining on it, so the use of both on Wikipedia is inevitable for some time to come. Queer is often used with slightly different shades of meaning from the initialisms, and where sources use it, our summaries of them should reflect that.--Trystan (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I’ll admit, I have changed LGBT[etc] to LGBT at least twice that I can remember, and I have backed this up with the following: LGBT was the term used in the source(s); LGBT is the common name used at LGBT; and the word LGBT is not an exclusive one (usually noted in regard to the LGBT community). If either of the first two reasons were not there, I probably would not have made the change. In saying that, my non-vote goes to B, but I’ve always liked Q as the letter-equivalent of a plus, as in, “we are LGBT in a literal sense, but if you’re otherwise a bit ‘queer’ you’re also welcome.” But that’s just, like, my opinion. — HTGS (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- B. Which to use varies by context. Using something like "LGBTQIA+" or even "LGBTQ" will be an anachronism is some contexts, even as recently as events from the 1990s to 2000s. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree (option B): The first thing I ever saw in this discourse was LBT. Later they added another letter LGBT. Some time later I stumbled upon LGBTQ, and now I think we’re at LGBTQIA+? Seriously, an encyclopedia is meant to document established knowledge. Evidently, there is no one generally accepted term. It is politics and I suppose there’ll always be a squabble as regards how to name things. We (as an encyclopedia) should stay away from any politicking (that doesn’t affect our own operations), thus do not standardize. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 08:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- As recently as the early 2000s, "GLT" and "LGT" were common; I had friends that printed up "This is offensive to bisexuals" stickers to slap on GLT/LGT and "Gay and Lesbian" signage at events like Folsom Street Fair (and to this day there's still a lot of sotto voce discrimination against the B among L and G people). GLB and GLBT have also been common; putting the L first came about later and is mostly a 2010s thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not to mention the sotto voce discrimination against the T among the other three (not all, but definitely present) and the whole "Drop the T" movement. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- As recently as the early 2000s, "GLT" and "LGT" were common; I had friends that printed up "This is offensive to bisexuals" stickers to slap on GLT/LGT and "Gay and Lesbian" signage at events like Folsom Street Fair (and to this day there's still a lot of sotto voce discrimination against the B among L and G people). GLB and GLBT have also been common; putting the L first came about later and is mostly a 2010s thing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- B (no cross-wiki standardization), though within an article a term should be standardized. I expect this would depend on the topic and other factors - eg if talking about gay rights in the pre-2000s, I would not expect "LGBTQ+" to be used. --Masem (t) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- A2 - is the most common usage, that I've seen. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- A1 – from search results, it looks to me that "LGBT" is more popular than "LGBTQ", "LGBT+", etc – considering both general searches, and also those focusing on reliable sources (e.g Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR). I think we ought to try to be consistent across articles, and we ought to prefer the term which is most popular (especially with reliable sources) over those with less popularity. Mr248 (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have no particular opinion on this, but the problem with search results (especially from Scholar and Books) is that you're looking at the average of past usage. With nGrams, you can see that LGBTQ is now roughly equally as common as LGBT. Is this significant? Hard to say.... --Macrakis (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- B - Do not standardize, leave under MOS:VAR. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- B, although we should try to stick to acronym/terminology choices people or certain groups prefer. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- B, depending on context (based on context in sources). Even from discussion above I can see people of the comunity(ies) in question have no standardized view on (sub)comunities and places, and even less through time, so it seems differences in acronyms reflect differences in meaning. If, and when, it is so, standardization would unnecessary distort meaning. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- B MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do not standardize. The different forms have subtly different meanings and Wikipedia should not presume to know which form sources are referring to. We should stick to the form that sources use in the context they use them in, as they are not synonymous. MarshallKe (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
RfC on alphabetization of extended-latin characters (eg "ä" etc)
Should the MoS give guidance on how to alphabetize foreign-language terms that include letters not in the basic Latin alphabet, such as "Ë" and "Å" and so forth?
1) No.
2) Yes, and:
- 2A) Yes, and we should use each language's system (for instance, some languages treat "Ö" as a distinct letter that comes after "Z"). This is described at the article Alphabetical order.
- 2B Yes, and we should use the French system always (that is, "Ô" and "Ö" etc are treated exactly like "O" and so on).
- 2C) Yes, and we should use Unicode order, as described at Wikipedia:Alphabetical order.
3) Other [describe]. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Survey
- 1 - IMHO, we should do away with diacritics on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are well aware by now that there is overwhelming consensus against your position. Continued tendentiousness and activism against diacritics on Wikipedia is good grounds for a topic-ban from the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have not & continue to not remove them from articles, where they're considered to belong. I also add them to articles where they're considered to belong. I haven't for years gotten into edit-wars over the topic. Now please, let's not have this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then stop WP:FORUM-abusing WP as an anti-diacritics activism platform. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, if I've upset you. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then stop WP:FORUM-abusing WP as an anti-diacritics activism platform. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have not & continue to not remove them from articles, where they're considered to belong. I also add them to articles where they're considered to belong. I haven't for years gotten into edit-wars over the topic. Now please, let's not have this conversation. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are well aware by now that there is overwhelming consensus against your position. Continued tendentiousness and activism against diacritics on Wikipedia is good grounds for a topic-ban from the subject. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B makes the most intuitive sense to me but if someone more familiar with the Unicode order makes a case for it, it may sway me. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1 It is not the function of our MoS to avoid every conceivable disagreement that ever may arise with preemptive measures that themselves amount to nothing more than instruction creep. Regarding new instructions in the MoS, it says: "New content added to [the MoS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." I am not aware that this is such a recurring style issue and the RfC does not indicate that it is. For now, it seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem--John Cline (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B, since there is already a clear consensus for it for 15+ years; it is how we alphabetize with sorting in WP:Categories. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1, with 2B as a fallback. Although 2B is commonly used here, it is not the only choice, and in some contexts other systems make sense; in particular, we frequently sort some surnames with lowercase parts (such as Dutch ones beginning with "van") by the first capitalized part. When we sort categories by the titles of articles within them, we omit articles from the start of the title, etc. For that matter, even for unaccented Anglo-American names we generally sort by surname first, even though 2B if interpreted literally would cause us to sort by given name first. I think the conventions we have adopted by consensus are working, and that trying to encode them by MoS text is likely to break things, so I prefer 1 over 2B. All that said, 2A and 2C are nonstarters. 2A is not a sorting system, it's a recipe for conflict, because what do you do when you are sorting items from multiple languages with incompatible conventions? And 2C's idea of sorting Unicodes numerically is never the right thing to do, in work aimed at human consumption. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, since this is not explicit in this proposal: I am going to assume that this ONLY covers the collation ordering of accented Roman letters, but would not guide how to choose which words to collate (e.g. the cases of lowercase particles and articles mentioned above, as well as e.g. the apostrophe in O'brien) or how to order other letters. This assumption would allay most of the concerns with 2B in my comment above. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, right, that's my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B or not 2B (1). We pretty much do 2B in DEFAUTSORT as far as I've seen, without explicit guidance. Has this come up as an issue some place? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, would the "ä" in Länsiviitta be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). FWIW List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. Herostratus (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1 with 2B as fall back. I totally agree with David Eppstein (I also agree with GoodDay in that diacritics should only be used in English where they're actually used in English, eg Métis. But that's not up for debate today, 'nuff said). Masterhatch (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B, with 1 as the fallback. 2C is right out, and 2A isn't best IMO.
- I don't see why can't provide a guideline so that editors aren't lost at sea and scratching their heads if confronted with this question. Agreed that we don't want to micromanage, and it doesn't matter if ifs different in different articles, but really we're only talking about a sentence two or that comes down to "Well, since you have to use some rubric, use French system we suppose".
- It could just be stuck in some MoS page, but I can't figure out a good one, so I'm thinking that (if some variant of option 2 gains consensus), maybe a short new page in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting) titled "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Alphabetizing". That'd also provide room for pointing out how "O'Brian" etc are handled, and maybe discuss special cases (I mean if you did have a list in Greek -- can't think why, but if you did -- how would you alphabetize that? Etc.) Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B Yes, this is the English Wikipedia but English includes many words
stolenborrowed from other tongues where they do things different. Élite, for example. Not to mention surviving names from Old Ænglish. English as she is written doesn't fit neatly into any system of spelling, grammar, pronunciation or alphabetisication. If we have a solution that works and editors are comfortable with, then why change? Having a different order for specific uses - List of Finnish beers perhaps - where a different order might be expected by those deep in the subject, should be catered for. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't that last sentence indicate a kind of 2A approach? I don't know about beer, but List of Finnish municipalities does exist and it does use the Finnish method. Should it? Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Our aim should be to present information in a useful fashion. For a specialised topic it makes more sense to my mind to allow for a local consensus if that's how those who know the subject best desire. Otherwise have the best possible default for most topics. We can't get away from words or names in regular English that have accents or obsolete letters so we need to have a rule for them, and when we extend this into lists of words in other languages there must be some boundary between what works for English and what works for potentially hundreds of other languages. I think it is more useful to have one default rule and use that until we hit the point where it begins to break down and be counterproductive and that point is going to be different for each situation and best determined by those at the coalface. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't that last sentence indicate a kind of 2A approach? I don't know about beer, but List of Finnish municipalities does exist and it does use the Finnish method. Should it? Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1 unless there is evidence that the question needs to be resolved centrally. As a side note, I think 2B probably is the practice I would adopt, but I'm curious what someone would do if two items differed only by the "diacritic" (for lack of a better word; I think umlauts aren't actually diacritcs). It's just a curiosity; I certainly don't propose that it be decided in the MOS. --Trovatore (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 3. I feel we could adopt the same approach as MOS:RETAIN, and leave a hatnote or a sentence at the top stating that this list follows "x" order, where letters with diacritics are treated as if they didn't have any or distinctly for English readers who aren't aware of the different kinds of alphabetisation. I'm still not convinced this needs to be codified in the MOS, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1, because it depends. While I do think that the French system is probably most often the right choice, other systems can make sense, and whether they do is better decided on a per-article basis when it comes up. – Rummskartoffel 17:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B -- principle of least surprise for the English-speaking reader, who is our primary user. Even in an article on Finnish municipalities, most of our readers will not realize that there are letters that come after Z. (By the way, the French order doesn't actually ignore diacritics -- IBM French collation order, it just treats them as less significant than the base letters --but there are very very few cases where this matters.) --Macrakis (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1 unless there is some reason to give guidance. If we give advice it should be 2B in most cases, because this is simpler for editors and aligns with what native English-speaking readers are likely to expect. I have no objection in principle to using the foreign language's convention where it is appropriate. But if we are using a foreign language alphabetical order we should use the foreign language alphabetical order in full. Which means that if we're using Lithuanian alphabetical order, Y comes between Į and J. If we're using Czech or Slovak alphabetical order, CH comes between H and I. And this can get hard. Is this instance of -nny- in Hungarian an underlying N-NY or NY-NY? Is this -rh- in Welsh an underlying R-H or RH? Better to avoid the whole issue in general. Kahastok talk 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: sorting by each language's system (2A), while superficially appealing and workable for language-specific lists, would cause issues in lists that contain items from different languages. For example, for a list of prominent members (people, cities, whatever) of an international organization to sort a Finnish person whose name starts with ä after z, but sort a German whose name starts with the same letter alongside a, is likely to confuse readers, frustrate searchers and not be maintained by other, uninitiated editors. (I see one other user has already pointed this out.) -sche (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B. Collating order is a endless rabbit hole of complexity, but this is the English language encyclopedia, so we should do what is most natural and useful for English. I would expect that other language projects would make decisions which make sense for that language. The key point is not, "What makes the most sense in the original source language?", but "What makes the most sense to the English-reading user?" As example of just how perverse this can get, how would you sort Ke$ha? Or NIИ? This isn't a made-up example; at a music web site I used to work for, we really did grapple with this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2A, or failing that 1.
- First, I reject arguments based on how the software operates - 2B might be what defaultsort does, and 2C would be relatively simple to implement, but readers do not care and hence we should not base policy off of it.
- "What makes most sense to an English reader" is a reasonable argument, but it is very subjective near the edge cases. I will post more in the extended discussion. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bad RfC.
- There's no mention of old prior discussions (e.g. this, there's no mention of what attention was paid to WP:RFCBEFORE, and the "choices" are defined very poorly:
- saying there's a "French system" that treats Ô "exactly" like O ignores the cote < côte < coté < côté controversy and just arm-waves at other letters by saying "and so on"; saying "Unicode order" means nothing until you say what kind of Unicode order (the cited page's example seems to be Unicode code point order); and the word "alphabetization" means all the points about non-alphabetic characters aren't covered. This "guidance" will only cause confusion.
- Speaking of that, I'm a confused guy myself but this is how I think Wikipedia does things now.
- IN ARTICLES: Judging by the definition that I think applies, page lookup is via a binary collation (which is like Unicode code point because the storage is UTF-8) after some simple transformations. However, if on my desktop's "Search Wikipedia" box I enter Fuhrer, I get Führer due to a redirect, I assume it is due to the category Redirects from titles without diacritics -- but that doesn't explain why, when I enter Lansiviitta, I get Länsiviitta.
- IN CATEGORY LISTS: the switch to UCA default took place in 2016 according to talk page. Some fiddling is possible with DEFAULTSORT. But I think it only works with categories inside article pages.
- IN LISTS: As noted earlier, it is possible to specify that a list is sortable and users can change the order to Finnish by clicking, if JavaScript is enabled and if their locale is Finnish.
- IN WT:MOS ALREADY: This Collation in alphabetical order subsection for Arabic seems to be the only place in the current MoS where something specific appears.
- IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: The idea of what to do has been studied and national-language committees have argued and a standard was made decades ago: Unicode Collation Algorithm DUCET, aka UCA default. I would have said "3. UCA" but it's too late because too many !votes have already been made, my only hope is that the closer will reject and say: start over. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- All three of the options presented have simple one-line explanations. "Collate as in the native language", "collate as in English and ignore diacritics" and "collate in Unicode code point order". Are we able to give a similarly brief explanation as to what UCA or DUCET actually means in practice?
- If not, I'd say it's unworkable from a practical perspective, because that we cannot reasonably assume that our editors are programmers or technical experts. Kahastok talk 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Phrases you're putting inside quotes aren't the three options presented. And we can discuss UCA more if there's a new RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- They may not be the words used in the proposal, but they are what the proposal means. --Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Phrases you're putting inside quotes aren't the three options presented. And we can discuss UCA more if there's a new RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B Some guidance seems suseful. In a list with names form various language groups 2A cannot work. Unicode 3C gives a rather random and unintuitive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 09:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 2B - per the argument given by the unknown poster just before my comment. --Khajidha (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) PS: I assume that in cases where two terms differ only in presence or absence of a diacritic, that the "bare" form would come first. Not sure what to do about the hypothetical case of two words differing only by which diacritics they have, though. But that is probably too hypothetical to worry about. --Khajidha (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was Woodstone, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1 as existing guidance is sufficient. Per MOS:LISTORG: {{fontcolor|darkgreen|When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit." Local consensus can be trusted to pick a sensible sorting system, and if it is more complex than alphabetical, current guidance suggests making that explicitly clear. Diacritics are complicated enough to justify an explicit note. If others feel this is unclear, I'd not oppose a small note at LISTORG including complex diacritical sorting as an example. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1: WP:CREEP; I fail to see why a central solution to this problem is required, and as such to generate additional rules will only further our WP:CREEP issue. BilledMammal (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion
We're basically talking about things like lists within articles. I believe that the Wiki software handles alphabetizing list of article names (as for instance on Category pages) etc., and I think that the software uses the French system ("O" and "Ô" considered identical, etc).
Note that Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is not marked as any kind of rule. I guess it's sort of like an essay. Sticking with the Unicode system described there (option 2C) give a clear rigid rule where you don't have to figure anything out, but it would mean French (and maybe other languagues, don't know) would use a system foreign to it (alphabetical order would be be "role - rule - rôle" which you would not see in normal French writing).
Thinking that "no" could be a valid answer on grounds that it's maybe WP:MOSBLOAT, we've gone this far without it, it's rare and even then usually makes little difference, so just let the editor doing the writing deciding is OK, we don't need to micromanage everything.
"Yes, but (or 'No, but...') with these particular exceptions:..." would be a reasonable response also I think.
Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and we're not bound to follow the rules of any other language. We can if we think it best. As always, the key question is how to best serve the reader, and as always we have to make an educated guess. If the reader comes across a long list where "Arhus" is the first entry, and way down below "Årnheim" is the last, would this be the optimal alphabetization for a typical reader? Might be. Skeptical, personally. Also note that most of our readers have not been to college, as many of you editors have. Most readers will read "wäßrig" as "wabrig" and so forth for instance, I think, and similarly most readers will read "ö" and "ó" and "õ" etc as just "o". I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
We wouldn't have these headaches or potential headaches, if we would use only the english language. This isn't suppose to be the mult-language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- We still have English-language entries for characters not commonly used in modern English, though; an entry for Æthelred the Unready or Újpest FC or Óglaigh na hÉireann is still going to be written in English. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately so. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is "unfortunate"? It's a testament to the breadth of our coverage and and increasingly global scope that we handle these subjects and more. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Best we not get into a debate about this & respect each others' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, if you hadn't proposed "English only" we wouldn't be debating it. I agree that the language of en.wp is English, but English has a rich history of loan words, and transcriptions of foreign names, and use of Latin-based letters with variations as needed for French, German, Icelandic, etc. names. Ruling those out would be harsh and pointless. In terms of ordering, Im pretty sure English readers have no knowledge of Unicode order; the "French" system of ignoring diacritics and using the nearest ordinary Latin letter equivalent is pretty familiar though. I'm not sure what that means for things like thorn (letter), but I'm pretty sure Unicode is not the answer. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Wikipedia:Alphabetical order (the Unicode page) just be deleted? It's not marked as a guideline. It says it applies to article titles... many lists of things in articles use the article titles when there is one (sometimes redirects are used). Are people following Unicode order for these? Not that I've heard of (it would only rarely be an issue). The page also indicates the listings of article on category pages uses Unicode, which would only be true if the Wiki software does. Does it? If not, that page is probably just confusing the issue and should go, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:CATSORT. Supposedly, according to that page, the software sorts categories roughly like 2B, with accented letters grouped together with their unaccented versions. In practice, the keys used in DEFAULTSORT generally strip the accents from the letters to enforce this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- So then Wikipedia:Alphabetical order is just confusing and should be marked historical or something right? Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- The description in WP:CATSORT aka WP:SORTKEY is poor and misleading; however, the footnote is clear: categories should be UCA default. Some kinds of lists, though, depend on client-side JavaScript according to Help:Sorting. It says about strings: "order: uses locale specific (so in this case English) ordering if your browser supports it." which makes me wonder: maybe such tables would automatically have a different order if my locale was Finnish? In which case, it's not a MoS matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:CATSORT. Supposedly, according to that page, the software sorts categories roughly like 2B, with accented letters grouped together with their unaccented versions. In practice, the keys used in DEFAULTSORT generally strip the accents from the letters to enforce this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Wikipedia:Alphabetical order (the Unicode page) just be deleted? It's not marked as a guideline. It says it applies to article titles... many lists of things in articles use the article titles when there is one (sometimes redirects are used). Are people following Unicode order for these? Not that I've heard of (it would only rarely be an issue). The page also indicates the listings of article on category pages uses Unicode, which would only be true if the Wiki software does. Does it? If not, that page is probably just confusing the issue and should go, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully, if you hadn't proposed "English only" we wouldn't be debating it. I agree that the language of en.wp is English, but English has a rich history of loan words, and transcriptions of foreign names, and use of Latin-based letters with variations as needed for French, German, Icelandic, etc. names. Ruling those out would be harsh and pointless. In terms of ordering, Im pretty sure English readers have no knowledge of Unicode order; the "French" system of ignoring diacritics and using the nearest ordinary Latin letter equivalent is pretty familiar though. I'm not sure what that means for things like thorn (letter), but I'm pretty sure Unicode is not the answer. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Best we not get into a debate about this & respect each others' position. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is "unfortunate"? It's a testament to the breadth of our coverage and and increasingly global scope that we handle these subjects and more. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately so. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
As someone mentioned earlier, 2B appears to be the current standard operating procedure (which I dislike). IF this is so? Why was this RFC opened? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- There was a discussion here: Wikipedia:Help desk#Alphabetisation of Länsiviitta, an editor was seeking guidance on how to alphabetize List of shopping malls in Finland, wondering if the "ä" in Länsiviitta should be treated as an "a" or as coming after z (as would be done in Finnish). 2A is found sometimes, List of Finnish municipalities for instance uses Finnish alphabet order. It doesn't bother me if different editors use different rubrics, but the question is if we should write something down. My opinion on these things is that we should, even if just to say "when alphabetizing lists with extended-Latin letters, do as you think best, but follow the scheme used in the article if there already is one".
- FWIW, your post is unsigned. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Some test cases
If Finnish and French were the only languages, I would have no issue with option 2B: "ä" does look a lot like "a" for English readers so it makes sense to alphabetize both close together even for Finland-related articles. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the continuum between English (=ASCII letters) and Japanese leaves place to a lot of edge cases.
I urge supporters of option 2B to think about what they would do for the following cases (where 2A and 2C make the decision trivial):
- French "e" vs. "é"
- Finnish "a" vs. "ä" or Danish "ø" vs. "o"
- Greek: "φ/Φ" vs. "Ρ/ρ"
- Hangul: "ㄱ" vs. "ㄴ"
- Anything out of the Japanese writing system
I do not think anyone disputes that in case (1) the letters should be alphabetized closely ("é" is considered a modification of "e" in French and sorted just after it in dictionaries) and that in case (5) we should follow the local conventions (since they have nothing to do with what the average English reader knows, it is not even an alphabet). My question is where you draw the line in the other cases.
In case (2), the letters do look a lot like English, but they are alphabetized differently in the source language. In case (3), the letters look a bit like English; many readers that cannot speak Greek will nevertheless have some familiarity with the alphabet. "φ" will be romanized either as "f" or "ph" and "ρ" will be romanized as "r" or "rh", for instance Φaρoσ → Faros and Ροδοs → Rhodos, but the letter "φ" comes later than "ρ" in Greek even if f/p comes before "r" in English. Case (4) is basically case (3) but less familiar (I would guess that almost every native English speaker who knows the Korean alphabet has some knowledge of the language, and conversely I am not sure a majority of native English speakers knows that Korean uses an alphabet). "ㄱ" comes before "ㄴ" in Hangul but the romanizations are g/k and n.
TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that cases 3 through 5 are in any way affected by going with 2B; alphabetising the Latin alphabet is its own beast compared to the order of non-Latin scripts; Hangul or kana or Greek letters, etc, will have their own order, and in fact since they are generally unique to a language (perhaps Cyrillic script has different orders in different languages? I don't know), there should be no cases where, for example, Hangul is ordered differently across pages, surely? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. This has nothign to do with characters in writing systems other than Latin-based. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- When would this even happen? We mention non-Roman script spellings, but don't really use them. Under what circumstances would we be mixing scripts like this? We would be alphabetizing the romanizations, not the native script forms.--Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Citations: removing internal links for book publisher articles
Are the names of book publishers in citation templates no longer being linked to their Wikipedia pages? Was there an RfC about it? Why do I ask? Because of this edit performed with an AutoWikiBrowser. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly not a change I'm familiar with, nor one I've seen enacted across other articles either. Perhaps it was an error or an overzealous use of the AutoWikiBrowser tool out of context? Worth pinging @Colonies Chris: for feedback on it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Quoting from Template:Cite book/doc#Publisher:
- "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant."
- There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant. In this case, the links are to large generalist publishers, which have no special significance. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with that – it's not necessary to link publishers, and from what I see, the majority of editors don't link them. It can make for a sea of blue links in the citations also: authors, article or chapter title perhaps, book or website, then publisher (supposedly), on top of a book's ISBN. (And why not location too, if the approach is to link every linkable field?) JG66 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- "
There's no benefit to the reader in wikilinking the publisher of a cited book, unless there are special circumstances to make the publisher particularly relevant.
" Your personal opinion, of course. But your POV is not a policy and/or guideline. And as you pointed out with Template:Cite book/doc > Publisher: "Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited." Obviously, you don't think it's relevant ... but I do — and probably the other editors who added book citations to the biography and wiki-linked book publishers. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)- It feels like the sort of link I wouldn't press someone to include, but also wouldn't actively remove either—this feels like a MOS:VAR issue at heart. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The whole point of the clause "may be wiklinked if relevant" is that merely being the publisher isn't sufficient relevance in itself. The key question is whether such a link would be of value to a reader. And these - to large generalist publishers - are not. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- What are examples where it might be relevant? Non-independent publishers? pburka (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The whole point of the clause "may be wiklinked if relevant" is that merely being the publisher isn't sufficient relevance in itself. The key question is whether such a link would be of value to a reader. And these - to large generalist publishers - are not. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- It feels like the sort of link I wouldn't press someone to include, but also wouldn't actively remove either—this feels like a MOS:VAR issue at heart. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Quoting from Template:Cite book/doc#Publisher:
I have an answer for pburka but won't give it until this thread is moved to WP:Citing sources, where it belongs. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The claim that "there is no benefit" to such links is not consensus, merely individual opinion. As such, these edits violate WP:CITEVAR and should not be performed en masse, nor at all without local consensus at the affected article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's appropriate to discuss this here. MOS:LINKING applies. pburka (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Links to publishers seem neutral at worst. One more clickable thing in a part of articles already full of much more obscure and intimidating-looking clickable things (like the bizarre strings we call DOI's) won't make an article harder to read. And they can help the reader sort out issues like publishers' names changing, corporate acquisitions, etc. It can also be helpful sometimes when looking up a publisher to know which Wikipedia articles rely upon them. Is it necessary to include these links? No, I wouldn't insist upon it. Would I remove them when I find them? No. The editor who inserted them took the time to bother and implicitly finds them worthwhile. Don't like? Don't click. And yes, WP:CITEVAR applies. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The phrasing that's used in the MOS - Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant
- is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link. It's up to anyone who wants a publisher linked in a citation to justify how it's particularly relevant in any specific case. One can always make a case for any potential link that it might be useful to someone in some circumstances, but that's not enough in itself. The whole issue about overlinking arises because linking is often done on a 'because I can' basis rather than through careful thought about whether it would actually be useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- "
The phrasing that's used in the MOS -
" – Again, your interpretation; ergo, your POV. I see it differently. For me, the "may" in the guideline leaves the "yes or no" open to the interpretation of individuals. Is it relevant for me? Yes. Is it relevant for you? No. Your take and mine boil down to: "You say either and I say eyether, You say neither and I say nyther; Either, eyether, neither, nyther" .... Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant
- is an implicit statement that the default should be to not link.- No, this is not just a POV matter. The phrasing in the MOS gives you freedom to link if relevant, but thereby places the onus on the linker to make a case for that link being specially relevant, beyond its obvious relevance as the publisher. If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- But as "relevant" is not a clear-cut term, it is a POV matter as one editor's view of relevance will not always be the same as another's; linking "if relevant" does not mean "only in exceptional circumstances". As such it still seems that this is a MOS:VAR/WP:CITEVAR issue, which would mean not to add them to articles which have deliberately omitted them, but also don't remove them for the sake of removal. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 19:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- "
If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it.
" – I don't need to cherry-pick publishers and then debate which one gets the linking thumbs up. All that I am required to do when I edit Wikipedia is to follow its policies and guidelines. "If relevant" is open to the interpretation of individual editors. The use of "If" can be a conjunction or a noun -- either assumption or supposition. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)- Agree with Pyxis Solitary here. The phrase
...if relevant
makes this a matter of editorial judgement. Both addition of links and removal of preexisiting links should be done with such judgement, and not semi-automatically based on the assumption of a default state (here: unlinked) which doesn't exist. –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Pyxis Solitary here. The phrase
- Yes, if relevant is a matter of editorial judgment. But clearly different editors make different judgments. That's why we need to have a discussion in each case where opinions differ, but we don't need one where no-one objects to a change. Of course the default state is unlinked - that applies to all potential links in general - links shoukld only be made for good reason - and specifically here, otherwise there would be no need for a clause suggesting when it may be linked. And the question of whether unlinking is done manually or semi-automated is a complete red herring. Any changes made by an editor using AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility. These tools are productivity aids, not bots. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- "AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility" Yeah too many people have been on the recieving end of AWB automated editing for that to be accurate. AWB is routinely used to make mass-edits to large amounts of articles where the principle for the edit task is considered (eg, publishers should by default not be linked), but no individual article-context judgement (is this link someone previously added relevant to this article) is exercised when the edit is actually made. I would wager with AWB that the complete opposite of the intent of your statement is more often the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion has now descended into baseless accusations and a failure to WP:AGF. I'm out. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you take the descripion above of how AWB is routinely used as an 'accusation' specifically against you, that rather explains the problem other editors above seem to have in getting you to understand. When edits are made at 5 second intervals to groups of articles by AWB, the idea that the editor pushing the button is looking at the context of the change they are making each and every time is laughable. When this editing is about something clearcut such as changing a typesetters apostraphe to a typewriter's, the lack of individual consideration is not going to affect the outcome, as one is wrong and one is right. Where the editing involves something that has a nebulous judgement-value like 'relevance' for inclusion, claiming that the contextual relevance has been assessed in that 5 second interval before moving on to the next article is just not credible. Its not a matter of AGF any more than when someone says they did adequate WP:BEFORE checks when nominating a large amount of articles for deletion in a very short period of time. The principle is declared first, then the run of editing to bring articles in line with the principle is enacted. This is not a controversial description of routine usage of AWB. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion has now descended into baseless accusations and a failure to WP:AGF. I'm out. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- "AWB or similar are always a matter of personal judgment and responsibility" Yeah too many people have been on the recieving end of AWB automated editing for that to be accurate. AWB is routinely used to make mass-edits to large amounts of articles where the principle for the edit task is considered (eg, publishers should by default not be linked), but no individual article-context judgement (is this link someone previously added relevant to this article) is exercised when the edit is actually made. I would wager with AWB that the complete opposite of the intent of your statement is more often the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, this is not just a POV matter. The phrasing in the MOS gives you freedom to link if relevant, but thereby places the onus on the linker to make a case for that link being specially relevant, beyond its obvious relevance as the publisher. If you want to argue the case that any specific publisher link in that article deserves to be retained because it has special relevance, go ahead, we can all discuss it. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
MOS:TENSE for non-fiction television
The MOS doesn't give a clear statement on what tense to use for an old gameshow or documentary series. Would it be closer to "products or works that have been discontinued" (which should be written in the present tense) or "periodicals that are no longer being produced" (which should be past tense)? Checking for examples of usage across Wikipedia articles on prominent shows, I'm finding both tenses used. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that even for non-fiction work, it still is a programme, but its broadcast information would be past tense ("X is a 19xx documentary series that aired on Channel Q", that sort of thing). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- TV shows were discussed when we made the change for periodicals (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220 § WP:WAS and defunct magazines) at WP:WAS, but I don't know that the RFC discussed at that time ever went ahead. I think the underlying question is the same as for print materials. Are we describing a work that still exists and is consumed in a semi-regular way (i.e., not just archival access), or describing an enterprise that has ceased? News shows would clearly be analogous to periodicals, so
"The Huntley–Brinkley Report was an American evening news program"
. Documentary series tend to be much less ephemeral than news, so"Civilisation is a 1969 television documentary series"
. Game shows are also commonly aired in reruns, including years after the fact, so I would tend to use "is" for them as well (if the episodes haven't been lost).--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)- I would tend to agree that non-fiction shows intended to be treated as periodicals, their content reflecting on current information of the last day/week since the last airing, should be treated in past tense if they are no longer in production. This would include news programs (including programs like "Meet the Press" and "60 Minutes") and daytime and late night talk shows (eg "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "The Tonight Show"). Non-reality game shows (thinking of daily-produced shows like "Price is Right" and "Jeopardy") are a bit of a different beast as while it is true they can be found in reruns, they tend to also be treated as changing with the times and were generally produced without consideration of reruns, and to that end, I'd consider those past tense where appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- TV shows were discussed when we made the change for periodicals (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220 § WP:WAS and defunct magazines) at WP:WAS, but I don't know that the RFC discussed at that time ever went ahead. I think the underlying question is the same as for print materials. Are we describing a work that still exists and is consumed in a semi-regular way (i.e., not just archival access), or describing an enterprise that has ceased? News shows would clearly be analogous to periodicals, so
PSA: Layout RfC
Hello everyone! There is an ongoing RfC (currently with little participation) regarding MOS:ORDER, found here. I hope interested parties can partake in the discussion. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Timelines for artists/bands?
Over the past half-decade or so, member timelines for bands/artists have been more common. I remember initially seeing them around 2009, but they've been appearing more frequently lately. Examples can be seen on Mushroomhead's timeline, Onyx's timeline, Korn's timeline, Jawbox's timeline, GWAR's timeline, N.W.A.'s timeline, etc etc etc.
I'm very supportive of including these into articles. It gives an accessible glimpse at the history. But, has there been any agreements on the manual of style? Specifically, the colors? The reason I ask is because most timelines use different colors, and lately, I see editors changing the colors based on some sort of preference. Currently, the most common I'm seeing is (for bands): red for vocals, green for guitar, blue for bass, and orange for drums. Any other instruments are colored with purple, lime, brown, gray, etc.
My question is, when was there an agreement to use red, green, blue, and orange as the colors of the four main instruments? Specifically, orange is an odd choice, and it's not a huge contrast to the other three colors. In my opinion, it should be replaced with yellow.
Red, blue, green, and yellow are usually seen as the most common four-way combination. It's the combination used in basic painting/arts, its use is widespread publically for signs and logos, it's the model for the Natural Color System (and its many related subjects), all types of color blindness falls under Red-Green and Blue-Yellow spectrums, etc. So why is orange being used instead of yellow?
I know that this seems like a trivial thing, but my personal reasoning is because I'm partially color blind. The light orange used in the timelines looks extremely similar, if not the same, as the green. I know that I can't be the only one that struggles with this; however, if there was a valid discussion and a consensus reached, then I'd be fine with it. My personal problems are my own afterall. But I searched the archives and didn't find anything. Xanarki (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- After searching through WT:WikiProject Music, WT:Timeline standards and WT:WikiProject Musicians I finally found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Archive 8#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards. I haven't read it all, but I see it does mention drums=orange, so maybe that's what you're looking for. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed it is, thanks for digging thru it. I see that they didn't take into account that green and orange can look similar (1 person brought it up though), but, everything else was tackled. Since it was 6 years ago, I may move this there. Thanks again.Xanarki (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The word "template" after {{TemplateName}}
"[The] best practice is to have the word 'template' just after {{TemplateName}}; not all readers know {{...}} refers to a template (and even less newcomers".
Am I the only one who thinks Antoine Legrand is making unnecessary edits? (See diffs A, B, C, and more in the History page.) Do we really have to state a million times that {{...}} indicates a template. To me, this is like writing, "Mandela was born in the year 1918" instead of simply stating that "Mandela was born in 1918".—Fezzy1347Let's chat 21:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, I found the changes overly prolix. I think the vast majority of readers will recognize the curly brace syntax as denoting a template, and the few who don't recognize it can click the links and be taken to the template page. Looks like the changes have already been reverted. Colin M (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing inherently wrong with writing "Mandela was born in the year 1918." except that "Mandela was born in 1918." is as understandable, and more concise. I do think, however, that it is odd to write "Mandy was born in 1918 year.", and perhaps, more comparable.--John Cline (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- With the ever increasing use of visual editor, I wouldn't assume that {{...}} means "template" to most readers. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) - Keep in mind that the share of mobile devices is higher than that of desktop computers. There is no Page Previews, no mouseover on mobile devices and people are less likely to click on links when using a mobile device! — Antoine Legrand (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- As Firefangledfeathers advised me, I come to expose my arguments. As soon as I started my modifications, I had a brief exchange with him on my user talk page, and he found my initiative interesting.
- I started to put the word template systematically after the curly braces because I had noticed that it was generally the case on other pages on Wikipedia. I thought that it would benefit newcomers who don't always know the meaning of curly braces. In retrospect, given the length of the MoS page (which is very long), it would take 70x template (tlx=70 times, in wiki markup) and I can understand that it would be too repetitive.
- The problem with the MoS page is that it is extremely long and has many shortcuts. A visitor can arrive in the middle or at the end of the page.
- My new proposal for the use of the word template is: make sure that at least the first two occurrences of {{tlx|TemplateName}} have the word template next to them, and this for each section of the MoS. Beginners who don't know the meaning of curly braces yet will be well informed. — Antoine Legrand (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that the article is painfully long – but it does cover a lot of topics. Perhaps there should be another discussion about splitting it into manageable parts?
Regarding "template" – I suspect that most people who read the MOS page are already or intend to soon be an editor rather than being "just" a reader. As such, they probably will explore the links and so there is less need to explain all of the details in the article itself. Perhaps add "template" to only the first example ... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that the article is painfully long – but it does cover a lot of topics. Perhaps there should be another discussion about splitting it into manageable parts?
- Telling people that a template is a template isn't going to help them unless they click on it anyway in order to find out what the parameters are and so on, in which case they'll find out it's a template if they didn't already know that. And come to think of it, some newbie who doesn't know that braces indicate a template -- so we tell them it's a "template" -- what good does learning a name do them? We don't go around marking every HTML tag as an "HTML tag", we just tell people how to use them.This is a solution-which-isn't-a-solution in search of a nonexistent problem which it wouldn't solve even if the problem existed. There are lots of things in MOS which might puzzle the newcomer at first, but they rapidly pick them up, or there are Help: pages on the basics of editing they can consult; MOS cannot be self-explanatory, nor should it try. It's somewhat of a tutorial, but only where necessary -- mostly it's a reference work, and should stay that way. EEng 17:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Talking about "templates" doesn't help newcomers. Wikipedia's use of the term is very far from the non-IT meaning and from most IT uses. Read our article Template or ask a search engine to "define: template" and it'll take some time before you find a definition that suits the uses in the MOS. So instead we can show the reader some useful templates without calling them that, and the newcomer quickly understands that there are some very useful magic things that are easily recognised by their curly brackets. Long after seeing them while editing, long after using them, the not-so-new editor might dig deeper and discover our weird generic term for them, but that can wait. As it is, of the 51 times the body of WP:MOS uses "template", at least 19 are in the form "the {{whatever}} template" or "the template {{whatever}}" and for the newcomer and the experienced editor alike, that's already too many. NebY (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Wrong use of capitals
My downcasing yesterday of Manned Maneuvering Unit was reverted because it is "capitalised as a proper noun". It is not a proper noun/name. cf "The award-winning manned maneuvering unit was designed for a specific type of mission: satellite rescue missions." – from a history of NASA. Tony (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- While manned maneuvering unit can certainly refer to the technology in general, in this particular usage, it's clearly referring to the proper noun: the Manned Maneuvering Unit previously used by NASA. It's especially clear the example is referring to the proper noun because the full sentence says: "Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like Manned Maneuvering Unit." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, and if it's not proper noun then the MOS instructs us to write crewed maneuvering unit. pburka (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Heck, it's a common noun even though there may be only one of them 'cause there are others, or there may be others. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then we need a different example. pburka (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Manned Orbiting Laboratory seems to not have the same problem and stays within the same specific field too. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then we need a different example. pburka (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Heck, it's a common noun even though there may be only one of them 'cause there are others, or there may be others. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, and if it's not proper noun then the MOS instructs us to write crewed maneuvering unit. pburka (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Should MOS:US mention national varieties of English?
In my experience, U.S.
is discouraged in favour of US
in a number of contemporary varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English. The current section on this implies that either could be used in any article, but I think articles in English varieties that prefer US
to U.S.
should use the former only; however, I don't see that principle reflected in this section of the manual. Should the issue be mentioned here? Mr248 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Problem is, US can be easily confused with We. Where's U.S. is recognised as United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- In practice that’s not a problem at all, though, is it? The word ‘us’ fully capitalised would only be done for emphasis, and that happens extremely rarely, mostly in verbatim speech, which for a non-fiction document like an encyclopaedia means basically never. And the difference is usually obvious from context in any case - ‘US’ is commonly preceded by ‘The’ or followed by words such as ‘military aircraft’ or ‘Secretary of state’ or ‘forces’ that make it clear what is meant. Hence CNN uses ‘US’ throughout its news website. MapReader (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mr248, if you can find some evidence of those varieties of English preferring US, I think it would be wise to include a small mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think that can be in contention; it’s pretty standard. For example the general rule in the Oxford University style guide is
Don’t use full stops after any abbreviations, contractions or acronyms and close up space between letters
. MapReader (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think that can be in contention; it’s pretty standard. For example the general rule in the Oxford University style guide is
- Acronymns without punctuation are pretty standard for English beyond North America, and even within the US such styling is becoming more common - for example CNN uses the unpunctuated form. In time I would expect WP to follow suit and adopt ‘US’ as standard; the MoS already requires it in articles using any other unpunctuated geographical term (such as EU, UK, USSR) - which is actually a lot of articles already. Whether or not WP is ready now to make the move to a consistent approach is another question; personally I don’t see the mix of styles as being particularly helpful. MapReader (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Confused with "we"? Give us a break. Chicago Manual of Style changed its tune on the U dot S dot in 2014 (16th edition). Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree (and would we feel the need to shepherd readers who might take IT to mean shouty-cap "it"?) I've worked as an editor for publishing companies based in the UK, Australia and the United States, and without fail the approach is to use "US", apart from in the US. I appreciate that's only anecdotal, though. JG66 (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Confused with "we"? Give us a break. Chicago Manual of Style changed its tune on the U dot S dot in 2014 (16th edition). Tony (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll give you all a 'break'. I'm content with either version. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- How about a new second sentence:
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)US is preferred in some varieties of English, such as Australian English and British English.
- Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just noticed this discussion. I suspect that the United States will continue to use U.S. in formal written American English for quite a long time. Most U.S. law schools teach the Bluebook, which is notorious for its conservative approach to abbreviations and punctuation. Federal courts continue to be very conservative in how they punctuate abbreviations. Only three states have followed the silly British trend towards dropping periods in abbreviations, at least in opinions from state appellate courts: New York, Michigan, and Oregon. The other states look upon such work product with a mix of curiosity and horror.
- Although there are only about 1.3 million active lawyers out of a national population of about 327 million, lawyers continue to play a prominent role in the public sphere in the United States: government, corporations, nonprofit organizations, journalism, etc. (For example, look at the cabinets of any president or state governor from the last 50 years; even if the executive on top was not a lawyer, several of their direct reports invariably had Juris Doctor degrees.) Nearly all those lawyers had it pounded into their heads during the first year of law school that the correct abbreviation is U.S. (as stated in the Bluebook in Rule 6.1(b) and also in Table T10), and they strongly expect people who work for or with them to write that way. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm…so American lawyers do it one way. Very good reason for the rest of the English-speaking world to do the exact opposite. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- If three US States have joined CNN and the rest of the world in dropping this unnecessary punctuation, then it is simply a matter of time before WP adopts this as our default approach. MapReader (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm…so American lawyers do it one way. Very good reason for the rest of the English-speaking world to do the exact opposite. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW (F.W.I.W.?), I don't think I've ever seen a single American source refer to (e.g.) "the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act", which in any case looks sorta comical. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Guidelines relating to people with disabilities
I don't know if I've followed the process properly, but I've made a proposal here for MOS guidelines on how to refer to people with disabilities. It was previously a style advice page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability but I feel that Wikipedia needs a policy on this based on community consensus.
Any input or help people could give would be appreciated! –Bangalamania (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of this being an official MOS page (although I don't know what the actual procedure is for achieving this). Most of it is essentially the kind of common-sense approach that should be uncontroversial but may not always be obvious to many editors so having a policy page to point to, rather than an unofficial essay, would be a good step. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the changes made today. For example, it now claims that so-called people-first language
is the most common form used by scholars
, citing someone's editorial opinion. If that's the new level of the page, no way. EEng 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)- This has been moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice, as an essay, reverting its move to become part of the MOS, as a guideline. A major change like that probably needs a full village-pump-advertised RFC, not just a bold move on the initiative of a single editor. And even setting up such an RFC would be premature without discussions to test whether such a move is warranted and ready. My own opinion is that the page in question is far too discursive and opinionated to be part of the MOS; guidance in the MOS needs to be clear, direct, and non-controversial. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, I put it back. Any attempt to propose adding it (or some version of it) to the MOS would firstly need consensus of the WikiProject to even begin an RFC. BOLD moves have a place in Wikipedia, but this was not one of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Project:Disability be renamed something like Project: PersonWithDifferentAbility? EEng 22:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not; a person with enhanced vision, extreme intelligence, perfect pitch or unusual strength is a person with different ability. However, I would prefer, e.g., person with disability, to disabled person, since many such people are able to function despite their disabilities. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Take it from me, those things can make your life absolute hell. Back to the point at hand, how is a disabled person different from a person with disability? Does that mean an unemployed person should be called a person with unemployment? Are those different? EEng 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- This feels needlessly trite. We don't discuss a person's unemployment in biographies generally and when we do it certainly isn't seen to be anywhere near as life-defining as language can make disabilities. We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. What gain is there in taking a path that might hurt people when there's no loss in taking the path that won't. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X and EEng if the guide page does not adequately address this issue please feel free to start a discussion about it on the talk page. Perhaps the guide could copy some relevant content from the People-first language article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course biographies discuss a person's unemployment. But sorry, I'm confused. Can you give an example of the euphemistic language to which you object? EEng 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- You mean to say you've never seen terms like "handicapped" or "disabled" used euphemistically to denote a hindrance? Whereas we would never refer to unemployment in that same sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Now I'm really confused. In the old days blunt terms like crippled were used. Then disabled came in as euphemism. But euphemisms gradually take on the stigma they were designed to avoid, and so new euphemisms were needed like handicapped. Then for a while it was differently abled. Now, apparently, there's a new regime being pushed. But look, you said
We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language
. You seem to be saying that there's euphemistic language that equates (something) with "being lesser-than"; but euphemisms are designed to avoid offense. So I can't tell what you're saying is/are these euphemisms, and in what way that equate lesser-than–ness. EEng 21:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)- I mean we very literally use words like "handicap" to denote being at a disadvantage or being at less than full capacity. Golfers can play with a handicap, a security system can be disabled, etc. No such use,s and so no such connotations, exist for words like "unemployed". So it is absolutely a false equivalence. I don't know how I can be any clearer in explaining this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X, if you were saying that terms like "handicapped" and "disabled" were being used derogatorily, that would be easy to understand. Likewise if you were saying we don't use derogatory language that equates unemployed with being less-than. I wonder if your use of "euphemistic" is being understood in ways you don't intend. I know that for me, a euphemism is something like calling the Greek Furies "the kindly ones". NebY (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- No actually, that's irony. Euphemism is the replacement of an unpleasant or blunt expression with something more palatable. For example, your favorite aunt isn't dead, she's "passed on" or "gone to her reward". EEng 02:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can see why you'd say that. For a modern who doesn't believe in the Furies, it might be irony. Classically, it was euphemism and is still described as that.[3] Respectfully or fearfully giving a pleasant name to something very unpleasant is euphemism. NebY (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, now I'm going to pull the OED on you:
- 1. Rhetoric. That figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended. 2. An instance of this figure; a less distasteful word or phrase used as a substitute for something harsher or more offensive.
- Notice: comparatively favourable .. less unpleasant ... less distasteful. What's odd about your link is the use of an opposite term, not just a softer one. But classicists are all perverse. EEng 19:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is sad to see a little parochial failing of the OED put to perverse use. The eu in euphemism is simply "well/good", not "comparatively", and Fowler correctly refers back to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one". English euphemisms do tend to be merely softer, true, though I vaguely remember seeing more dramatically euphemistic uses of wagtail, fudge, golden, chocolate, daisy-chain, pacification and liberation, and in Victorian times a man should not take an interest in a woman's interesting condition. NebY (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oh for shame, NebY! What Fowler (2015) actually says is
Euphemism, a mild or vague or periphrastic expression substituted for one judged to be too harsh or direct, e.g. to pass away for to die
. Mild or vague or periphrastic is consistent with OED in excluding the use of euphemism to mean a word or phrase of opposite meaning, and supports what I said 100%. (In case you're wondering whether that quote is canonical, Fowler (1927) hasEuphemism ... a mild or vague or periphrastic expression as a substitute for blunt precision or disagreeable truth
.)F2015 does indeed then "refer back" (as you coyly put it) to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one", but you've hidden the context, which isThe word euphemism, which is derived from the Greek word εύφημισμός 'use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one' and εὔφημος "fair of speech" was first recorded in [etc etc]
(underlining mine). In other words, the English word is derived from a Greek word with a different (if related) meaning, just as I highlighted earlier. You cannot actually have expected to pull the wool over my eyes by quoting out of context, can you? ;P EEng 01:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oh for shame, NebY! What Fowler (2015) actually says is
- It is sad to see a little parochial failing of the OED put to perverse use. The eu in euphemism is simply "well/good", not "comparatively", and Fowler correctly refers back to "use of an auspicious word for an inauspicious one". English euphemisms do tend to be merely softer, true, though I vaguely remember seeing more dramatically euphemistic uses of wagtail, fudge, golden, chocolate, daisy-chain, pacification and liberation, and in Victorian times a man should not take an interest in a woman's interesting condition. NebY (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- OK, now I'm going to pull the OED on you:
- I can see why you'd say that. For a modern who doesn't believe in the Furies, it might be irony. Classically, it was euphemism and is still described as that.[3] Respectfully or fearfully giving a pleasant name to something very unpleasant is euphemism. NebY (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- No actually, that's irony. Euphemism is the replacement of an unpleasant or blunt expression with something more palatable. For example, your favorite aunt isn't dead, she's "passed on" or "gone to her reward". EEng 02:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly, you seem to labor under an explanatory handicap, because I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I still can't tell what in the world you're trying to say. Blind people, paralyzed people, people with significant heart disease are at a disadvantage -- at less than full capacity and less able (in some areas of endeavor -- in others these things may make no difference at all). You said that something (apparently undesirable)
is done with disability-related language
but for the life of me I can't tell what it is. Can you given an actual example, please? EEng 23:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X, if you were saying that terms like "handicapped" and "disabled" were being used derogatorily, that would be easy to understand. Likewise if you were saying we don't use derogatory language that equates unemployed with being less-than. I wonder if your use of "euphemistic" is being understood in ways you don't intend. I know that for me, a euphemism is something like calling the Greek Furies "the kindly ones". NebY (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mean we very literally use words like "handicap" to denote being at a disadvantage or being at less than full capacity. Golfers can play with a handicap, a security system can be disabled, etc. No such use,s and so no such connotations, exist for words like "unemployed". So it is absolutely a false equivalence. I don't know how I can be any clearer in explaining this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Now I'm really confused. In the old days blunt terms like crippled were used. Then disabled came in as euphemism. But euphemisms gradually take on the stigma they were designed to avoid, and so new euphemisms were needed like handicapped. Then for a while it was differently abled. Now, apparently, there's a new regime being pushed. But look, you said
- You mean to say you've never seen terms like "handicapped" or "disabled" used euphemistically to denote a hindrance? Whereas we would never refer to unemployment in that same sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Can a disability massively impact a person's quality of life? Absolutely,and it is appropriately to attempt to mitigate that with, e.g., accessibility requirements.Is he thereby less of a person? Absolutely not. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- This feels needlessly trite. We don't discuss a person's unemployment in biographies generally and when we do it certainly isn't seen to be anywhere near as life-defining as language can make disabilities. We also don't as a society use euphemistic language which equates unemployment with being lesser-than, which is done with disability-related language. What gain is there in taking a path that might hurt people when there's no loss in taking the path that won't. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Take it from me, those things can make your life absolute hell. Back to the point at hand, how is a disabled person different from a person with disability? Does that mean an unemployed person should be called a person with unemployment? Are those different? EEng 14:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not; a person with enhanced vision, extreme intelligence, perfect pitch or unusual strength is a person with different ability. However, I would prefer, e.g., person with disability, to disabled person, since many such people are able to function despite their disabilities. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't Project:Disability be renamed something like Project: PersonWithDifferentAbility? EEng 22:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, I put it back. Any attempt to propose adding it (or some version of it) to the MOS would firstly need consensus of the WikiProject to even begin an RFC. BOLD moves have a place in Wikipedia, but this was not one of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- This has been moved back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice, as an essay, reverting its move to become part of the MOS, as a guideline. A major change like that probably needs a full village-pump-advertised RFC, not just a bold move on the initiative of a single editor. And even setting up such an RFC would be premature without discussions to test whether such a move is warranted and ready. My own opinion is that the page in question is far too discursive and opinionated to be part of the MOS; guidance in the MOS needs to be clear, direct, and non-controversial. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the changes made today. For example, it now claims that so-called people-first language
- One big problem is that there is a lot of disagreement within the various disability groups themselves as to which terms are considered offensive and which are preferred. Some take the attitude that they can remove stigma by “owning” a pejorative and using it themselves. They actually prefer terms that others with the same condition consider offensive. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of when and how we establish guidelines, it would be useful for anyone who understands the possibilities to report the state of things. Some government projects require reporting of accessibility features. Previously I requested a report on the WMF messageboard at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_2#Request_for_accessibility_specifications. User:RoySmith around the same time made an image alt text proposal. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_172#Adding_an_accessibility_requirement?. Whatever requirements we have I would like them centrally listed, along with proposed features that we declined to implement or other features on the wishlist. This is a situation where reporting our status and centralizing conversation would help a lot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- By reporting of accessibility features, do you mean that there should exist a page describing the current standard of best practices for making Wikipedia articles accessible? Quick, someone, get in your time machine and create MOS:ACCESS! But I'm not sure how that relates to the current discussion, which is more about how to refer to people who might for some reason require the use of those accessibility features (which is, to be honest, most of us as we get older and our eyes get worse). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: I want the Wikimedia Foundation to pay professional evaluators US$30,000 (or whatever is the typical market rate) to get Wikipedia graded against whatever professional or government standards exist. The Wikimedia platform is a multi-billion dollar investment and periodically we need a status report and external perspectives to assess what we have. It is challenging to talk about how to provide access to features without a report describing what we already have and what expert consensus has claimed to be important.
- Here are some possible checklists -
- This is a situation where the Wikipedia community can make a call to the Wikimedia Foundation to spend money to take action. As the Wikimedia Foundation plans the consumption of budgets near US$200 million a year, issues like accessibility do not have to remain projects which the community crowdsources without a schedule for completion. If the community requested new staff hired to accomplish accessibility features, the Wikimedia Foundation would respond with public conversation.
- One possible request is for the WMF to advance the Wikimedia community's own checklist; another possible request could be that the community point to established accessibility standards and tell the WMF that we prioritize investment to meet those standards. In many ways we do not have minimal accessibility, and the Wikimedia community can keep the WMF accountable to meet those standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- If anyone wants an example of what such reports look like. See here for how a large tech company reports on their own software products. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- As with most other such cases, WP should not be progressive in this area, but instead should follow when multiple mainstream style guide have such advice. While it does appear a major medical-related organization is providing such advice its not clear if this is yet followed by newspaper style guidelines, and so before we can consider that as part of the MOS, that has to be shown to be true. --Masem (t) 23:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, there are guidelines at National Center on Disability and Journalism. This topic seems perennial at MOS and it suffers from trolling (e.g. the "Project:PersonWithDifferentAbility" comment and subsequent arguing). The disruption diverges from what should be a "What do respectful professional publishers and writers practice?" question into a heated argument about editors personal opinions, intellectual willy waving about language, and implications by some that only their opinions are valid because they are prepared to declare their disabilities on wiki. I suspect this issue will not find a solution at MOS because editors who are at home discussing how to capitalise and punctuate are not naturally the ones best placed to think about how we write about (and think about) others, either as individuals or as people-groups. The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus, and not enough "following best practice elsewhere".
- The disability style guideline is not mature enough and is largely the product of two editors. For it to progress beyond essay status would need a fresh approach, be much shorter, and be very well referenced. -- Colin°Talk 11:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- "The culture here is too much flame-throwing original research, too much arguing to crushing one's opponent vs discussion towards consensus" - so discussions about referring to "people with disabilities" are just the same as any other part of MOS - the "dont give an inch" and "win at all costs attitude" is all too common here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Colin, I'm quite sure WikiProject Disability (me BOLDly speaking for the project) would really appreciate some input from editors well acquainted with the ways and norms of MOS writing, to improve the project's style guide. As you quite rightly point out, it is somewhat immature and thus far has had too few contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Like, a recent point of reference is the discussion about the avoidance of "manned" in favor of gender-neutral language where it was pointed out that multiple style guidelines (both press as well as NASA and DOD) all show a recommendation to move away from "manned" to other terms, validating WP to follow suite. In a counter example, a recent discussion about moving away from "commit suicide" language, a practice recommended by professional mental health organizations, was rejected here because its not yet a standard in media MOS. While I am sure that the NCDJ guideline is authoritative, we should also be looking to see if that's followed suit by press as well. That's what I'm saying about avoid being progressive - if its clear we're following the general actions of mainstream sources, then that's good, but we shouldn't move just because one body has issued a statement about preferred language that no other sources has picked up on. --Masem (t) 13:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Masem I think you mischaracterise the "commit suicide" argument to be merely that mental health organisations recommend it. At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 216#"Committed suicide" or "died by suicide"? someone dumped a large list of recommendations or style guides with around half being media and news and half being medical. They were told "Style guides are not actual usage" and some did OR by using Google to look at usage since 1800. Admittedly that discussion has hampered by an unpopular alternative choice right from the start. You say "manned" won recently because "multiple style guides" but that suicide discussion included multiple styles guides and nobody cared. I wonder what some here, who become a shade of purple at the sight of a dash of incorrect length, would think if someone algorithmically claimed that usage of anything other than a plain - was so insignificant as to be negligible. Perhaps we should not let stuffy grammar writers "progress" language beyond its actual usage? It seems really people will claim one rule when it suits their opinion and another rule when that suits.
- I think these sorts of difficult issues demonstrate a weakness in Wikipedia, where the crowd is typically ignorant but either has an opinion or can be quickly given one by a statement by someone they respect. They are a timesink for the community, which must I guess drive regulars to despair, but who keep repeating the same mistakes. Maybe for some topics we should simply offer a list of external style guides and professionally-written advice, and leave editors to educate themselves from wiser heads than whoever turns up to an RFC one evening. -- Colin°Talk 18:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well the other way to consider both the "manned" and "commit suicide" aspects is to also consider how style guides actually get reflected in media. "Manned" is very easy to shown that many sources have avoided using that term, in agreement with several style guides, while with "commit suicide" while there are a handful of those, numerous mainstream sources still frequently use that term suggesting that the recommendation hasn't caught on in widespread guidelines. That same sort of approach would need to be evaluated with any language detailing with handling how people with disabilities should be described. --Masem (t) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, if you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight then that debate did not win because anyone demonstrated that "many sources have avoided using that term", or because of many style guides (only one mattered (NASA) and many more were cited wrt suicide). It won overwhelmingly because it was an obvious extension and consequence of the existing policy on gender neutral language, and because multiple editors respected NASA's style guide wrt talking about space programmes. There are certain causes for which it is a no brainer that Wikipedia should be at the leading-edge of current practice, because they are established in the liberal democracies most of us edit from (feminism, LGBTQ, etc). Nobody is going to win an RFC with "No, let's carry on using sexist language because it is well know that sexism is endemic and we should reflect society rather than lead." or "This is the international English Wikipedia, and most of the world is homophobic. So let's wait till it catches up before we reform our writing style". But mental health issues and disability issues.... nah. There isn't even a mental health wikiproject. So I don't think change happens for the reasons you claim. Wikipedia guidelines around these matters can change because enough Wikipedians want to change and because resisting that change is socially unacceptable even with a anonymous username. Or they can not change because Wikipedians aren't that interested and have better things to do than argue with opinionated shouty editors who resist the change for whatever personal and political reasons float their boat. Let's not pretend it is more calculated and rational than that. -- Colin°Talk 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Colin, please note that the most recent RfC regarding the "commit suicide" language was actually in January 2021 at the Village Pump, here. And for the record, guidelines agree to avoid "committed suicide",[4] and you will find that mainstream sources have mostly stopped using the term since around 2018 or 2019 following the high profile suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, though it doesn't change my point that the earlier discussion did reference a large bunch of style guides, including a lot of ones aimed at the general reader. It is ironic that above Masem cites "press" style guides as being influential when the discussion you cite has one editor posting a huge rant containing the claim "WP has no reason to care what news style guides say" (while apparently confusing "major national broadcaster" with "news"). Of course, if one wants simply to bully the discussion, then external sources that disagree with one's position must be trashed, and opponents given a derogatory label like "language-change activists". That way, all can see who is the sole authority who must be obeyed at all times :-). -- Colin°Talk 18:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Colin, please note that the most recent RfC regarding the "commit suicide" language was actually in January 2021 at the Village Pump, here. And for the record, guidelines agree to avoid "committed suicide",[4] and you will find that mainstream sources have mostly stopped using the term since around 2018 or 2019 following the high profile suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, if you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight then that debate did not win because anyone demonstrated that "many sources have avoided using that term", or because of many style guides (only one mattered (NASA) and many more were cited wrt suicide). It won overwhelmingly because it was an obvious extension and consequence of the existing policy on gender neutral language, and because multiple editors respected NASA's style guide wrt talking about space programmes. There are certain causes for which it is a no brainer that Wikipedia should be at the leading-edge of current practice, because they are established in the liberal democracies most of us edit from (feminism, LGBTQ, etc). Nobody is going to win an RFC with "No, let's carry on using sexist language because it is well know that sexism is endemic and we should reflect society rather than lead." or "This is the international English Wikipedia, and most of the world is homophobic. So let's wait till it catches up before we reform our writing style". But mental health issues and disability issues.... nah. There isn't even a mental health wikiproject. So I don't think change happens for the reasons you claim. Wikipedia guidelines around these matters can change because enough Wikipedians want to change and because resisting that change is socially unacceptable even with a anonymous username. Or they can not change because Wikipedians aren't that interested and have better things to do than argue with opinionated shouty editors who resist the change for whatever personal and political reasons float their boat. Let's not pretend it is more calculated and rational than that. -- Colin°Talk 09:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well the other way to consider both the "manned" and "commit suicide" aspects is to also consider how style guides actually get reflected in media. "Manned" is very easy to shown that many sources have avoided using that term, in agreement with several style guides, while with "commit suicide" while there are a handful of those, numerous mainstream sources still frequently use that term suggesting that the recommendation hasn't caught on in widespread guidelines. That same sort of approach would need to be evaluated with any language detailing with handling how people with disabilities should be described. --Masem (t) 18:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
trolling
– Now now, Colin, by now you should know to look deeper at things I say. That wasn't trolling. As for the willy-waving (you Brits are so cute with your baby-talk!), let people have a little fun to relieve the humdrum. EEng 16:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- For the question at hand just have the entirety of the MOS guideline on 'how to refer to people with disabilities' point at NCDJ's style guide. Firstly its better than anything ENWP could ever conceivably come up with given the various issues Colin has listed above and secondly it will be more likely to be current than any MOS version, since actually getting change on something in the MOS here is a pain. The question/thread title actually answers itself if you read the NCDJ. People with disabilities are referred to (where relevant) as 'person with <disability, usually medical name>'. E.g 'person with albinism' rather than Albino. For the other purposes, statistics etc, the guidance should be familiar to everyone on ENWP, use what the source uses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Only in death, The NCDJ is unfortunately not the be-all and end-all undisputed authority that you seem to believe. They have also recently retracted their unequivocal support for person-first language. The WikiProject's style advice actually discusses various competing points of view that exist in the field. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes that was rather my point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Only in death, The NCDJ is unfortunately not the be-all and end-all undisputed authority that you seem to believe. They have also recently retracted their unequivocal support for person-first language. The WikiProject's style advice actually discusses various competing points of view that exist in the field. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Last go-around on this: WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Person-first_language. EEng 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which was notable for original research by the quite obviously ignorant yet opinionated, and by insults thrown towards anyone even suggesting that we might, you know, attempt to be respectful in our language. The whole thing could do with editors being explicitly banned from original research, from stating any personal opinions and from being negative about other's opinions. -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I think that's a dumb idea. EEng 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Which was notable for original research by the quite obviously ignorant yet opinionated, and by insults thrown towards anyone even suggesting that we might, you know, attempt to be respectful in our language. The whole thing could do with editors being explicitly banned from original research, from stating any personal opinions and from being negative about other's opinions. -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's a good essay. It would be interesting to have a bit of a deeper look at a wider range of style guides regarding person-first language and see if it's really true that "By "following the sources" Wikipedia mostly favors people-first language with some specific exceptions." as that seems to be the main point of contention. I do agree that for the MOS itself we'd need something much shorter and snappier. The Land (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Should academic degrees be capitalized?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of degrees. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
"Natives"? No, Bwana! Tabu!
I'm not suggesting a rule (we have plenty already, and there's no need to micromanage everything), but do people really have to write like "[Random European explorer] was attacked by natives"? They're inhabitants. Local fighters. "Xians" where X is the name of the place or group. Or whatever. We don't say "When Lindbergh's ship entered New York harbor, many native vessels came out to greet it." "The British troops at Concord were attacked by natives." And like that. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Very common to use 'native' for people who are from somewhere. I am a native of Saskatchewan. And from here, this sentence, "The six-foot-four, 208-pound Montreal native has also..." So, yes "white people" are called natives when describing where there from. Native is not an offensive word and definately don't need a rule here, imho. Masterhatch (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mnmh. I just changed
Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.
- to
Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by Lapulapu's fighters at the Battle of Mactan.
- I consider the former to be bwana-speak. I don't like it. Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- So how do you feel about Eleanor_Elkins_Widener#Second_marriage_and_South_American_adventures? EEng 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Widener article is directly quoting a 1920 newspaper. Language changes over time. pburka (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I know -- I wrote it. <bows, acknowledges applause> What you just said was the point I wanted to make (plus it's fun). EEng 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Widener article is directly quoting a 1920 newspaper. Language changes over time. pburka (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- So how do you feel about Eleanor_Elkins_Widener#Second_marriage_and_South_American_adventures? EEng 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with your approach. I don't think a rule is necessary, unless we're seeing a lot of pushback against these common-sense fixes. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- What do we feel about Alaska Natives or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians. I’m aware that North Americans quite often say “a native of x” (Masterhatch refers to it above) which is not a formulation we tend to use in British English. But if you’re not North American it can be confusing about when it’s used acceptably and when it’s ‘bwana-speak’. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this word is used offensively in the example given at the top. The advice at MOS:IDENTITY is to "use specific terminology", and your examples seem to me to be redeemed in proportion to the specificity they offer. William Avery (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Cripes! The MoS natives are revolting! We British have to be firm! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Native Americans article is a disambiguation page and has been for a long time; see this and this. The Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians articles both use the term indigenous early on to clarify the usage of the term native in the article title. The lead sentence of the Indigenous peoples article reads: "Indigenous peoples, also referred to as first people, aboriginal people, native people, or autochthonous people, are culturally distinct ethnic groups who are native to a place which has been colonised and settled by another ethnic group." I think we're wasting time here and maybe feeding a troll. Consider that comment rhetorical and call me insensitive -- I don't fancy being drawn into a discussion abut this. Call some others oversensitive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- A native troll, one hopes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- What do we feel about Alaska Natives or Native Americans or Native Hawaiians. I’m aware that North Americans quite often say “a native of x” (Masterhatch refers to it above) which is not a formulation we tend to use in British English. But if you’re not North American it can be confusing about when it’s used acceptably and when it’s ‘bwana-speak’. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Good grief, Wtmitchell. that's not how we talk here. Nobody's drawing you into any discussion, go do something else if you'd rather. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know how to easily locate or quantify such uses of "native" but maybe "the natives" is a richer seam ("the natives charged the Europeans", "Fearing a massacre by the Natives"). It seems over 7,000 of our articles include "the natives" in the text. There's a great mixture but at first glance, most uses are of non-Europeans that Europeans are encountering, killing or being killed by, trading with, governing and so on. NebY (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well yeah, I'm only talking about certain circumstances. I know that "native of Manchester" and "Native Americans" and many other used of the term "native" is OK. I'm talking about some specific uses where it's not excellent. As you say, there are some circumstances, particular when describing European invaders interfacing with people who were pretty much minding their own business somewhere, where there is the danger that using the "native" conjures up the image of an unorganized mass of ignorant savages. Probably because it's the same construction as used in the time of Queen Victoria I guess. So I mean compare
Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the area, claimed the islands for Spain, and was then killed by natives at the Battle of Mactan.
- to
In June 1940, the German First Army thrust into northern France, where it was counterattacked by natives.
- I mean both of the above are correct, but you're not going to see the second one are you. Now why is that.
- I get that people have been writing like this forever and its a habit, and fine, but it's occurred to me that not a good one maybe. It's not huge deal, and I'm not advocating a rule. Every gosh-darn thing doesn't have to be a rule. I'm just pointing out that here's a thing. I just noticed this myself just recently, and I'm sharing my thought and making a suggestion. You all are free to ignore it. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- We should look to the RS on this. This is what the Cambridge English Dictionary says for native as a noun
a person born in a particular place ‘He was a native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Indiana University’.
dated: A native is also a person who was born and lived in a country before Europeans began to visit and live there
Note: This use is considered offensive.
- DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, even without this confirmation from a dictionary, the package of associations that comes with "European explorer X was welcomed/killed/etc. by (the) natives" is quite different from the usage of "native" in other contexts. It is the kind of language you'd exepct from this guy, but not from a 21th century encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- We should look to the RS on this. This is what the Cambridge English Dictionary says for native as a noun
- I get that people have been writing like this forever and its a habit, and fine, but it's occurred to me that not a good one maybe. It's not huge deal, and I'm not advocating a rule. Every gosh-darn thing doesn't have to be a rule. I'm just pointing out that here's a thing. I just noticed this myself just recently, and I'm sharing my thought and making a suggestion. You all are free to ignore it. Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Chopping would
With the summary "verb form", Doremo has removed an amount of "would" from my article Teikō Shiotani. Each is of the word "used to indicate futurity in the past, futurity relative to the time referred to by the preterite" (CaGEL, p.198). It now seems to me that I did somewhat overuse what I'll call "futurity would", so I agree with some of the changes; but as an example of a use I still consider (mildly) beneficial:
- In 1922, Shiotani married Sadako Inoue (井上貞子, 1905–1988). They would have / had three sons, Sōnosuke (宗之助, b. June 1923), Reiji (玲二, November 1926 – March 1927) and Makoto (誠, August 1940 – September 1945); and two daughters, Yūko (優子, b. February 1930) and Yōko (陽子, b. July 1934).
The intention here was a subtle indication to the reader that the narrative is not here jumping ahead to the 30s, 40s or wherever; rather, that we're merely making a little excursion from the early 20s.
Clearly the "core meaning" of the sentence with "had" (Doremo) is the same as that of the sentence with "would have" (me) (i.e. there's no imaginable series of events such that one version of the sentence is true and the other false); and clearly the nuance here is subtle and its desirability hardly worth a discussion thread. But the clearing of instances of futurity would puzzles me. Is my idiolect unusual (perhaps outdated)? Is futurity would a part of your Standard English too, but somehow ill-suited to encyclopedic prose? (Is it what Tony1 might call mere fluff?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Don't know about anyone else, but the simple "had" there reads to me as if all those children existed at the time of the marriage and not that they were the later results of the marriage. The version with "would have" seems much better to me.--Khajidha (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Khajidha – Don't you need "had had" (past in past) to convey that? Tony (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, or "already had", or "had by then" or .... EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Consider
In 1973 he relocated to Waynesville, North Carolina, where he
Surely you're not suggesting that the died form implies he was dead when he moved. EEng 00:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)would diedied of cancer.- [edit conflict] "X married Y. They had Z children." is the idiomatic form. Written in this order it always means that the children were born after the marriage, because the two sentences are in the same tense ("They had Z children" is simple past, not past perfect.) "They would have" is pretentious and generally unnecessary. "They had had" wouldhah! indicate by its change of tense that the children were pre-marriage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- "Already had" or "had by then" would be preferable if the children existed at the time of the marriage, but the simple "had" still reads that way to me. As for the "relocated to Waynesville, NC, where he died" reads to me that he died pretty much immediately after the move. --Khajidha (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] "X married Y. They had Z children." is the idiomatic form. Written in this order it always means that the children were born after the marriage, because the two sentences are in the same tense ("They had Z children" is simple past, not past perfect.) "They would have" is pretentious and generally unnecessary. "They had had" wouldhah! indicate by its change of tense that the children were pre-marriage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Khajidha – Don't you need "had had" (past in past) to convey that? Tony (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- To be blunt, the examples in your diff are in the main wretched. (I'm not saying one or two might not be appropriate, but I doubt it.) In any writing (encyclopedic or otherwise), would has a very (very) occasional role in signaling a temporary glimpse of the future where the reader might otherwise be puzzled or misled. Even one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome. See WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. EEng 00:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. CaGEL isn't meant to be a style guide (and from what I've heard isn't very good at being what it is meant to be either).
- Relatedly, I see the phrase "would later" in the diff, and searching Wikipedia finds some 55k instances of that phrase. Isn't this always a pleonasm? If one is using "would" to indicate a temporary futurity, how is it possible for it to be anything but later? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, it was fine before, it was fine after. On that basis it's roiling the text, so on that basis you are (of course) entitled to roll it back per WP:BRD and ask the editor to make his case on the article talk page. Or, since it's not worse, you could just roll your eyes and forget it. Your call.
- If anybody wants to get consensus to make a rule about this, I suppose she can try. I'd be against it because both are fine and so why. Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Heavens to Betsy! EEng 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's salutary to hear that examples within what I wrote "are in the main wretched", and I take the point about pleonastic "later". Of course CaGEL isn't a style guide (and doesn't pretend to be one), but I am surprised to read that persons unspecified are saying that this hefty book "isn't very good at being what it is meant to be". I cited it not in the hope of demonstrating that my version was optimal, stylish or whatever; merely to demonstrate (perhaps primarily to myself) that futurity would was an established pattern. I'm confident that it's acceptable (perhaps even desirable) in appropriate contexts. I asked here not about its grammaticality (or "correctness") but about its use in Wikipedia. The immediate trigger was my noticing the diff I pointed to; but if I remember correctly, I'd previously seen other instances of (to me, surprisingly) impatient would-chopping. Above, I see "pretentious" and "[e]ven one instance of inappropriate use is tiresome": the animus directed at what I'd considered an innocuous (and sometimes useful) use of would astonishes me. But the animus is there, so I'll try to reduce my use of futurity would. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Part of the animus stems from the fact that the construction is a favorite of hacks who think it makes their writing sound fancy. EEng 06:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- It had to happen eventually. EEng, you have outed me as, yes, just another hack who fondly hopes that his writing will sound fancy. Guilty as charged. Further evidence: (i) I persistently write that a building is somewhere, rather than writing, as a good Wikipedian should, that it is located somewhere. Thanks to this obscurantism, the poor reader is left wondering if it's strewn there, demolished there, buried there, vaporized there, or what. (ii) Rather than use the versatile, rugged word feature, I resort to what, IIRC, H W Fowler decries as "elegant variation", littering my prose with such gewgaws as have, include, and (for preposition featuring) with. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to include you in that. You've simply come under bad influences. BTW, see WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION, WP:ELEVAR, WP:ASTONISHME, and WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 16:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- It had to happen eventually. EEng, you have outed me as, yes, just another hack who fondly hopes that his writing will sound fancy. Guilty as charged. Further evidence: (i) I persistently write that a building is somewhere, rather than writing, as a good Wikipedian should, that it is located somewhere. Thanks to this obscurantism, the poor reader is left wondering if it's strewn there, demolished there, buried there, vaporized there, or what. (ii) Rather than use the versatile, rugged word feature, I resort to what, IIRC, H W Fowler decries as "elegant variation", littering my prose with such gewgaws as have, include, and (for preposition featuring) with. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Part of the animus stems from the fact that the construction is a favorite of hacks who think it makes their writing sound fancy. EEng 06:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Relatedly, I see the phrase "would later" in the diff, and searching Wikipedia finds some 55k instances of that phrase. Isn't this always a pleonasm? If one is using "would" to indicate a temporary futurity, how is it possible for it to be anything but later? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
So far I've only received thanks from various editors for removing excessive would. Would can be used to mark reported speech, hypothetical situations, habitual activity, and volition—and adding unnecessary usage for futurity in the past often risks confusing this with those functions of the verb. If a futurity-in-the-past would seems necessary, it can certainly be used, although there are also workarounds (e.g., "he would become" → "he later became"). I see no merit in using would with a time adverbial (e.g., "He would die in 1831") or for a mundane sequence of past events (e.g., "He married Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children"). And the would strings ("He would marry Jane Smith in 1831 and they would have three children, two of whom would become lawyers. He would be elected to the Assembly in 1860, where he would serve for eight years before he would die in 1868.") are egregious. Some of the text really is that bad. Doremo (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- My view is that "future would" might be permitted where the meaning is clear; but that it shouldn't be sprinkled through a text. That is, it's repetition-sensitive, so needs to be rationed. Tony (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd turn it around to say the would might be permitted where the meaning would otherwise not be clear. EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doremo, I can hardly believe that my article is so dreadful in just that one way. I nervously await the next unsheathing of your editorial machete. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please! There are ladies present! EEng 15:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not singling out anyone or any particular article. If other editors agree that your article is stylistically improved or that ambiguities are resolved by replacing simple past forms with would, then that is the right thing to do. Doremo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think much of the resistance to the "futurity 'would'" comes from seeing it used in our coverage of sports. You can't just write that a sportsperson did something. They might have "went on to", or "would go on to", but never simply "did". See this diff for a truly eyelid-twitching example. If your read garbage like that once too often, every use of the word "would" starts to looks dubious. Reyk YO! 16:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- My eyes! But good to know how much "would" a wouldchuck would chuck if a wouldchuck could chuck "would" at last. NebY (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- I wonder what had given that editor would. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
So I mean neither of the examples is bad. They're both good. It's just a question of context -- how much our writing should be like the writing you find in business memos and technical documentation, and how much it should be like the writing that you find in magazine articles and books. So let's see, for say a biography of the Earl of Sandwich, compare
It was in Paris that he met the Countess. She would teach him all he would ever know about cold cuts.
to
He met the Countess in Paris. She taught him all he ever knew about cold cuts.
I mean, I wouldn't change the first to the second, no. I might change the second to the first. Which is "better" is a matter of opinion, but I like the first. The second is limp and boring, in comparison. In my opinion.
Yes I know about Bill Strunk, and he makes great points, but "Why use lot word when few word do" is not a iron law, nor is the a rule that we must bore the reader.
Yes I get that our articles are not like magazine articles, and "not boring the reader" isn't exactly part of our remit. On the other hand, if the reader is so bored that she passes out, hits her head on the table, and perishes, that's on us. There's nothing wrong with, I don't know, good prose, as long as the info is communicated clearly. I mean we do (I hope!) take care not use the same adjective in consecutive sentences and so an, and after all an encyclopedia is part of the general body of public literature, it's not, I don't know, a memo to a Group Captain (or whatever they have) at ExxonMobile about how to smartsize the training department. Herostratus (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Capital letters
I made an edit [5] that was reverted [6] with the edit summary "I'm not certain that this, being the converse, is true". It isn't a matter of a converse being true but whether this would be a reasonable addition to this guideline.
I'm interested in what other editors think about adding the sentence, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have some guesses, but it would be helpful to hear from you why you support this addition to the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because it uses reliable sources to make the determination. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can't support a proposed change on that reason alone. We could remove the almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the RS do", but that sounds frustrating and chaotic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the MOS was built on what is the accepted style based on style manuals and reliable sources, yet anyone who uses that as a reason for an addition to MOS is not told that we could remove almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the style manuals and RS do". Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's a difference between reviewing sources and guides to write a guideline and writing the guideline to just say "review sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think the MOS was built on what is the accepted style based on style manuals and reliable sources, yet anyone who uses that as a reason for an addition to MOS is not told that we could remove almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the style manuals and RS do". Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can't support a proposed change on that reason alone. We could remove the almost the entirety of the MoS and replace it with "do what most of the RS do", but that sounds frustrating and chaotic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because it uses reliable sources to make the determination. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I reckon the folks pushing WP:JOBTITLES, may object to the addition. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- They shouldn't have any problem with it if that section doesn't contradict the condition that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- That could lead to basing capitalisation on the age of the sources, and in general source-based style could be as perilous as source-based units ("we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does"). Counting sources looks like one good way to reach consensus but need it be the only one? Are we seeing disputes on Wikipedia that have to be determined by such a rule and no other considerations, or existing articles that need fixing according to this rule? NebY (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re "we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does" — It would have to be what is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have any responses to NebY's other point, on dispute/article examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- For me it arose while working in the section Talk:Killing_of_Ma'Khia_Bryant#Black_or_African-American when I found in my work there that capitalized "Black" was always used in reliable sources when describing Ma'Khia Bryant. I then changed to capitalized "Black" in the article. (BTW, I was the one who originally introduced uncapitalized "black" into the article a few months before.) I thought I could easily change it to capitalized because that followed the sources, but instead it ran into opposition. The other editors participating in the "black" vs "Black" discussion were Buffs, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Volteer1. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to be attempting to unilaterally change the rules in order to get your way despite the fact you've been shown a VERY recent RfC where is no consensus to do so. It should stay as is. This could be argued to be forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The "black" vs "Black" issue is a very minor issue for me compared to making a good addition to this guideline. In fact, if this addition is accepted, I won't change "black" to "Black" but leave that for anyone else to do. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to be attempting to unilaterally change the rules in order to get your way despite the fact you've been shown a VERY recent RfC where is no consensus to do so. It should stay as is. This could be argued to be forum shopping. Buffs (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- For me it arose while working in the section Talk:Killing_of_Ma'Khia_Bryant#Black_or_African-American when I found in my work there that capitalized "Black" was always used in reliable sources when describing Ma'Khia Bryant. I then changed to capitalized "Black" in the article. (BTW, I was the one who originally introduced uncapitalized "black" into the article a few months before.) I thought I could easily change it to capitalized because that followed the sources, but instead it ran into opposition. The other editors participating in the "black" vs "Black" discussion were Buffs, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Volteer1. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Do you have any responses to NebY's other point, on dispute/article examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Re "we'll show all these footballers' heights in metres because that's what the source does" — It would have to be what is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
As a reminder, here's the proposed addition again, "If something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article, then it should be capitalized in the article." Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- This would just open up old (and very fraught) discussions, e.g. on the capitalization of the English names of species (particularly since styles in sources differ by country). Consistency across the English Wikipedia means having our own style manual and following it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of a specific Wikipedia article where the proposed addition would be a problem? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- spotted owl (vs. Spotted Owl) and nearly every other species of bird. Many field guides capitalize these, whereas scientific texts have generally standardized on lowercase (if I recall correctly). In the past we had a weird mixed style where all species were lowercase, except birds. pburka (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The proposed addition wouldn't apply because spotted owl is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the given article. So there's no problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- How would one go about demonstrating that? We don't have an authoritative list of independent, reliable sources. And "substantial majority" is vague: is 60% substantial? what about 3 of 5? Some species are so obscure that there may only be two or three sources: should we follow the style of those sources, or be consistent across the encyclopedia? Does Nature count as one source, or is each published paper a separate source? This proposed rule would encourage WP:WIKILAWYERING and inconsistency. pburka (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. Which is why in repeated discussions we decided on the existing policy. This proposal is a non-starter. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would be up to the editor using the proposed addition to gain consensus that something is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for a given article. This is the normal process when an editor's use of something in the MOS is challenged. If one was working on an article where something was consistently capitalized in the references for the article, and their change to capitalization was challenged, then they would need consensus that it was consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of references for the article. This is a more objective condition to discuss than whether to capitalize or not without any guidance from the MOS.
- For whatever reason, it doesn't look like this proposal will gain consensus, so I'll end my participation in the discussion here. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- How would one go about demonstrating that? We don't have an authoritative list of independent, reliable sources. And "substantial majority" is vague: is 60% substantial? what about 3 of 5? Some species are so obscure that there may only be two or three sources: should we follow the style of those sources, or be consistent across the encyclopedia? Does Nature count as one source, or is each published paper a separate source? This proposed rule would encourage WP:WIKILAWYERING and inconsistency. pburka (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The proposed addition wouldn't apply because spotted owl is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the given article. So there's no problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- spotted owl (vs. Spotted Owl) and nearly every other species of bird. Many field guides capitalize these, whereas scientific texts have generally standardized on lowercase (if I recall correctly). In the past we had a weird mixed style where all species were lowercase, except birds. pburka (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Could you give an example of a specific Wikipedia article where the proposed addition would be a problem? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Black or black?
Hi, is there a Wikipedia style guideline on whether we write "black" or "Black" for race? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't see anything with a quick searching, but looking at some higher-quality articles to check for usage (Martin Luther King Jr. at GA and Malcolm X at FA) it seems the preference would be lower-case. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. See the last paragraph of MOS:PEOPLELANG. The short version is that either is fine in most cases, they should be used consistently, and editors shouldn't switch to a different style without discussing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Marquardtika: @Peter Gulutzan: @Grapple X: I've been having this conversation (Black vs. black) regarding the NHL page. I'm a little surprised it doesn't seem to have more conversation here on WP. In American writing of all sorts, this is kind of a big deal. Please see this article from the AP on why we now capitalize Black. It's an incredibly important issue for inclusion as well as recognition of the awareness around systemic racism. I'm finding that as I change pages to have Black capitalized, I'm met with overwhelming disdain and reverting of my edits. I'm not trying to pick a fight with those who spend such a great deal of time making WP what it is, I just want to push this issue to be discussed more if possible. Thank you all! Mrohlewis (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- There already was quite a lengthy discussion that ended as no consensus, other than not changing what's already used in any given article without discussion first. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- As El Millo says, and as you say, this is essentially "In American writing" - only some uses of "black" would be capitalized in current British English - maybe "the Black community" (but certainly not by all) but only rarely "a black footballer". What the Canadian position is I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any indication at the MOS section that a change must be discussed beforehand; nor do I see anything that says the use must be consistent. As to the latter, quite the opposite: " there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article (Black but white)".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly - "the inconsistency of "Black but white" is ok, but once a capitalization style is used, it should be stuck to within the article (not Black and black together). Well I think that's what it says, but that actually raises issues re for example British English. Whatever the MOS section says, it is always best to raise proposed controversial edits on talk, and if you don't, don't be amazed when you are reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I personally think articles should be consistent, not only with the capitalization of black vs Black but also White vs. white and White vs. black or vice-versa, but it doesn't say you have to be. As far as "controversial edits", I'm talking only about what the MOS section says, nothing generally about good practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- We don't disagree on "consistent". I meant it in the sense of don't mix black/Black or white/White in the same article, not to suggest that Black/white is prohibited. It seems we might disagree about changes needing discussion, which I see as a straightforward application of MOS:VAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think we do disagree, but I also think it's no big deal. Fortunately, I rarely get involved in MOS disputes. I'm only commenting here because it was wrapped up in a more significant dispute. I'm now bowing out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My curiosity means I'm happy to talk more if you feel like re-engaging. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: @Johnbod: @Peter Gulutzan:: Thank you all for the responses. This discussion is very much needed as the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media. I very much understand that it's not the case elsewhere in the world yet but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about systemic racism in America and elsewhere when we capitalize Black. It seems to me that this is a basic issue of respect for the current cultural awareness around race. I have read the MOS conversation and see that while the vote was lopsided against capitalization, there was a note that after misleading or incorrect information was removed, the poll would have been significantly different. As that conversation happened over a year ago, it would seem to me that it's time to revisit this issue. Also, there is no capitalization of white in any American writing other than, again, right-wing or white-supremist media. That in itself is disturbing to me as that case has been made above in this talk. Thoughts? Mrohlewis (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure you're entirely correct about American media usage. I know there's a subpage somewhere with some analysis of style guides. Maybe someone else has the link handy? I am hesitantly optimistic about a new RfC. I think a key ingredient is framing it as a US-specific style decision. I would encourage patience, and soliciting opinion on carefully crafting the RfC's neutral statement and presentation of options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- There was quite a lot of this analysis in the big discussion here. If, per the link above, AP only made the change in July 2020 (or shortly before), it seems unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", even with the BLM movement. The American-promoted change from BC to BCE etc has been pushed for some decades now, but even in America is very far from complete. Likewise transgender-y language issues. These things take a long time, & WP usually rightly aims to follow not lead. I agree "framing it as a US-specific style decision" is best (plus Canada?). Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this issue. While it might seem unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", I respectfully push back and ask you to quickly search around American news outlets and see for yourself. Our papers of record, The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal have all moved to capitalize Black. It is standard American English today except for those pushing the idea that white-privilege is a made-up conspiracy. If WP is going to follow, not lead, it should do that and get on-board. It's been well over a year now, WP would not be in the lead to make this stylistic change. Again, I thank you all for the conversation about this issue as it's truly collaborative and the way WP should work. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Consistency within color is desirable (i.e. if you start with Black, then don't change to black halfway through); consistency across colors is not (If you start with Black, there is no reason to also prefer "White" instead of "white.").
- This is because we use "Black," (Websters: Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors. Black Americans NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established. b: of or relating to Black people and often especially to African American people or their culture e.g. Black literature, a Black college, Black pride, Black studies, NOTE: Capitalization of Black in this use is now widely established.) because the battle for this capitalization was won on the playing fields of America (I'm paraphrasing the Duke of Wellington here). It was not in Europe or Canada. They didn't have any Black people to speak of until recently, no Frederick Douglass, no Zora Neale Hurston, no Martin Luther King, and no Toni Morrison.
- The evidence for "White" being preferred to "white," or vice-versa needs to be amassed independently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, well in the UK we have had many black people for some time, but I don't see much of a movement to capitalize when they are called that - one of a range of possible terms, with Afro-Caribbean having been preferred for many years, perhaps less so now. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- True, but that is mostly the result of post-war emigration. British society, moreover, was more liberal than the American South. For the Caribbean migrants, there was no crucible like there was in America wherein new ways of looking at the world (Black is Beautiful) or of naming (Black, African-American) emerged (though emigration and exile are potent drivers too). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Afro-Caribbean" now only covers a minority of Black people in the UK. In the 2011 census, many more people identified as Black African than as Black Caribbean, according to Black British people#Population. NebY (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- True as far as it goes, but Afro-Caribbean as such has not been a census option for the last two times, and the census option of "Black African" is not that common in general discourse, I'd say. I wonder how many who identified as Black Caribbean last time have now changed to Black African - this rather reinforces my point above. Then there's "Other Black", still chosen by many. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's been markedly higher immigration to the UK from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa than from the Caribbean for decades, sufficient to explain the magnitude of the census changes without wondering how many have changed their description. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, you think? From that section: "In the 2001 Census, 575,876 people in the United Kingdom had reported their ethnicity as "Black Caribbean"" but in 2011, for England and Wales only, "594,825 [identified] as "Black Caribbean"" (and the 2001 Scotland & NI figures are pretty tiny). Seems an improbably low rate of growth. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Remember there was a significant increase in the Mixed White and Black Caribbean responses, maybe consider your assumptions about probable growth rates, maybe ask whether you'd know how much the black population of the UK has changed and why that's changed our terminology - but this is all drifting very far away from the original question. Enough. NebY (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, you think? From that section: "In the 2001 Census, 575,876 people in the United Kingdom had reported their ethnicity as "Black Caribbean"" but in 2011, for England and Wales only, "594,825 [identified] as "Black Caribbean"" (and the 2001 Scotland & NI figures are pretty tiny). Seems an improbably low rate of growth. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- There's been markedly higher immigration to the UK from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa than from the Caribbean for decades, sufficient to explain the magnitude of the census changes without wondering how many have changed their description. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- True as far as it goes, but Afro-Caribbean as such has not been a census option for the last two times, and the census option of "Black African" is not that common in general discourse, I'd say. I wonder how many who identified as Black Caribbean last time have now changed to Black African - this rather reinforces my point above. Then there's "Other Black", still chosen by many. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, well in the UK we have had many black people for some time, but I don't see much of a movement to capitalize when they are called that - one of a range of possible terms, with Afro-Caribbean having been preferred for many years, perhaps less so now. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration of this issue. While it might seem unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", I respectfully push back and ask you to quickly search around American news outlets and see for yourself. Our papers of record, The NY Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal have all moved to capitalize Black. It is standard American English today except for those pushing the idea that white-privilege is a made-up conspiracy. If WP is going to follow, not lead, it should do that and get on-board. It's been well over a year now, WP would not be in the lead to make this stylistic change. Again, I thank you all for the conversation about this issue as it's truly collaborative and the way WP should work. Mrohlewis (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- From June 2020, "a growing list of media enterprises that have already updated their policies to capitalize Black [includes] NBC News and MSNBC, TIME, BuzzFeed News, the USA Today Network, Business Insider, HuffPost, McClatchy, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Tribune, Detroit Metro Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, Columbia Journalism Review, as well as The Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and CBC News. Black media outlets, such as Essence magazine and theGrio, led the way in capitalizing Black." Also "statement after statement from executives of companies and organizations using the capital B in their responses to the nation’s protests: Nike, Netflix, Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Target, Macy’s, Nordstrom, Spotify, Apple, Disney, Hulu, HBO, Lyft, Uber, McDonalds, Team USA, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer, among many others."[7] NebY (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- How many actually show "Black" juxtaposed with "white", which would probably look just sloppy to anyone not acquainted with the rather subtle rationale behind such usage. There's a good chance that writers for such publications would go to some lengths, through judicious rewriting, to keep that from happening. Rules of usage usually are simpler, such as "color designations used to classify races should be capitalized (or not capitalized)". I recently noted that "white" appears with "black" in an essay by Thomas Chatterton Williams in the October 2021 Harper's Magazine. The essay was largely about James Baldwin's sojourn in Switzerland, and Harper's generally isn't regarded as white-supremacist literature. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some stats showing the capped Black is not so common, but does sometimes go along with lowercase white. Try searching other contexts. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- How many actually show "Black" juxtaposed with "white", which would probably look just sloppy to anyone not acquainted with the rather subtle rationale behind such usage. There's a good chance that writers for such publications would go to some lengths, through judicious rewriting, to keep that from happening. Rules of usage usually are simpler, such as "color designations used to classify races should be capitalized (or not capitalized)". I recently noted that "white" appears with "black" in an essay by Thomas Chatterton Williams in the October 2021 Harper's Magazine. The essay was largely about James Baldwin's sojourn in Switzerland, and Harper's generally isn't regarded as white-supremacist literature. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- There was quite a lot of this analysis in the big discussion here. If, per the link above, AP only made the change in July 2020 (or shortly before), it seems unlikely that "the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media", even with the BLM movement. The American-promoted change from BC to BCE etc has been pushed for some decades now, but even in America is very far from complete. Likewise transgender-y language issues. These things take a long time, & WP usually rightly aims to follow not lead. I agree "framing it as a US-specific style decision" is best (plus Canada?). Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure you're entirely correct about American media usage. I know there's a subpage somewhere with some analysis of style guides. Maybe someone else has the link handy? I am hesitantly optimistic about a new RfC. I think a key ingredient is framing it as a US-specific style decision. I would encourage patience, and soliciting opinion on carefully crafting the RfC's neutral statement and presentation of options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: @Johnbod: @Peter Gulutzan:: Thank you all for the responses. This discussion is very much needed as the only writing that has black instead of Black in America is right-wing media. I very much understand that it's not the case elsewhere in the world yet but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about systemic racism in America and elsewhere when we capitalize Black. It seems to me that this is a basic issue of respect for the current cultural awareness around race. I have read the MOS conversation and see that while the vote was lopsided against capitalization, there was a note that after misleading or incorrect information was removed, the poll would have been significantly different. As that conversation happened over a year ago, it would seem to me that it's time to revisit this issue. Also, there is no capitalization of white in any American writing other than, again, right-wing or white-supremist media. That in itself is disturbing to me as that case has been made above in this talk. Thoughts? Mrohlewis (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My curiosity means I'm happy to talk more if you feel like re-engaging. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think we do disagree, but I also think it's no big deal. Fortunately, I rarely get involved in MOS disputes. I'm only commenting here because it was wrapped up in a more significant dispute. I'm now bowing out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly - "the inconsistency of "Black but white" is ok, but once a capitalization style is used, it should be stuck to within the article (not Black and black together). Well I think that's what it says, but that actually raises issues re for example British English. Whatever the MOS section says, it is always best to raise proposed controversial edits on talk, and if you don't, don't be amazed when you are reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why is this still being discussed here rather than WT:MOSCAPS? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:PEOPLANG states that it could be either way. That leads me to wonder why so many editors have jumped down my throat about this issue. It seems that WP protocol allows it and those reverting it are doing so arbitrarily....Mrohlewis (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment - it is somewhat misleading, and perhaps WP:WEASELy wording for the MOS to state "There is no consensus against using Black but white."
Aside from the bizarre, roundabout double-negative construction, there were significant numbers of editors who stated that capitalisations should be either for all colours or no colours, i.e. White and Black or white and black but not white and Black (nor White and black, if that doesn't go without saying). In fact, there was a consensus fairly recently, then shortly afterward there was a "no consensus" discussion that had only a small fragment of participants, likely editors were worn out from the one they'd only just had. So, whomever activist editor placed that in the MOS, twas not done in absolute honesty.
I pose a question to everyone here: Do you think all of these style guides and (for-profit) news outlets are doing this because they truly think doing so will help elimnate racism? Or are they doing it merely to make themselves look better? And further on that point - how exactly does writing Black but white erase systemic racism? Does anyone really think that racist whites who see Black with a capital B but white with a lowercase w are going to stop and think "Oh, Black is capitalised but white isn't, that must mean that Blacks are better than whites and we should all stop giving them the shaft!" Please.
And from the other side, I can see how a black person could take offence as well. It's somewhat akin to being called "Special".
Lastly, I will comment that, dispite what all ye in your Wiki bubble and mass corporate media bubbles may believe, natural language doesn't change over night. One year is over night as far as language goes. Activists and elitists may think they wield that kind of power, but they are all in an echo chamber.
Therefore, since the main motivation behind all this seems to be to improve social justice, ask all of yourselves how realistically actions like this are likely to help things. Also consider the possible unintended consequences of them having the opposite effect: rather than mending hatred, deepening it. Act wisely, friends. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- TLDR version: the vast majority of the motivation behind this in the public sphere is NOT "I honestly think this will help improve social conditions and opportunities for disadvantaged groups", but rather it is "I want others to see me as someone who cares about social justice for disadvantaged peoples! " So it's really not about helping others, it's all in the interests of making it look like you're fighting for social justice. It's truly a smokescreen, a distraction, if anything. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:DC01:DE1:31A5:708A (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
What's Wikipedia's current practice on this matter. PS: please when responding indent properly & don't use bullet points. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Current practice varies. As said above, there was no consensus to specify one way or the other. In general, the MOS says not to change things where there are multiple acceptable ways and no consensus on a preference. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Just an aside. Most of the discussion here seems to be correctly based on objective considerations. However, some is based on the consideration of social issues. I think the latter is a disease in Wikipedia that causes conflicts between editors and bias in articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not influence. Otherwise, Wikipedia's credibility is tarnished and the editing environment becomes toxic. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
As others noted, this seems to be a matter of US style that has not reached the UK to any degree. For example Guardian style guide does not request any case, but to respect the writer's choice (likely their US journalists).
I have two points about langauge change generally. Firstly the meme that Wikipedia "aims to follow not lead" and the idea that it does so "rightly". Hmm. Saying something doesn't make it so. I don't think Wikipedia has an "aim" in this regard, as it is an encyclopaedia. We, as editors, can chose whatever path we like, as long as it is consistent with some core principles. We can choose to be among those changing early or we can choose to be among those who are late. The problem with follow/lead is that it is polarising language that assumes the only positions are at the front or the back. It is ambiguous as to where among the leaders or followers we might be. Are we in the vanguard or among the stragglers? Are we among the leaders but not quite at the front? Or are we among the followers but not quite at the back? Our guidance on gender neutral language and gender identity suggests we are closer to the front, and these are matters a lot of Wikipedians care about and have wikiprojects for. On other issues like disability and mental health, I think we are quite far towards the back, compared to our peers in the information business. This area seems to be one where a few highly opinionated editors can dominate and proclaim that certain practices are The Way. I think it is important to realise that just because someones says we have always done it this way doesn't (a) mean what they say is true or (b) mean we have to repeat that for a particular case or even at all in future.
Secondly the above comment about Wikipedia informing, not influencing. We all know the language we use has an influence on how subjects are perceived. If that wasn't the case, then nobody would be upset or wish to change as long as the words were correct. As a major internet website and resource of information that gets read and reproduced, we do have a responsiblity for the influence we do have. If we, for example, write assuming doctors are male and nurses are female, that does perpetuate stereotypes and influences future generations about what they may grow up to be. So we have influence whether we want it or not. It may well cause conflict between editors, but some of that could be moderated by checking those who dominate their opinions and dubiously claim to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" or MOS or some group.
Just as our own policy and guidelines follow best practice on Wikipedia, our style guidelines should follow best practice in the industry. There are lots of publications in the information business who we can examine (either the published material or their style guides). Some damaging ideas have crept in that news publications and science or expert publications are so weird and different to us that their style should be completely rejected. Well they are different but we are intelligent enough to recognise when their style is geared towards their audience or approach, and when their style is valuing things that are universal and that we could adopt. I think we can do better than have have done at times, and if one's only argument against change is a mix of "I don't like it" and "We should be last to change" then that's a poor position to take. -- Colin°Talk 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note that there is a sentence in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters that has a criterion for style.
- "The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."
- Also in the lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters there is,
- "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."
- How do those two excerpts fit in with your thinking? Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
RfC started on track listing sections
RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC on Track Listing sections in song articles. All comments are welcome. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding a citation to an empty parameter
Can infobox parameters be empty, but also have a citation listed? Or, is "none" appropriate for infoboxes? Requesting additional comments concerning this topic.
The article Tver Oblast infobox lists the parameter anthem as "none." The infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem. I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist. I understand how in some cases, "none" may be appropriate for some infobox parameters, but this doesn't seem like one of these cases. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- FYI, there's been more traction at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Seemed more appropriate to add the discussion there. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Simple vs double quotes
This MOS says "Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition (Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter')." However, this is very difficult to apply in texts about historical linguistics. Scholars describe and define meanings from a distant time with a different cultural understanding from today. Usually, scholars translate historical and reconstructed words somewhat differently, and inevitably based on the scholars' own theoretical and subjective understànding. I don't think it is reasonably possible to apply this MOS, in the articles I write, and here is an example. How can I comply with MOS, when the glosses are more or less subjective, and rarely "simple"?--Berig (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, if I would use simple quotes for "simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms", I would make the definition POV, because another scholar would use a sentence to define a meaning that would be dependent on their theoretical interpretation, and for that I would need to double quotes. So, in order to write in a way that comes close to NPOV, I simply cannot use simple quotes for the definition provided by one scholar and double quotes for those from another.--Berig (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Glancing at your link, I do not see any special situations that would need anything other than the standard linguistic formatting; for example, "Old English hellerune 'seeress, witch' ... in OHG as hellirûna 'necromancy' ... *χaljō 'Hel, the abode of the dead' ... into Finnish, where runo means 'poem' ..." etc. If a meaning is disputed or hypothetical, this is usually expressed verbally, without any need for scare quotes; for example, "Smith hypothesizes that *q'ólhi- means 'canoe' but Jones claims that it means 'land' ..." etc. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Should those occurrences of "simple" be "single" (except for "Simple glosses)? Otherwise, I find it hard to comprehend. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think "simple gloss" means "just a gloss, not a functional part of a sentence"; in the MOS example, freebooter is just a gloss, not the object of the preposition or anything else with a syntactic function in the example. Doremo (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I find it convenient, though, not to separate definitions from quotes when I reference the text, as semantics often involve subjective views, and in these situations semantic reconstructions.--Berig (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think "simple gloss" means "just a gloss, not a functional part of a sentence"; in the MOS example, freebooter is just a gloss, not the object of the preposition or anything else with a syntactic function in the example. Doremo (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Should those occurrences of "simple" be "single" (except for "Simple glosses)? Otherwise, I find it hard to comprehend. Tony (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Begins
I noticed that user Marchjuly removed all screw profile images ...
but don't get your hopes up -- it's all downhill from there. See also erection engineer Mark Barr, who had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee. EEng 05:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
One of these is not like the others
Bit of a drive-by comment here (sorry)…
I was looking for a reference for formatting a MoS on a sister project, so I looked at the top of WP:MOS for the first time in… well, probably ever. One sentence there stood out as a non sequitur: Since using plain English makes the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to read, editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
A fine sentiment certainly, but the rest of the lead describes the MoS itself, what it is for, how it is structured, its inclusion criteria… That sentence then suddenly dives into one specific content guide. Not that it's bad guidance, but it seems very malapropos in the context, and gives it an emphasis that appears out of proportion to its relative importance. Does it need to be there? Or, rhetorically, what other specific style rules should be promoted to a mention in the lead? Xover (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
"Chair" v "chairwoman"
Jaguar has recently been automating changes of "chair" or "chairperson", used as a generic expression for the head of some board or panel, to "chairwoman" (see eg Special:Diff/1050107578, Special:Diff/1050107675). When I raised this on their talk, they pointed to a portion of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity discussing gendered references on Caitlyn Jenner that, to my mind, is relevant only where there is a potential difference between a person's gender identity at present and their identity in the past. In my view, MOS:GNL is clear: we ought to use gender-neutral language ("chair" or "chairperson") where it is possible and clear – as it would be, in my view, in virtually every instance where we are discussing someone "chairing" an organization, board, panel, etc. I am bringing this here because it likely has broader applicability beyond my concern regarding Juanita Maxwell Phillips (the article where I first noticed Jaguar's alterations), and to get a wider sampling of opinion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that GNL points towards simply using "chair" (or "chairperson") in these cases. It's a readily understood term that loses no meaning versus "chairman" or "chairwoman" and so we shouldn't be introducing needlessly gendered language. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Those diffs are in the context of one gender contexts hence it is fine. Those two subjects were women. Though if you are talking about the position in general (in which one gender contexts no longer apply, i.e. The Chair/Chairperson's (probably used as opposed to chairman/chairwoman) responsibilties include [...]) that is were it would likely no longer be appropriate. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 23:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Even if they're fine in a vacuum in these instances, changing a valid (and preferable) usage like that also contravenes WP:STYLEVAR. I could see the justification for doing it the other way around, to fall more in line with GNL, but moving from adherence to MOS to a permissible exception just for stylistic preference is a bad idea. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do not why chairperson/chair would be preferable to chairman/chairwoman in these instances. If anything chairman/chairwoman is preferable to chairperson/chair in these instances because it is specific to the context (unlike the other way which is overly broad for no reason). "to fall more in line with GNL" but GNL does not apply here it is a single gender context. By that logic we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- How could the gender-neutral term be
overly broad
? All versions of the term—chair, chairperson, chairman, and chairwoman—refer to precisely the same role. If gender is clear in context, as it is in the vast majority of cases, there's no reason to depart from gender-neutral language because there's no extra meaning to be gained from using the gendered term. (As, IMO, is the case with "actor" as well.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor
--Which I've been in favour of doing every time it comes up, and which I tend to do when writing articles myself. This isn't a bad thing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)- Yes it is a bad thing because that is not what GNL says at all. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- How could the gender-neutral term be
- I do not why chairperson/chair would be preferable to chairman/chairwoman in these instances. If anything chairman/chairwoman is preferable to chairperson/chair in these instances because it is specific to the context (unlike the other way which is overly broad for no reason). "to fall more in line with GNL" but GNL does not apply here it is a single gender context. By that logic we would have to 'to fall more in line with GNL' by replacing actress en masse to actor. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 00:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Even if they're fine in a vacuum in these instances, changing a valid (and preferable) usage like that also contravenes WP:STYLEVAR. I could see the justification for doing it the other way around, to fall more in line with GNL, but moving from adherence to MOS to a permissible exception just for stylistic preference is a bad idea. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Use any of them, but be consistent within each individual bio. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar's actions should stop. Tony (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why? ♦ jaguar 00:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:STYLEVAR, for one; this isn't a constructive change so much as switching one preference for another. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar, why do you want to change uses of chair to chairwoman? In OP's first diff, you changed away from gender-neutral language in a sentence that started "On Council, she served on the committees for Maternity and Child Welfare (of which she was chair as of 1941)". What benefit does "chairwoman" provide in that context? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why? ♦ jaguar 00:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar's actions should stop. Tony (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Topic related: FWIW, this gender neutral pushing on the 'pedia, gets annoying at times. Actor/actress, Chairman/chairwoman, are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's the manual of style. Enforcing it is "pushing" as much as enforcing something MOS:DECADE or MOS:BADDATE is. It's not helpful or constructive to frame it otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X, as you can plainly see, there is not even close to being widespread agreement on whether or not the MOS actually says what some of you say it does. If it were that cut and dried, this debate wouldn't be happening. You may certainly hold the opinion that all the editors who interpret the guideline differently than yourself are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's okay to claim agreement exists when it actually doesn't. Furthermore, the difference is that this guideline is not rooted in pragmatics, but in some kind of pseudo-activism (pseudo because nobody actually knows what the actual goal is supposed to be. We are all aware of English WP's enormous gender gap. Purging enWP of all traces of gender would be an effective way to preserve systemic prejudice by making it invisible. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A069:2944:4900:B67E (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, what part of
Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable
,When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change
orAs with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so
are unclear or being misinterpreted here? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, what part of
- Grapple X, as you can plainly see, there is not even close to being widespread agreement on whether or not the MOS actually says what some of you say it does. If it were that cut and dried, this debate wouldn't be happening. You may certainly hold the opinion that all the editors who interpret the guideline differently than yourself are wrong, but that doesn't mean it's okay to claim agreement exists when it actually doesn't. Furthermore, the difference is that this guideline is not rooted in pragmatics, but in some kind of pseudo-activism (pseudo because nobody actually knows what the actual goal is supposed to be. We are all aware of English WP's enormous gender gap. Purging enWP of all traces of gender would be an effective way to preserve systemic prejudice by making it invisible. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A069:2944:4900:B67E (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd be more enthusiastic to support this if the editor were changing all instances of chairman to chairwoman. (Surely chairwoman is understood to include people of any gender.) But if they're only applying the term to women chairpeople it ought to stop. pburka (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think only STYLEVAR applies here. I would oppose mass removals of "chairwoman", "chairman", "actress", and so on regarding specific people with a known gender. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I was going to give a more detailed response last night but it was half one in the morning and fatigue got the better of me. My one word response to Tony wasn't meant to be brazen, but rather I wanted to know why my changes were cause for a dramatic alarm. Firstly I don't understand why my changes last night invited this discussion. As you all know, chairman/chairwoman is the proper vernacular, as is actor/actress, postman/postwoman. While I do share GoodDay's slight grievance of referring to a person as a metonymic chair (I have been a victim of this in real life), Wikipedia ultimately needs to conform to using encyclopaedic language and not concede to the twin dynamics of oversaturated gender-neutralism and laziness. I don't see how MOS:VAR applies since they are the proper terms to describe people's roles. Lucilita Bhreatnach is a woman, so her role bestows her the title of chairwoman. It's simple. The only instance of where the use of 'chairpersons' would apply is if it was describing a mixed group of men and women, which didn't come up during my edits last night. Is there a place where we can propose to set this in stone in the MOS (assuming it isn't already)? ♦ jaguar 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- As a global statement that isn’t correct - perhaps you are arguing from a single country perspective? In the UK, the House of Commons Select Committees have ‘chairs’ most local councils have ‘chairs’, as do many companies. For sure, chairman or chairwoman (more commonly the former) are still terms in use, but they are now minority usage, and certainly not the “proper vernacular” as you claim. Similarly “postmen” has long ago been replaced by “postie” or “delivery officer” in official Royal Mail usage, and actor is commonly used for both males and females - this latter is also common in US media coverage. MapReader (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- They are certainly not minority usage. Threre are far more instances of 'chairman' to 'chair', with the latter being a recent and inaccurate deviation among some articles. 'Postie' is slang and wholly unencyclopaedic - in fact I very rarely hear it. By your admission shall we change all instances of postmen on Wikipedia to posties? Quell anything conventionally descriptive in favour of these? I am arguing from the perspective of the English language and what it is. ♦ jaguar 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar, this is 2021, not 1921. There is no justification whatsover for your edits, which flatly contradict our manual of style. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Gaveling person? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- So gendered nouns aren't advocated in the manual of style? LMAO. I'd hardly say chairman is archaic. ♦ jaguar 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar, you got to know it’s outdated, especially chairwoman. See for examaple Collins Dictionary. At best it’s just ‘controversial’ (see the citations in our Chairperson article where, incidentally, Chairman is a redirect to it). DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jaguar, this is 2021, not 1921. There is no justification whatsover for your edits, which flatly contradict our manual of style. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- They are certainly not minority usage. Threre are far more instances of 'chairman' to 'chair', with the latter being a recent and inaccurate deviation among some articles. 'Postie' is slang and wholly unencyclopaedic - in fact I very rarely hear it. By your admission shall we change all instances of postmen on Wikipedia to posties? Quell anything conventionally descriptive in favour of these? I am arguing from the perspective of the English language and what it is. ♦ jaguar 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how MOS:VAR applies
—It applies because you have taken articles where one valid, MOS-compliant usage is already in place, and with no unequivocal gain, changed it to another stylistic preference. The edit isn't fixing something broken, it isn't correcting a mistake or anything of the sort, it's moving from one established usage to your personal preference, which is the absolute textbook basis of MOS:VAR. It doesn't matter if you, or anyone else, believes your preference is valid, MOS:VAR doesn't care about validity—just like switching citation styles or date formatting could easily be done to a "valid" style but is still discouraged. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)- As I said my changes weren't one bourne out of personal preference. I see that Orangemike has now reverted all my edits, despite chairman remaining the abundant identifier on Wikipedia. Shall we begin the mass purge of chairmen to just chairs then? I had no idea referring to a woman as a chairwoman was so controversial among Wikipedians. ♦ jaguar 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jason Bourne? EEng 20:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Bourne/bourn"; a destination, goal, or aspiration. And yes I regret saying it now. ♦ jaguar 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Jason Bourne? EEng 20:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it's anything but personal preference, when the prior versions were all perfectly valid and clear. Do you mean to tell me your edits were somehow counter to your preferences, that you liked it better before you edited it? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we take this to a wider discussion, but from what I've seen in this disintegrating discussion I'm afraid that these editors would end up advocating the removal of all 'sexist' gendered nouns. ♦ jaguar 20:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- As I said my changes weren't one bourne out of personal preference. I see that Orangemike has now reverted all my edits, despite chairman remaining the abundant identifier on Wikipedia. Shall we begin the mass purge of chairmen to just chairs then? I had no idea referring to a woman as a chairwoman was so controversial among Wikipedians. ♦ jaguar 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If it comes down to chair vs chairperson, because folks want to go the gender-neutral route? Can we please use the latter? People are humans, not chairs. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Changing well established mainstream gender neutral terminology to gendered terms (which are deprecated by a variety of style guides) is, to put it plainly, sexist. This is 2021 not 1921. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sexist? Not seeing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- These people are utterly delusional, GoodDay. I wish I never engaged with this. ♦ jaguar 20:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's just a topic, that is formed by the # of editors involved. If enough editors push that 'red' is 'blue'? then 'red' is 'blue'. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- No need for personal attacks, just because this 'ye olde' English language argument that has been put forward is seen as risible by others, and by others as sexist, and your edits prohibited by the MOS. English changes, and it always has. Style guides change and always have. And GoodDay's response makes little sense, editors here, certainly did not make the multiple dictionary uses of 'chair' appear out of the blue. [8] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not 'ye olde' English when it remains common usage. This was not the original point of the discussion anyway. By the way the definition of chair that you linked is indeed the correct one, but when referring to the roles of people the gendered 'chairman' is prevalent and indeed desirable. I can't believe I have to say this. Thinking that nouns describing someone's gender is sexist is delusional. It is clear that people here are arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing I stated initially has had any effect. ♦ jaguar 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have been shown multiple sections of the manual of style which disagree with your edits. Please explain how abiding by existing policy is "arguing for the sake of arguing". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Desirable", you say. So, not actually about anyone else's "delusion", at all, it's just about what you desire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was mainly referring to Dodger67's above comment of gendered terms being sexist as delusional, which it is. ♦ jaguar 21:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, gendered terms are not sexist. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It appears you have misstated his or her argument, Dodger was noting that the English world has chosen to create and accept in formal writing gender neutral terms, so insisting that we not use such gender neutral terms, in fact going around in censorious dudgeon replacing them is by logic, sexist (social roles based on sex). Dodger may be right, or may be wrong, but there is no delusion in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It can also be considered censorship, preventing usage of gender terminology. What the world does is irrelevant. What's relevant is what Wikipedians decide among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Asking editors to retain existing uses of gender neutral language is censorship? That's a stretch. pburka (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors have already decided on MOS:GNL. If you feel censored by it, there are many other places in the world for you to write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Though I disagree with MOS:GNL's current status. I've no plans to attempt to change it. PS: I'm not planning on writing anywhere else. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Asking editors to not use gender terminology (actor/actress, policeman/policewoman; etc) can be considered censorship. Again, Wikipedia isn't the real world, but rather a cyber world. Therefore, the community decides what usage to go with, amongst itself. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's not what's happening here. This editor has been replacing existing uses of chair and chairperson with chairwoman. It's a simple matter of MOS:RETAIN. Nobody's trampling on your right to continue to use outdated gendered language. pburka (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Missing the point again... ♦ jaguar 21:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Is it censorship to ask users not to use apostrophes in plurals, or not to use contractions in running prose, or to avoid the passive voice, or not to use curly quotation marks? These are all MOS concerns just as much as GNL but I don't see anyone clinging to the idea that they're censorious, and I wonder why... 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's not what's happening here. This editor has been replacing existing uses of chair and chairperson with chairwoman. It's a simple matter of MOS:RETAIN. Nobody's trampling on your right to continue to use outdated gendered language. pburka (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors have already decided on MOS:GNL. If you feel censored by it, there are many other places in the world for you to write. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Asking editors to retain existing uses of gender neutral language is censorship? That's a stretch. pburka (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It can also be considered censorship, preventing usage of gender terminology. What the world does is irrelevant. What's relevant is what Wikipedians decide among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was mainly referring to Dodger67's above comment of gendered terms being sexist as delusional, which it is. ♦ jaguar 21:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is not 'ye olde' English when it remains common usage. This was not the original point of the discussion anyway. By the way the definition of chair that you linked is indeed the correct one, but when referring to the roles of people the gendered 'chairman' is prevalent and indeed desirable. I can't believe I have to say this. Thinking that nouns describing someone's gender is sexist is delusional. It is clear that people here are arguing for the sake of arguing, and nothing I stated initially has had any effect. ♦ jaguar 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- These people are utterly delusional, GoodDay. I wish I never engaged with this. ♦ jaguar 20:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sexist? Not seeing it. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedians don't have rights, only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
If required? Change the MoS to prefer the usage of chairman/chairwoman, over chairperson/chair. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Chair / Chairman / Chairwoman / Chairperson are all acceptable in Wikipedia and I totally disagree changing any one to any other one without just cause. MOS:VAR applies here. If chairman was used first, it stays. Don't change it to Chairperson. If chairwoman was used first, leave it. No need to change. Look at the original usage in the article per VAR and use that (with certain exceptions, of course). There are a lot of parts of the MOS I totally disagree with but one of the best that I support whole-heartedly is retaining existing styles as it can really help solve edit wars over style. Masterhatch (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- The opposite of this has been happening here; "chair" was the existing version which was later changed, I agree that VAR is the principle we should be sticking to here but you seem to have the direction of the conversation in reverse. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing in support of any one side. I was arguing in support of VAR. I don't care which word is used, but to end a squabble, I love VAR. I know Jaguar was changing chair to chairwoman and he was wrong to do that since chair was used first. Masterhatch (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-arbitrary break
This somewhat vituperative discussion seems to have established or confirmed two things:
- MOS:VAR definitely favours leaving ungendered language as-is. (And so, I would suggest, a fortiori, favours not automating changes from ungendered to gendered language.)
- MOS:GNL probably favours using "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman".
Can we agree on this? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. pburka (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I basically agree with the conclusion of 1, but would go further in opposing indiscriminate mass changes in either direction (gender-neutral to gendered, or gendered to gender-neutral). Not so sure about 2. Per Spy-cicle, I think it's unclear to what degree GNL is intended to apply to scenarios where we're referring to a definite subject of known gender. Furthermore, GNL says to prefer gender-neutral language "where this can be done with clarity and precision". But there are some cases where substituting a gender-neutral equivalent for one of a pair of gendered terms makes the text less natural or readable. e.g. I think we'd all agree that globally replacing fiancé/fiancée with "person engaged to be married" would be execrable - there's just no succinct gender-neutral hypernym. Heck, even though mother/father have a gender-neutral equivalent that's a common word (parent), doing a mass replacement would still result in a lot of unnatural sentences. Leave it as an editorial/stylistic choice to be made on a case-by-case basis. Colin M (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Surely there ought to be some regard to the actual usage by the organisation or position being described? For example Select committee (United Kingdom) - and all the subsidiary or related articles dealing with specific committees or particular individuals - refer to “chairs” because that is the term used in Parliament. If we came across one that didn’t, it would be correct to amend it, so that WP follows the RS, and I wouldn’t expect such an edit to be opposed on grounds of Var or Retain? Similarly Chairman of the Conservative Party uses chairman pending that party’s arrival in the 21st century. MapReader (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that matters. Sometimes either option is fine and it's just a stylistic choice, but sometimes the context will clearly favour one over the other. Colin M (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Surely there ought to be some regard to the actual usage by the organisation or position being described? For example Select committee (United Kingdom) - and all the subsidiary or related articles dealing with specific committees or particular individuals - refer to “chairs” because that is the term used in Parliament. If we came across one that didn’t, it would be correct to amend it, so that WP follows the RS, and I wouldn’t expect such an edit to be opposed on grounds of Var or Retain? Similarly Chairman of the Conservative Party uses chairman pending that party’s arrival in the 21st century. MapReader (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree with point 2 as I have already explained above. Context matters. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- How about this way. If the topic of the bio article identifies as male? we use chairman. If topic identifies as female? we use chairwoman. If the topic identifies as neither? we use chairperson. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's never wrong to use non-gendered language. MOS:GNL doesn't require use of gender-neutral language for individuals, but doesn't forbid it, either. pburka (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's never wrong but it is more accurate to use the gendered language if applicable and if the gender-neutral term isn't the most common word used. —El Millo (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose amending the MOS to require the use of gendered language in any circumstances. I also disagree that it's "more accurate" to use gendered language. "Chair" and "chairwoman" are perfect synonyms; neither is more accurate than the other. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's never wrong to use non-gendered language. MOS:GNL doesn't require use of gender-neutral language for individuals, but doesn't forbid it, either. pburka (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- For a given article, if editors disagree as to whether a gendered or non-gendered term should be used, I think that it should be determined by what is used by the reliable sources of the article, if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- This proposed policy would, in many cases, require us to use archaic language for older topics. Should we use "poetess", "lady doctor" or "Jewess" if we're relying on 19th-century sources for a biography? pburka (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- A real example: Annie Rothwell was the "supreme artist" of "Canadian martial poetesses". "Poetess", sans quotation marks, is simply not encyclopedic language in contemporary English. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- pburka, AleatoryPonderings, Please note the condition, "if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article."
Pburka, You didn't give an example of an actual Wikipedia article. All it takes is one valid example from you that satisfies the above condition, and you will have proven your point.
AleatoryPonderings, You showed one source in the article Annie Rothwell with "poetess". Do any other sources in that article use "poetess"? I started looking through the sources and the second one [9] used "poet". So far, not a substantial majority. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)- My example was purely for illustrative purposes. The fact that it is conceivable that many sources could refer to a person by language we no longer consider acceptable is enough to cast doubt on your policy proposal. In any event, I take it you have the burden to explain why MOS:GNL should be amended to prefer gendered language when sources appear to prefer gendered language; we don't have the burden to explain why the default rule (GNL) should be retained. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- What I suggested is at the basic foundation of Wikipedia, follow the sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable sources tell us what to say, but not how to say it. The analogous version for matters of style would be commonly-used style guides, many (most?) of which recommend the use of gender-neutral language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree with basing MOS on the major style guides: Chicago, AP, MLA, APA. Unfortunately, they're behind paywalls. If you say that most prefer "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman", I'd accept that if I don't check for myself. However, if they don't indicate a preference in some way, then the sources should be followed. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Chicago and AP for sure, with Chicago recommending 'chair' and AP either 'chair' or 'chairperson'. For AP, it's their very first example of easily-usable gender-neutral terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority." (Chicago, section 5.250) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. But just to clarify what you found, did the manuals say that those gnl's were preferred over non-gnl's, or were they preferred if one wanted to use gnl? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not super clear from section 5.250. Section 5.257 is less equivocal: "The trend in American English is toward eliminating sex-specific suffixes. Words with feminine suffixes such as -ess and -ette are easily replaced with the suffix-free forms, which are increasingly accepted as applying to both men and women. For example, author and testator are preferable to authoress and testatrix. Compounds with -man are more problematic. The word person rarely functions well in such a compound; chairperson and anchorperson sound more pompous and wooden than the simpler (and correct) chair or anchor. Unless a word is established (such as salesperson, which dates from 1901), don’t automatically substitute -person for -man. English has many alternatives that are not necessarily newly coined, including police officer (first recorded in 1797), firefighter (1903), and mail carrier (1788)" [bold added]. I don't have access to the AP Stylebook. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. But just to clarify what you found, did the manuals say that those gnl's were preferred over non-gnl's, or were they preferred if one wanted to use gnl? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree with basing MOS on the major style guides: Chicago, AP, MLA, APA. Unfortunately, they're behind paywalls. If you say that most prefer "chair"/"chairperson" over "chairman"/"chairwoman", I'd accept that if I don't check for myself. However, if they don't indicate a preference in some way, then the sources should be followed. Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reliable sources tell us what to say, but not how to say it. The analogous version for matters of style would be commonly-used style guides, many (most?) of which recommend the use of gender-neutral language. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- What I suggested is at the basic foundation of Wikipedia, follow the sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- My example was purely for illustrative purposes. The fact that it is conceivable that many sources could refer to a person by language we no longer consider acceptable is enough to cast doubt on your policy proposal. In any event, I take it you have the burden to explain why MOS:GNL should be amended to prefer gendered language when sources appear to prefer gendered language; we don't have the burden to explain why the default rule (GNL) should be retained. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- pburka, AleatoryPonderings, Please note the condition, "if one way is consistently used in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources for the article."
- A real example: Annie Rothwell was the "supreme artist" of "Canadian martial poetesses". "Poetess", sans quotation marks, is simply not encyclopedic language in contemporary English. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- This proposed policy would, in many cases, require us to use archaic language for older topics. Should we use "poetess", "lady doctor" or "Jewess" if we're relying on 19th-century sources for a biography? pburka (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, with a caveat on point 2. Point 1 is, in my view, unambiguously supported by current guidance. It's worth bringing up again that Jaguar should self-revert their changes, many of which are only still current because of edit warring. For point 2, I think it's clear GNL support chair/chairperson unless "clarity and precision" demand otherwise; I could see this happening in a number of places. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any response from Jaguar to my or others' requests to self-revert their changes. I went ahead and reverted the ones that were still current. I did not see any that were apparently required by clarity or precision, but I am happy to see local discussion commence if any of them have good reason to be 'chairman' or 'chairwoman'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree The first is certainly correct. And the second is certainly correct as a general statement. MOS:GNL says "use gender neutral", and while there are exceptions, exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Adding, discussion about other words is off-topic, and may even be a diversion. It's simple, here, to apply to, well established, well recognized words "chair", "chairperson", which are the topic of this discussion. And no, there is no broad category of assumed articles, where chair or chairperson won't do, as Jayron demonstrates (below), and the idea that we should use gendered terms for "chair" when a person's sex (meaning almost all articles of people) is known, is preposterous swallowing the rule, because chair and chairperson, are English words that are designed to be, and are to be used when the person's sex is known. Finally, in main, we don't copy sources, nor do we plagiarize them: we describe their content in our own words (as, among other things, that's the only way to freely license our articles) So, for example, given a source that says "chairwoman", in our article that says "chair", is nothing but a faithful following of the source in our own words. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree. GNL isn't "genderlessness good". MOS:GNL is quite clear in stating,
This does not apply to...wording about one-gender contexts
. So, for specific people of a known, single gender, there is no basis in guidelines to prefer "chairperson" or any other equivalent. Indeed,clarity and precision
would seem to favor using the appropriate gendered term rather than a linguistically unnatural neutral one - for example, we would say that Jane Doe is the mother of her child rather than the "parent". Perhaps in some contexts, a word like "chair" is much more common than "chairwoman", so it would be fine to use then. But overzealousness to de-gender terminology in contexts where, regarding specific individuals, it is usually gendered, is against GNL. Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- One of the conclusions of this discussion, IMO, is that "chair" is generally preferred (by style guides and WP editors) to its gendered equivalents. We are not talking about changing "mother" to "parent"; we're talking about changing "chairwoman" or "chairman" to "chair". So if we read MOS:GNL to say that we should use gendered language when it's generally used or preferred, and ungendered language when it's generally used or preferred, we'd conclude that "chair" is better. Moreover, it strikes me as implausible to read a guideline directing editors to use ungendered language as a general rule, when it can be done (as you note) with
clarity and precision
, as instead a guideline that tells editors to use whatever kind of language they would ordinarily use according to prevailing usage and opinion. Under that reading, MOS:GNL makes no change to the status quo: it just says you should use whatever language, gendered or not, you would ordinarily use. But why would we have a guideline that directs editors to … do what they would do anyway? As Alanscottwalker notes, "exceptions can't be construed to swallow the rule". If MOS:GNL says anything, it must say that the presumption is in favour of gender-neutral language, and exceptions are genuinely exceptions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, that part of GNL preferring gender-neutral language explicitly does not apply to one-gender contexts, which means almost all individuals. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- One-gender contexts like an all-female school. I think maybe you're interpreting it to mean any time someone's gender is known? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Again, that part of GNL preferring gender-neutral language explicitly does not apply to one-gender contexts, which means almost all individuals. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- One of the conclusions of this discussion, IMO, is that "chair" is generally preferred (by style guides and WP editors) to its gendered equivalents. We are not talking about changing "mother" to "parent"; we're talking about changing "chairwoman" or "chairman" to "chair". So if we read MOS:GNL to say that we should use gendered language when it's generally used or preferred, and ungendered language when it's generally used or preferred, we'd conclude that "chair" is better. Moreover, it strikes me as implausible to read a guideline directing editors to use ungendered language as a general rule, when it can be done (as you note) with
- Agree 1 and 2. MOS:GNL says
Use gender-neutral language...where this can be done with clarity and precision.
Vanishingly close to 100% of the time, context from the rest of the article determines gender in such a way that there's no need to use gender-specific versions of things like job titles. "He was the chair of the organization" or "She was a flight attendant on the aircraft" are perfectly precise and clear as to job title and gender, and avoids using gendered titles such as "chairman" or "stewardess". I can't think of a single time when using a gendered term is needed (except for things like direct quotes, or perhaps a few sui generis IAR type situations I would allow for). There simply isn't any need to use unnecessarily gendered language, it imparts no extra meaning to the article. --Jayron32 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC) - Comment - Use chairman, chairwoman or chairperson. But don't use chair. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- As noted several times above, widely used and reliable style guides recommend for "chair" and against "chairperson". --Jayron32 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I HATE the practice of referring to someone as a piece of furniture, it is what most modern style guides call for. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well said. Clearly WP must follow the published style guidelines from reliable sources, rather than the views of any individual editors who aren’t fully up with the times. MapReader (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- As the current edition of Fowler's says, "chair was already in use to mean 'the authority invested in a chairman'", so it's not a great shift from the authority to the role or position and the person in that role/position (cf crown for the authority or office of the monarch, see for that of a bishop). Fowler's also notes that chair came into use to replace chairman and chairwoman c.1976, and concludes "It is now de rigueur in all varieties of English to use this in preference to any term marked for gender." NebY (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reference is to p 133 of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, ISBN 9780191064944. For some reason, the "concise" edition is more circumspect ([10]). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Publication of the Concise Edition is clearly lagging! That's in its third edition and that section at least is adapted from the 1996 third edition or the 1998 revised third edition of the full Modern English Usage. The 4th full edition, the current one I quoted, was published in 2015. NebY (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reference is to p 133 of Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, ISBN 9780191064944. For some reason, the "concise" edition is more circumspect ([10]). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- As the current edition of Fowler's says, "chair was already in use to mean 'the authority invested in a chairman'", so it's not a great shift from the authority to the role or position and the person in that role/position (cf crown for the authority or office of the monarch, see for that of a bishop). Fowler's also notes that chair came into use to replace chairman and chairwoman c.1976, and concludes "It is now de rigueur in all varieties of English to use this in preference to any term marked for gender." NebY (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree.
- Automatically changing gender neutral language to appropriate gendered language might be a good idea if it was 100% accurate, but since that is unachievable it is a bad idea.
- I consider chairperson an abomination, but the usage chair is reasonable and is a long established usage. I see no problem using chair even when the gender is known from context. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Strong agree with both those points. And if people have been going around changing perfectly acceptable standard gender-neutral terminology, as prescribed by this and other reputable manuals of style, purely because they don't like it (and will invent pedantic distinctions that have no basis in reality, like niggling over exactly what a "single-sex context" means, to justify it) then that is a disruptive nonsense which needs to stop immediately. Tendentious editing against the global consensus on WP style, as expressed in our MOS, is tedious and timewasting for the whole community. Look at the number of people who've been drawn into this wall of text, ultimately because some people struggle to accept that WP tends to be skeptical of efforts to fix what's not broken. Suggest the instigators of this acknowledge that the equine has expired. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Clarification on capitalization in headings of BLPs beginning with numbers
Regarding the guideline found at MOS:HEAD, would it be proper for a heading beginning with a numerical value, say a year, to have it's first alphabetical word be capitalized, even if it's not the first character in the heading? Does it also make any difference if the first alphabetical word is located right after a colon? I ask because there is no specification regarding the use of this guideline with numbers, which makes it complicated to apply this with articles of many BLPs. There's another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalizations in headings that begin with numbers derived from Talk:Nicole Kidman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), where it originated, involving this as well, specifically, if section headings such as "2004-2009: Established actress", which can be found in it's main article, should have the letter "E" in the word "Established" capitalized, or lowercased. — Film Enthusiast✉ 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- No. Capitalization of headings is the same as capitalization for running text, as it all uses sentence case. You wouldn't do that in a regular sentence, would you? The first character of the sentence or heading is the one to be capitalized. Being a number, it makes no difference when it is "capitalized", but the capitalization isn't transferrable to a character other than the first one just because the first one doesn't have an "uppercase version". —El Millo (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have wondered about this. If this isn't stated in the MOS, I propose that it is. Off hand, I know I have seen many times (usually when a heading starts with year: when the following text is capped), so this would be a case of
New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue.
MB 14:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)- Sure, if it's a recurring problem it's best for us to add it. —El Millo (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is, the heading serves a different purpose than a regular sentence, as you say. It's purpose is different for a BLP than for any other article, therefore it should be applied differently IMO. The years are only there as a dating reference, but not to elaborate on what the section is about. I also agree that MOS should specify how to apply such guideline for these situations, but until then, since there's others who see this the same way, as GoodDay has shown, then I think this should be left for consensus for now, since there is no official rule saying we shouldn't capitalize a word after a number in headings. — Film Enthusiast✉ 18:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have wondered about this. If this isn't stated in the MOS, I propose that it is. Off hand, I know I have seen many times (usually when a heading starts with year: when the following text is capped), so this would be a case of
- Heading/subheading examples: "2021–present: Educator", would seem correct. Where's "2021–present: educator", would not. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Somehow the first of your two looks right, but we need more examples (here repeating your example):
- (A1)
2021–present: Educator
vs. (A2)2021–present: educator
- (B1)
2021: Educator
vs. (B2)2021: educator
- (C1)
Postwar period: Educator
vs. (C2)Postwar period: educator
- (D1)
2018 Elections
vs. (D2)2018 elections
- (E1)
2018 and 2019 Elections
vs. (E2)2018 and 2019 elections
(I hoipe we can rule out2018 And 2019 Elections
and2018 And 2019 elections
.)
- (A1)
- EEng 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Somehow the first of your two looks right, but we need more examples (here repeating your example):
- MOS:HEAD is pretty clear that headings should be in WP:SENTENCECASE. There are no special exceptions for biographies or years. If you wouldn't capitalize a word in running text you shouldn't capitalize it in a section heading. Furthermore, headings are supposed to follow the same rules as WP:TITLES, which advises against using colons except in a few limited cases. pburka (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Right, of course they're in sentence case, but there are little situations -- such as the ones I just listed -- that come up in section headings but not in sentences (or article titles, for that matter), WP:TITLES notwithstanding. Certainly bios and years (per se) have nothing to do with it, and most of the times that I've seen colons used in section headings they've been awkward and in need of changing. But the examples above certainly are possible. So I'd be interested to hear what choices people think are best. EEng 22:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- A1, B1, D2 & E2 would be acceptable. C1 should be made into a heading, sub-heading form. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. No one is disputing WP:SENTENCECASE. The issue here is when should it be applicable, on the first letter of the first alphabetical word, or should none of it be capitalized if beginning with a numerical value? Also, I agree with GoodDay regarding the acceptable usages for these specific headings, I feel the above options would be suitable as well. — Film Enthusiast✉ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're asking if 1984 is a word. It is. Never capitalize the second word unless it would be capitalized in running text. Write "1984 in film" not "1984 In film". pburka (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I feel that 1984 in film and 1984: In film (or 1984: in film if following your guidance) present two different meanings. The colon serves as the distinction between the two. Because I agree 1984 In film should not be utilized. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TITLES says "Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." Since "1984: In film" is neither of those, it's not an acceptable title or section heading and the question is moot. pburka (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does the policy apply to section headings as well? It concerns article titles, but unless I missed something, I don't see anything referring to headings. Do correct me if I'm mistaken though. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. MOS:HEAD says "Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles." pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does the policy apply to section headings as well? It concerns article titles, but unless I missed something, I don't see anything referring to headings. Do correct me if I'm mistaken though. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TITLES says "Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." Since "1984: In film" is neither of those, it's not an acceptable title or section heading and the question is moot. pburka (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I feel that 1984 in film and 1984: In film (or 1984: in film if following your guidance) present two different meanings. The colon serves as the distinction between the two. Because I agree 1984 In film should not be utilized. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're asking if 1984 is a word. It is. Never capitalize the second word unless it would be capitalized in running text. Write "1984 in film" not "1984 In film". pburka (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- EEng: I think A, B and C are all examples of titles plus subtitles. The MOS would seem to forbid subtitles in section headings, although I'm not sure if that's intentional or accidental. pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, because in the case of BLPs at least, examples like A, B, and C are there to describe what occurred during that specific year or time period, which is discussed in the respective section. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- By BLPs I'm sure you mean bios of any kind, but really that's all a red herring; the discussion is applicable to the history of anything (corporation, political movement, person). Sometimes in an actor's bio you see
1940s: Early screen career ... 1952-1956: Stage work ... 1964: Forced retirement
and I'm torn about such things. On the one hand it helps orient a reader skimming the TOC, on the other hand there's just something "Let-me-tell-you-the-fascinating-and-tragic-story-of-Mary-Megastar" about it, especially when they're like1950s: Descent into alcoholism
and1970s: Return to popularlity
. It's sits a little better, methinks, if you turn them around with parentheses:Stage work (1952-1956)
.But let's assume such things might occur somewhere. I agree with GoodDay on A1, B1, D2, E2. For C, let's suppose B and C are consecutive sections in the same article; surely it would look weird to use B1 and C2, so I guess it's got to be C1. EEng 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)- For C1, make Postwar period a heading & Educator a sub-heading, particularly if there's more then one sub-heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actually,
Stage work (1952-1956)
wouldn't be such a bad idea. If the consensus results in a definite decision to not use capitalization of the first letter in headings beginning with numbers, then that'd be a good alternative. — Film Enthusiast✉ 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)- The parenthetical years are better than colon-separated subtitles, but I'm not convinced either is necessary in most cases. None of this has anything to do with capitalization and numbers, of course. pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't there another way to reword the headings so that they comply with the MOS? The use of parentheticals that was suggested above seems to be workable. To try and carve out an exception to the MOS (whether that be MOS:TITLE, MOS:HEAD, or MOS:SECTIONCAPS) seems like the last option when all other alternative approaches have been tried and deemed unacceptable. Having said that, it does seem that the
date range <<colon>> descriptionheading is used quite a lot in many different types of articles. For example, you have Lebron James, Clayton Kershaw, Nicole Kidman, The Beatles and Apple Inc., but you also have Michael Jordan, Nolan Ryan, Halle Berry, U2 and Atari. Then, there are articles which seem to try and do a bit of both like Meryl Streep (or maybe that's just incomplete) and articles that use a comma like George Clooney and Megan Rapinoe. If the consensus is that it's bad for this one particular case, then it should be bad for all such cases, shouldn't it?. Simiarly, if it's OK for this one case, then in should be OK for all other cases as well, right? The formatting in an individual article could come down to who created the article and what "template" they were following when they did so. It also could depend on what kind of guidance is being given at the WikiProject level since articles about politicians seem to favor seem to use a parathetical approach in most cases, whereas there's more of a mix in articles about athletes, performers, etc. Many articles don't use date ranges at all in headings and they seem to be OK; so, I'm not sure they're actually needed at all. Anyway, if the consensus is that truly that thedate range <<colon>> descriptionis always inappropriate, then it seems like there's going to be lots of cleaning up to do because it makes zero sense to cleanup the Kidman article and leave the others as they are. Such a decision, however, would be best made by a formal WP:RFC with relevant WikiProjects being notified given how many articles it is likely going to affect. Otherwise, it might be a case or trying to make things work as best as possible for the Kidman article and in my opinion that would be in this order if the date ranges are considered necessary: 1. paranthetical and 2. A1. I think C1 works best if there are multiple subsections within a date range section as clarified by GoodDay (e.g. Joe Biden). Options B1 and B2 make little sense to me since why bother listing a single year at all, but I do think D2 and E2 would be always preferable over D1 and E1 (except when there are proper nouns involved). In general, I don't think C2 should ever be preferrable over C1 if the consensus is that C1 is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't there another way to reword the headings so that they comply with the MOS? The use of parentheticals that was suggested above seems to be workable. To try and carve out an exception to the MOS (whether that be MOS:TITLE, MOS:HEAD, or MOS:SECTIONCAPS) seems like the last option when all other alternative approaches have been tried and deemed unacceptable. Having said that, it does seem that the
- The parenthetical years are better than colon-separated subtitles, but I'm not convinced either is necessary in most cases. None of this has anything to do with capitalization and numbers, of course. pburka (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Actually,
- For C1, make Postwar period a heading & Educator a sub-heading, particularly if there's more then one sub-heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- By BLPs I'm sure you mean bios of any kind, but really that's all a red herring; the discussion is applicable to the history of anything (corporation, political movement, person). Sometimes in an actor's bio you see
- Not necessarily, because in the case of BLPs at least, examples like A, B, and C are there to describe what occurred during that specific year or time period, which is discussed in the respective section. — Film Enthusiast✉ 00:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, looks like another fascinating thread has collapsed under its own weight. EEng 23:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
RfC on linking non-major countries
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking § RfC: Linking non-major countries. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thread that could use broader input
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Bot task for adding MDY tags to U.S.-related articles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Collapsing footnotes
Is there a policy for (or against) collapsing footnotes like this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would imagine MOS:PRECOLLAPSE in this case. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Why would one want to hide the footnotes? They're already footnotes and, anyway, there are only three of them there, plus they're small.
- It almost doesn't matter on that page though; that one table alone is something of an accessibility disaster. The whole page is really for people with good eyes, wide displays and a lot of patience. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- The party breakdowns look like those pictures the doctor shows you to test for colorblindness. EEng 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- totally agree about hiding footnotes, but the page owner feels otherwise. Frietjes (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe we should have a policy about ownership of content. But how would we draft such a thing? Hmmm. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's cool that a discussion has been opened on the issue. Would have been even cooler if I had been pinged on this to have a say, rather than coming into this by chance to find some ugly accusations being thrown against me on my back (including WP:OWN, despite I myself having widely accepted one of Frietjes's proposed versions of the collapsible table and no attempt of formal discussion having been made by the bold editor (note WP:BRD is there to be considered as well)). As far as I see, these edits went far beyond what was initially the subject of this discussion (the collapsing footnotes), including a massive overhaul of the table without any consideration for consistency with other articles and with many edits that did not even revolve on any policy-based reason. In particular, we see this edit removing the columns' width to make them "take care of themselves" while simulataneously letting the footnotes' width on the loose, effectively turning the table into an oversized feature with a lot of wasted space (guess this is what comes from ill-thought edits that, seemingly, seek to preserve the essence of "coding" disregarding the actual presentation of it afterwards). I don't find what's the policy-based reason for this change, either. It's basically as if this has been used as an excuse to implement a particular, preferred version of the table.
- On this, I would say that what this editor may not know is that the current table's design is, mostly, a result of years and years of contributions by many editors (not specifically in this article, but for previous ones, with the resulting design being implemented in all of them), and is thus a very stable and consensuated affair, even if, at the very least, through WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Many improvements have been added throughout the years, there having been countless versions of the table until arriving to the current one. Obviously, Wikipedia is a work in progress and new improvements are welcome, but I think improvement does not come through in-the-back discussions (with possible aspersions being cast to ridicule a particular editor) and rush editing.
- Now, entering on the actual policy-based issues brought forward: On the issue of MOS:PRECOLLAPSE, it only advices for avoiding auto-collapsed tables, not for avoiding using collapsible tables at all (one would have to ask, then, why templates such as Hidden exist; which, btw, have the auto-collapsed function enabled by default). MOS:COLLAPSE is also mentioned: while it is true that it advices against collapsing in general, it then provides for how to proceed when such function is used (again, templates for collapsing do exist, the collapsible function does exist in wikitables, and those have not been deprecated). It is not a general prohibition for collapsing, and in this case collapsing is used to avoid moving the focus from the table away from its main purpose, which is to present election results; footnotes are an annex to it that should only be made available when additional input is sought. It is not a whim, but a result of a well-thought process that has been evolving through the years.
- Now, I'm more than willing to discuss any possible issues that may exist with the table's design so that we may collaboratively improve it. I think one such improvement has been already made by fixing the footnotes section with Frietjes's proposal. I will be glad to participate in such effort. Cheers! :) Impru20talk 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- WRT your question --
why templates such as Hidden exist; which, btw, have the auto-collapsed function enabled by default
-- the answer is: there's huge amounts of deprecated junk around created by people before it was realized that it's not a good idea to use it. Also, some stuff is used in project space but not article space. EEng 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- WRT your question --
- Maybe we should have a policy about ownership of content. But how would we draft such a thing? Hmmm. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Drag performer pronouns
Is there a community consensus on which pronouns we use for drag performers? For example, it is quite common for reliable sources to use she/her when referring to a cis man in drag, even when that person prefers he/him pronouns out of it. Likewise, there are non-binary people who use they/them pronouns out of drag, but again use she/her pronouns while in drag. How does WP:GENDERID apply in this regard?
Should this distinction be made in the article namespace, or is this too confusing to read? I've noticed a general tendency to go for gender-neutral pronouns when this is unclear, even when this goes against reliable sources (and sometimes even against the subject's preference), but I don't think this is the right way to go for the majority of drag performers. (I'm mainly focusing on drag queens here, but I assume the same applies to drag kings too.)
I'm aware that we're talking about broad generalisations here so I don't expect a consensus to emerge, but I'm wondering if this has been brought up before. —AFreshStart (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm far from a subject matter expert here but it was always my assumption that a drag act is a character just as much as any other acted role, the role and the portrayer need not be treated the same. For example, Paul de Leeuw is a male actor, Annie de Rooij is a female character, to say "he" plays "her" would be accurate there. I'd follow the sources when it comes to gendering either, probably using "they" when there is any doubt or lack of clarity. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- There was a discussion about this a year ago: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 220#WP:Surname and MOS:GENDERID with regard to drag queen articles. pburka (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- How is it handled at Tootsie? -- GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is a nightmare. [11] EEng 12:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion about capitalization of Go
I'm looking to increase participation in a discussion about documenting the convention of capitalizing the name of the board game Go at MOS:GAMECAPS. Coastside (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
"Wheelchair-bound"
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the use of the phrase "wheelchair-bound" taking place at Talk:Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film); any additional input would be welcome. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- There seem to have been a number of similar edits taking place lately. @Persicifolia: Has there already been a central discussion about this somewhere? If no, I suggest we have one here rather than at individual articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, no this isn't part of an organised action - I think there's already a consensus on this, MOS:DISAB is clear 'wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' should be avoided so I thought I was just clearing up. Most of WP already uses 'wheelchair user' and other preferred terms. The AP style guide is clear here [12] as is the UK gov [13] and the Guardian style guide [14]. There's actually only been one reversion and discussion so far, as above, and at the moment that's actually been reverted to my edit (not by me, obviously!). All other articles, including protected ones like Morrissey, have accepted the change so far. I am pretty new here though, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ has been helpful in pointing out that eg the AP style guide is a particularly good source to refer to. Persicifolia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just became aware of this thread. MOS:DISAB seems to be an essay on style. Why is this not WP policy, a part of MOS proper? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's never been properly proposed as as a project-wide MOS (it came out of the Disability Wikiproject but never vetted by the community) and the fact that it was implied to be an official MOS or style guide had problems in the past , based on its talk page. It would take an RFC to make that part of MOS proper. --Masem (t) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks. And that project-wide RFC would need to take place here, right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a broader RFC on this; it seems like a good idea for us to implement it both for reader-friendliness and for following common style guides (the AP Stylebook, for example, recommends it, as do a breadth of guides listed on the other talk page). I know the broader recommendations at the MOS:DISAB page were rejected as an official guide not too long ago but that focussed solely on the recommendation for people-first language ("person with autism" over "autistic person"); a discussion solely on this application would at least allow it to be judged on its merits alone. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X, Fowler&fowler, Masem, et al. I have on several occasions (the most recent just a few sections above) appealed for assistance from "MOS specialist" editors to help improve the Disability WikiProject's style advice page (with the aim of eventual inclusion in the MOS) but have yet to receive a positive response. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was in favour of it then and am still in favour of it now. I'm far from a "specialist" but am more than happy to continue supporting the kind of language advised by style guides, health officials, and public bodies. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- There may be a chicken-egg problem here. Likely the better way to proceed is whether MOS should have a page to handle language related to disabilities, with the current project page to be used as a starting point but with full recognition that its "style" can be improved by a MOS specialist to bring it in line with other parts of MOS without losing its substance, such that the RFC is reviewing the concepts already on there, and ignoring that its not presently a perfect fit into the MOS. Assuming that RFC passed for inclusion, that would give the need for those skilled at MOS writing to help improve it. --Masem (t) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I was in favour of it then and am still in favour of it now. I'm far from a "specialist" but am more than happy to continue supporting the kind of language advised by style guides, health officials, and public bodies. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Carried from that conversation, the following all expressly prefer "use/user" language over "bound" or "confined": UK government style guide, the NDA (Ireland's statutory body on disability), Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility, the Guardian, American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, and the Associated Press Stylebook. This is by no means exhaustive but should show that we're not discussing a fringe preference here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Grapple X, Fowler&fowler, Masem, et al. I have on several occasions (the most recent just a few sections above) appealed for assistance from "MOS specialist" editors to help improve the Disability WikiProject's style advice page (with the aim of eventual inclusion in the MOS) but have yet to receive a positive response. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind a broader RFC on this; it seems like a good idea for us to implement it both for reader-friendliness and for following common style guides (the AP Stylebook, for example, recommends it, as do a breadth of guides listed on the other talk page). I know the broader recommendations at the MOS:DISAB page were rejected as an official guide not too long ago but that focussed solely on the recommendation for people-first language ("person with autism" over "autistic person"); a discussion solely on this application would at least allow it to be judged on its merits alone. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks. And that project-wide RFC would need to take place here, right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's never been properly proposed as as a project-wide MOS (it came out of the Disability Wikiproject but never vetted by the community) and the fact that it was implied to be an official MOS or style guide had problems in the past , based on its talk page. It would take an RFC to make that part of MOS proper. --Masem (t) 15:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just became aware of this thread. MOS:DISAB seems to be an essay on style. Why is this not WP policy, a part of MOS proper? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, no this isn't part of an organised action - I think there's already a consensus on this, MOS:DISAB is clear 'wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' should be avoided so I thought I was just clearing up. Most of WP already uses 'wheelchair user' and other preferred terms. The AP style guide is clear here [12] as is the UK gov [13] and the Guardian style guide [14]. There's actually only been one reversion and discussion so far, as above, and at the moment that's actually been reverted to my edit (not by me, obviously!). All other articles, including protected ones like Morrissey, have accepted the change so far. I am pretty new here though, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ has been helpful in pointing out that eg the AP style guide is a particularly good source to refer to. Persicifolia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep in mind what George Carlin said about softening language. Changing the name of the condition, doesn't change the condition. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay What did George Carlin say about it, and what qualifies his opinion as authorotative? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Observe his video about euphemisms. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- (ROGER reads the response from GOODDAY, and based on the helpful information therein, extends his left arm to the small shelf with a comprehensive collection of George Carlin videos, labelled and sorted by subject, sitting on ROGER's table next to him. ROGER quickly extracts the one video on euphemisms, and pops it into his video player.)
- ROGER: Ah! I am enlightened!
- (ROGER ejects the "euphemisms" video from his player and files it again on his shelf. The TOWNSPEOPLE react, talking quietly among themselves at this development.)
- LIGHTS fade to black. Curtain. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- YouTube, would be quicker. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- * APPLAUSE Seriously, though, probably talking about this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Makes you wonder: when someone's suing a drunk driver, does their attorney tell the jury that his client "is now a wheelchair user"? Or does he say, "My client will be confined to a wheelchair for life"? Context matters. EEng 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- * APPLAUSE Seriously, though, probably talking about this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- YouTube, would be quicker. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Observe his video about euphemisms. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Notifying WT:MEDMOS of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, I think that's one of the main points behind opposition to this language: "wheelchair-bound" is often an inaccurate description of the facts. Many people "use" wheelchairs; only a few are "bound" to them. It is not unusual for a wheelchair user to be able to stand up for brief time periods or to be able to take a step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Saying that someone who can stand and take one step isn't wheelchair-bound is like saying a diabetic who can go all day without insulin isn't insulin-dependent. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly that phrase should only be used when the sources indicate that someone is, indeed, "bound" to their chair. I don't think that amounts to a need to deprecate, though. Primergrey (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- None of us are literally "bound" to our wheelchairs though, one reason why this is bad terminology that is recommended against in every style guide I've seen. We sit in chairs, sleep in beds etc etc, even if we cannot walk at all. I started these edits, only one out of more than 100 was reverted. Again, here's the AP Stylebook [15]. These discussions have all been hashed out elsewhere, amongst disabled people, decades ago. Persicifolia (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ahem. Differently abled people. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I know you have a tendency for levity but I don't believe this is the time or place to be sarcastic about the civility we show our editors and readers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well I identify as a disabled person E as that's what I am - as do most disabled people I know. (See also the style guides linked above, which don't agree with you on 'differently' etc.) Persicifolia (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not being sarcastic in the least. Rather, as always[1] I'm using humor to point out something serious, to wit that there's huge disagreement among the disabled (or differently abled, or handicapped, or physcially disadvantaged, or crippled) about appropriate forms of reference, and that even someone such as Grapple – striving to use appropriate terms – might run afoul of one faction or another in that debate. In fact it's almost unavoidable to run afoul of some faction.For example, while no one (that I know of, anyway) actually advocates differently abled anymore (though there was a time ...), there are certainly people who bristle at your phrasing "He is a handicapped person" instead of "He is a person with a handicap". EEng 01:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had an aunt and uncle who used wheelchairs. Both rose above the situation and did everything possible to not limit themselves. I've seen my uncle carry 2 ft x 2 ft concrete pavers in his wheelchair across sand - that takes determination. Both drove cars (special hand controls). Both were intelligent and had good office jobs. And never say the word "disabled" around my aunt if you don't want a tongue lashing. "Wheelchair-bound" makes you defined by the chair. As my aunt and uncle showed, they were not defined by their chairs. Properly speaking they were paraplegics (their legs don't work). More severe cases can be quadriplegics (all 4 limbs don't work). There can be other reasons. The wheelchair is just a visible tool, not a definition. Stepho talk 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok so, if us disabled people are so impossible to please (which seems to be your contention E), yet a consensus has nonetheless been reached in every mainstream style guide out there that a particular term - eg 'wheelchair-bound' - is objectionable, what would be the reason for disregarding that? Persicifolia (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, I said nothing like
impossible to please
; I said there were differences of opinion. I'm particularly tickled by this admonition by AP [16]:Cripple: Often considered offensive when used to describe a person who is lame or disabled.
I'm pretty sure Stepho-wrs's unc and auntie wouldn't have liked being called lame.To be clear, BTW, I actually think that phrasing such as "used a wheelchair after an accident in 1993" is probably best for the run-of-the-mill situation, but there may be times that dependence on the device may be appropriate to emphasize e.g. "Wheelchair-bound passengers presented a special problem in planning the evacuation", because there are users of wheelchair who really are immobile without them, and those who, with great effort, can get off the burning train or whatever without the machine. EEng 02:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC) And it's "We disabled are impossible to please". Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar.- Some wheelchair users presented a special problem in planning the evacuation. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Nonambulatory passengers". Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Some wheelchair users presented a special problem in planning the evacuation. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, I said nothing like
- Ok so, if us disabled people are so impossible to please (which seems to be your contention E), yet a consensus has nonetheless been reached in every mainstream style guide out there that a particular term - eg 'wheelchair-bound' - is objectionable, what would be the reason for disregarding that? Persicifolia (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had an aunt and uncle who used wheelchairs. Both rose above the situation and did everything possible to not limit themselves. I've seen my uncle carry 2 ft x 2 ft concrete pavers in his wheelchair across sand - that takes determination. Both drove cars (special hand controls). Both were intelligent and had good office jobs. And never say the word "disabled" around my aunt if you don't want a tongue lashing. "Wheelchair-bound" makes you defined by the chair. As my aunt and uncle showed, they were not defined by their chairs. Properly speaking they were paraplegics (their legs don't work). More severe cases can be quadriplegics (all 4 limbs don't work). There can be other reasons. The wheelchair is just a visible tool, not a definition. Stepho talk 02:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not being sarcastic in the least. Rather, as always[1] I'm using humor to point out something serious, to wit that there's huge disagreement among the disabled (or differently abled, or handicapped, or physcially disadvantaged, or crippled) about appropriate forms of reference, and that even someone such as Grapple – striving to use appropriate terms – might run afoul of one faction or another in that debate. In fact it's almost unavoidable to run afoul of some faction.For example, while no one (that I know of, anyway) actually advocates differently abled anymore (though there was a time ...), there are certainly people who bristle at your phrasing "He is a handicapped person" instead of "He is a person with a handicap". EEng 01:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well I identify as a disabled person E as that's what I am - as do most disabled people I know. (See also the style guides linked above, which don't agree with you on 'differently' etc.) Persicifolia (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I know you have a tendency for levity but I don't believe this is the time or place to be sarcastic about the civility we show our editors and readers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Persicifolia, some people actually are "bound" into wheelchairs (or any other chair they might use). Positioning belts, "seat belts", and other devices are sometimes used to reduce the risk of someone falling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ahem. Differently abled people. EEng 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- None of us are literally "bound" to our wheelchairs though, one reason why this is bad terminology that is recommended against in every style guide I've seen. We sit in chairs, sleep in beds etc etc, even if we cannot walk at all. I started these edits, only one out of more than 100 was reverted. Again, here's the AP Stylebook [15]. These discussions have all been hashed out elsewhere, amongst disabled people, decades ago. Persicifolia (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- GoodDay, I think that's one of the main points behind opposition to this language: "wheelchair-bound" is often an inaccurate description of the facts. Many people "use" wheelchairs; only a few are "bound" to them. It is not unusual for a wheelchair user to be able to stand up for brief time periods or to be able to take a step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
So, it's up to the Wiki-community to decide what terminology to use & if it'll be used across the board 'or' on a bio-by-bio basis. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- One particular thing keeps coming up and I want to be clear - 'wheelchair-bound' is considered offensive (and yes ableist) whether the person referred to can walk and stand or not. Of course sometimes there's a need to clarify whether we're talking about somebody who cannot walk at all or someone who uses a wheelchair part-time. Either 'a full-time wheelchair user' or to be more specific 'cannot walk at all' works for the former, and 'ambulatory wheelchair user', 'occasional wheelchair user' or 'sometimes uses a wheelchair' for the latter. (And incidentally in many articles on WP the sources are not clear, and 'wheelchair-bound' is actually being used to mean 'seen in a wheelchair'.) Persicifolia (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- But "full-time wheelchair user" can't really be right -- don't they sleep in beds? If "wheelchair-bound" is offensive because it's not literally true, then why isn't "full-time wheelchair user" offensive for its incomplete truth as well? I'm not joking about this (though if I brought in the concept of "college-bound high school student", then I'd be joking -- though not entirely, actually). EEng 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Because it's the word 'bound' that is offensive. We are not bound to our wheelchairs. We do however use them full-time. A bit like people who work full-time. Who also sleep. Generally not in their place of work. Persicifolia (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- "I have been wheelchair-bound for almost four decades and the chance to float free in zero-G will be wonderful." – Stephen Hawking[2]
- Because it's the word 'bound' that is offensive. We are not bound to our wheelchairs. We do however use them full-time. A bit like people who work full-time. Who also sleep. Generally not in their place of work. Persicifolia (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- But "full-time wheelchair user" can't really be right -- don't they sleep in beds? If "wheelchair-bound" is offensive because it's not literally true, then why isn't "full-time wheelchair user" offensive for its incomplete truth as well? I'm not joking about this (though if I brought in the concept of "college-bound high school student", then I'd be joking -- though not entirely, actually). EEng 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking about the Hawking quote, I was curious about first-person usage. Based on hits at newspapers.com, ""I am wheelchair-bound" is twice as frequent as "I am a wheelchair user" in recent years. For example, "My home of many years has several problems for me to deal with because I am wheelchair-bound." (The Pantagraph, 2018); "It allows me to see something that I can easily produce, especially on days I am wheelchair bound," he said. (News-Press, 2018); "Although I am now wheelchair bound, I used a cane as my walking deteriorated." (The Boston Globe, 2019); "My Mother's Day was different this year as I am still wheelchair bound ..." (The Winona Times, 2021); "I am a wheelchair-bound Marblehead voter, and I strongly urge Massachusetts to establish voting by mail." (The Boston Globe, 2020). Doremo (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is because you are sampling a demographic which was born and raised when "wheelchair-bound" was common parlance. Sample the under-40s, the Paralympians, the soldiers whose legs were blown off in the 21st-century. Long after Black or African-American had become de rigueur for newspapers, many older Blacks were still referring to themselves as colored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- And you were there to tell them they shouldn't do that, that they're complicit in their own oppression by not adopting the hip new with-it term? And as for Hawking, well, he wasn't what you'd call a thoughtful person so he was just using wheelchair bound unthinkingly and without considering the subtle social effects of his words. Not really that bright, he. EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, of course not. But language does evolve, even when the brightest among us continue to use terms that are now considered by many offensive. RS don't use the word 'retarded' any more, but there are absolutely people who still use that word to describe themselves and don't consider it hurtful or offensive. —valereee (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- And now "people of color" is de rigueur. The search for sensitive and inclusive language can sometimes look like a dog chasing its tail. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- And you were there to tell them they shouldn't do that, that they're complicit in their own oppression by not adopting the hip new with-it term? And as for Hawking, well, he wasn't what you'd call a thoughtful person so he was just using wheelchair bound unthinkingly and without considering the subtle social effects of his words. Not really that bright, he. EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is because you are sampling a demographic which was born and raised when "wheelchair-bound" was common parlance. Sample the under-40s, the Paralympians, the soldiers whose legs were blown off in the 21st-century. Long after Black or African-American had become de rigueur for newspapers, many older Blacks were still referring to themselves as colored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking about the Hawking quote, I was curious about first-person usage. Based on hits at newspapers.com, ""I am wheelchair-bound" is twice as frequent as "I am a wheelchair user" in recent years. For example, "My home of many years has several problems for me to deal with because I am wheelchair-bound." (The Pantagraph, 2018); "It allows me to see something that I can easily produce, especially on days I am wheelchair bound," he said. (News-Press, 2018); "Although I am now wheelchair bound, I used a cane as my walking deteriorated." (The Boston Globe, 2019); "My Mother's Day was different this year as I am still wheelchair bound ..." (The Winona Times, 2021); "I am a wheelchair-bound Marblehead voter, and I strongly urge Massachusetts to establish voting by mail." (The Boston Globe, 2020). Doremo (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Making note of the article that began this discussion (and which I've also posted at), we should decide whether or not to use the same terminology for 'real people' and 'fictional characters'. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to make the same point. It's crucial to the story that Dr. Strangleove be wheelchair-bound (or, if you prefer, confined). EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've said on the other talk page: We paraphrase not for the character's milieu or time, but for ours. We cannot describe Uncle Tom's Cabin as a story of negro life in the slave states of America, even though that is the novel's alternate title Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by paraphrasing for our time. It's clear from this discussion that wheelchair-using includes people who can stand and walk (to some extent, under some circumstances) and so to describe Strangelove that way makes ambiguous a point which must not be ambiguous i.e. he is completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair i.e. wheelchair-bound. In other words: there are times when that wording is appropriate. EEng 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you were determined to avoid that term, you could write that he is "completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair", which might be even clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would just like to reiterate that the article under discussion Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film), is a low-budget made-for-TV comic book adaptation, with a version of comic book character Arnim Zola who is an evil psychic Nazi in a wheelchair. Zola is basically the B-villain of the film, and his physical condition is a minor plot point, just enough to set the scene. Saying more than "wheelchair-bound" is frankly an undue amount of attention to this point. Perhaps the plot summary could do without mention of it at all. BD2412 T 06:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ironside (1967 TV series) uses "reliance on a wheelchair". Whatever ya'll decide, is fine with me. Political correctness, doesn't influence or shape my stance. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: but see this recent edit to that article. BD2412 T 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh geez. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The budget of the production, morals or the character, and whether you think it's any good or not, have no bearing on whether we use inclusive language or not. We wouldn't use the N word to describe a character just because they're an evil villain in a straight-to-DVD trash film, and that should not play a part in our determination of encyclopedic and modern-style language. — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- So wheelchair-bound is comparable to the n-word (because they both have to do with human bondage, I guess)? Sure. That's definitely an appropriate analogy. EEng 11:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- The budget of the production, morals or the character, and whether you think it's any good or not, have no bearing on whether we use inclusive language or not. We wouldn't use the N word to describe a character just because they're an evil villain in a straight-to-DVD trash film, and that should not play a part in our determination of encyclopedic and modern-style language. — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh geez. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: but see this recent edit to that article. BD2412 T 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ironside (1967 TV series) uses "reliance on a wheelchair". Whatever ya'll decide, is fine with me. Political correctness, doesn't influence or shape my stance. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would just like to reiterate that the article under discussion Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film), is a low-budget made-for-TV comic book adaptation, with a version of comic book character Arnim Zola who is an evil psychic Nazi in a wheelchair. Zola is basically the B-villain of the film, and his physical condition is a minor plot point, just enough to set the scene. Saying more than "wheelchair-bound" is frankly an undue amount of attention to this point. Perhaps the plot summary could do without mention of it at all. BD2412 T 06:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you were determined to avoid that term, you could write that he is "completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair", which might be even clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by paraphrasing for our time. It's clear from this discussion that wheelchair-using includes people who can stand and walk (to some extent, under some circumstances) and so to describe Strangelove that way makes ambiguous a point which must not be ambiguous i.e. he is completely dependent for his mobility on the wheelchair i.e. wheelchair-bound. In other words: there are times when that wording is appropriate. EEng 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've said on the other talk page: We paraphrase not for the character's milieu or time, but for ours. We cannot describe Uncle Tom's Cabin as a story of negro life in the slave states of America, even though that is the novel's alternate title Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to make the same point. It's crucial to the story that Dr. Strangleove be wheelchair-bound (or, if you prefer, confined). EEng 17:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- The mistake that keeps getting made in these discussions is to offer the uninformed and the overly self-opinionated a platform and let them dominate it. Do you think is his how the UK government or the NHS or Associated Press wrote their style guides on language choice about disability and other health and social issues? Did they pop down to the high street and randomly ask shoppers who had never thought about the subject before to give their opinion? Or perhaps they searched out the people who rant and moan in forums and on twitter and made sure their egos got the much needed boost their sad souls crave? Do you think they got bogged down in distractions about Marvel comics and the N-word? Or allowed an anti-woke libertarian to frustrate all attempts to direct writers towards better language choices? Do you think the UK government decided that it should "follow and not lead" and wait for a majority of UN countries first? Or perhaps the Associated Press insisted their style guide can only document typical practice rather than inform writers about best practice? Or do you think perhaps some of them actually considered that they themselves might not know, and so go and ask other people and other groups.ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ above listed many guides from a wide variety of authorities. What makes us so arrogant to think we might know better than them? Why do we end up with arguments about whether or not User:X thinks a word might be perceived as offensive but User:Y thinks the etymology permits a neutral interpretation and User:Z's grandmother's opinion. Yet strangely we are happy to defer to dictionaries to inform us about what words mean, and insist the facts in our articles come from authoritative sources, and follow style guides for most other things.The people we are trying to write about here are often stigmatised, face prejudice and discrimination, and find their disability increased by the unthinking choices made by the majority. There are people and groups and authoritative bodies who are far better informed and experienced who have already had these discussions. They have done so in a professional and respectful manner, rather than for laughs and trolls. We should recognise this is not a topic where the crowd is wise, but one where the community should consult the professionals and follow best practice. On Wikipedia, that shouldn't be a radical idea, because it is how we write articles. -- Colin°Talk 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with Colin above. The usual too many cooks problem here. Go with a) what reputable style guides have already done the work on for general use cases, and b)if its contextually relevant as some of the examples EEng points out, just use what the source uses. I will say as a disabled person that yes, arguing over terminology is a blight upon progress in accessibility. You cant please everyone, and there are factions of activists who enjoy this sort of arguing. I have spent far too much time over the years dealing with the various deaf-activist loons that as soon as people start telling me what words I should be using to describe myself I tune them out. The vast majority of ordinary people with disabilities do not ultimately care about the subtle textual differences between 'disabled' and 'person with disability' they really only care that said disability is addressed. Just go with whatever the majority of reputable style guides use and be done with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for Only in death. Colin, not so much because he caricatures intelligent editors who are simply advocating flexibility where the situation calls for it (e.g. Dr. Strangelove). EEng 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) P.S. for Colin: your indentation praactices violate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
- Can you please demonstrate the indentation fix that sorts the MOS:ACCESSIBILITY in my edit. Thanks. -- Colin°Talk 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your wish is my command: [17], which then allows those who follow you to use proper indentation as well [18], which they couldn't do once you'd thrown things off track. You understand, I hope, the import of my making this picayune point. EEng 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. And it isn't a petty issue and typifies how unthinking writers can unconsciously make things worse for others, and benefit from being corrected. Only in death makes a great point that you can't please everyone. That's an advantage of deferring to an external source. It no longer becomes our problem to please everyone, but rather to find an end to the edit warring and debates. It isn't Wikipedia's purpose to debate the best form of writing about such matters, so doing so is a cost, a distraction, and one that often makes editors cross with each other. In all the debates we have had, has anyone said something mind blowingly novel? Do we think we are original in arguing whether the binding in wheelchair bound is physical or metaphorical? That nobody else has ever discussed alternative wordings? No. We are just bringing a source of disagreement in the world and making it our problem, and that's not wise. It is particularly not wise when brighter people who are actually paid to come to an agreement have already done so and published their recommendations. Let's make it someone else's problem, choosing as wisely as we choose our reliable sources for facts, but then deferring to them. In contrast, nobody else in the world has to work out how best to use MediaWiki markup to thread a discussion in a way that is easily understood and accessible. So debating and documenting the best way to do that is very much more productive. -- Colin°Talk 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is "our problem" though; we are ones writing and encyclopedia here. You make a good argument to follow AP and the other style guidelines in this issue, but it's not a bad idea to first have some reasonable discussion about it. Otherwise we might as well just copy-paste the whole AP right now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. And it isn't a petty issue and typifies how unthinking writers can unconsciously make things worse for others, and benefit from being corrected. Only in death makes a great point that you can't please everyone. That's an advantage of deferring to an external source. It no longer becomes our problem to please everyone, but rather to find an end to the edit warring and debates. It isn't Wikipedia's purpose to debate the best form of writing about such matters, so doing so is a cost, a distraction, and one that often makes editors cross with each other. In all the debates we have had, has anyone said something mind blowingly novel? Do we think we are original in arguing whether the binding in wheelchair bound is physical or metaphorical? That nobody else has ever discussed alternative wordings? No. We are just bringing a source of disagreement in the world and making it our problem, and that's not wise. It is particularly not wise when brighter people who are actually paid to come to an agreement have already done so and published their recommendations. Let's make it someone else's problem, choosing as wisely as we choose our reliable sources for facts, but then deferring to them. In contrast, nobody else in the world has to work out how best to use MediaWiki markup to thread a discussion in a way that is easily understood and accessible. So debating and documenting the best way to do that is very much more productive. -- Colin°Talk 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your wish is my command: [17], which then allows those who follow you to use proper indentation as well [18], which they couldn't do once you'd thrown things off track. You understand, I hope, the import of my making this picayune point. EEng 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can you please demonstrate the indentation fix that sorts the MOS:ACCESSIBILITY in my edit. Thanks. -- Colin°Talk 16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- +1 for Only in death. Colin, not so much because he caricatures intelligent editors who are simply advocating flexibility where the situation calls for it (e.g. Dr. Strangelove). EEng 16:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) P.S. for Colin: your indentation praactices violate MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
- I broadly agree with Colin above. The usual too many cooks problem here. Go with a) what reputable style guides have already done the work on for general use cases, and b)if its contextually relevant as some of the examples EEng points out, just use what the source uses. I will say as a disabled person that yes, arguing over terminology is a blight upon progress in accessibility. You cant please everyone, and there are factions of activists who enjoy this sort of arguing. I have spent far too much time over the years dealing with the various deaf-activist loons that as soon as people start telling me what words I should be using to describe myself I tune them out. The vast majority of ordinary people with disabilities do not ultimately care about the subtle textual differences between 'disabled' and 'person with disability' they really only care that said disability is addressed. Just go with whatever the majority of reputable style guides use and be done with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I feel that this discussion is going on in two places at once, but the context is important. No one is suggesting that real living people should be described as wheelchair-bound. The genesis of this discussion was with a series of edits in which one editor changed this wording without discussion across a number of articles on fictional characters. In some cases, these characters are specifically depicted by their authors as wheelchair-bound, and never shown being able to move about or engage in any activity without use of a wheelchair. In the case of the fictional Arnim Zola, this is no doubt to provide a contrast against the powerful evil of his mind, despite his physical condition. In others, it is to depict the struggle of the character against their own perceived limitations. A one-size-fits-all rule directed at greater human enlightenment doesn't fit these cases, and makes for particularly awkward and forced writing in a fictional plot description noting the condition of the character just enough to convey what the work of fiction actually conveys. BD2412 T 18:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I and other editors have tried to explain this to you several times now. It does not matter that a term is used to describe someone fictional, someone living, someone dead. The term is the issue, not the article. It is seen by our readers, by our editors, by anyone who mirrors our content. If public health bodies, national governments, widely-used style guides all advocate something, and your only go-to excuse is that none of that is important because you can't understand that our language affects real people regardless of which article it appears in, I genuinely do not know how else to engage with you. It would not matter if the article that sparked this was about a film character, or a comic book character, or about any living, dead, fictional, mythological, or hypothetical person, because our readers are not fictional, they are flesh and blood human beings. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:EUPHEMISM states
Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense.
If "wheelchair-bound" actually causes offense because of its wording, then fine, we should find other direct wording that states the same thing. HOWEVER, if the offense is caused by the very fact of describing certain people as being unable to leave their wheelchairs, then we should continue to describe them as unable to leave their wheelchairs, and not cast around for euphemisms that avoid saying that. The keyword in the EUPHEMISM quote is "unnecessary". Sometimes saying things clearly and directly will cause offense, but it is still necessary to say those things clearly and directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)- But no assumption is being made—once again, a list of sources has provided that state, not assume, that the term should be avoided. I fail to see why we should cast around for excuses to ignore all of these sources in favour of acting counter to them, which feels like the most "unnecessary" aspect of all of this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because neither those sources nor your comments here clarify whether what is to be avoided is that specific wording, or any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs. If it is only that specific wording, then we need another specific direct and to-the-point replacement wording. If you are looking for Wikipedia to avoid any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs, you are doing the wrong thing. We need to know which it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- They specifically and in clear terms say not to use "wheelchair-bound" (and "confined to a wheelchair"). Gov.uk--"avoid ... wheelchair-bound", "use ... wheelchair user". NDA--"Term no longer in use: wheelchair-bound". NHS--"Words to avoid ... wheelchair bound - implies burden or being confined". AP Stylebook--"We do not use the wording confined to a wheelchair or wheelchair-bound. People use wheelchairs for independent mobility. If a wheelchair is needed, and the description is relevant, say why. The term wheelchair user when relevant is OK". They very much clarify this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are either not understanding or deliberately missing the point. Replacing "wheelchair-bound" by "wheelchair user" as they recommend is NOT a simple direct replacement, because it does not convey the same information. And the advice you quote fails to explain whether the reason for the changed wording is to avoid some specific negative connotation of the "-bound" wording, or whether it is to avoid telling people that they're permanently stuck in wheelchairs. It makes an important difference to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you need to convey a difference between someone who users a wheelchair full time and someone who does not, you can simply say that, but "bound" is uniformly rejected by these sources, it isn't rejected "in some cases". If it's important for context to note that a wheelchair is someone's only means of ambulation then we can simply say "full-time wheelchair user", or in the inverse, we can specify "ambulatory wheelchair user" for someone for whom it is not their only means of movement. But what is clear, uniform, and undisputed amongst all the sources is that the term "bound" is to be avoided, not only sometimes. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're still casting around for ways to not say that someone is permanently in a wheelchair. "Full-time wheelchair user" does not convey that meaning. It could well describe someone who can walk and has fulltime employment pushing other people around in wheelchairs at airports or whatever. Simple. Direct. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that he's casting around for ways not to say that someone is permanently in a wheelchair. I think he is repeating that there are ways to accurately describe the fact that someone uses a wheelchair without using a term that offends some people and is usually inaccurate. (Did you know that 90% of wheelchair users don't have a spinal cord injury?)
- Also, even total dependency is not always permanent. I have had the pleasure of seeing, over the space of several years, a local man go from being barely capable of moving his wheelchair to being able to sit up securely, maneuver it well, and even to stand briefly. I know very little about him except what anyone can see of another person at a bus stop, but he's in the right demographics to be a veteran of the Iraq War.
- More relevantly for Wikipedia, consider this statement from an article:
- Upshaw was wheelchair-bound for seven years, but gradually regained the ability to walk with crutches. His condition eventually improved enough that he told newspaper reporters that he was able to walk several steps unaided.
- If you think that "wheelchair-bound" means that Upshaw needed to use a wheelchair permanently, then presumably you think this sentence is wrong. If you think that "wheelchair-bound" means being totally reliant on a wheelchair for mobility, then presumably you think this sentence is potentially wrong (because the moment he started walking with crutches, he was no longer using a wheelchair exclusively, and going from exclusive wheelchair to walking with crutches does not happen in a single day). I'm not certain that there is any sense in which the sentence as written is completely factually correct. Why shouldn't we say "He used a wheelchair for seven years, and gradually regained the ability..." instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're still casting around for ways to not say that someone is permanently in a wheelchair. "Full-time wheelchair user" does not convey that meaning. It could well describe someone who can walk and has fulltime employment pushing other people around in wheelchairs at airports or whatever. Simple. Direct. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you need to convey a difference between someone who users a wheelchair full time and someone who does not, you can simply say that, but "bound" is uniformly rejected by these sources, it isn't rejected "in some cases". If it's important for context to note that a wheelchair is someone's only means of ambulation then we can simply say "full-time wheelchair user", or in the inverse, we can specify "ambulatory wheelchair user" for someone for whom it is not their only means of movement. But what is clear, uniform, and undisputed amongst all the sources is that the term "bound" is to be avoided, not only sometimes. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are either not understanding or deliberately missing the point. Replacing "wheelchair-bound" by "wheelchair user" as they recommend is NOT a simple direct replacement, because it does not convey the same information. And the advice you quote fails to explain whether the reason for the changed wording is to avoid some specific negative connotation of the "-bound" wording, or whether it is to avoid telling people that they're permanently stuck in wheelchairs. It makes an important difference to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- They specifically and in clear terms say not to use "wheelchair-bound" (and "confined to a wheelchair"). Gov.uk--"avoid ... wheelchair-bound", "use ... wheelchair user". NDA--"Term no longer in use: wheelchair-bound". NHS--"Words to avoid ... wheelchair bound - implies burden or being confined". AP Stylebook--"We do not use the wording confined to a wheelchair or wheelchair-bound. People use wheelchairs for independent mobility. If a wheelchair is needed, and the description is relevant, say why. The term wheelchair user when relevant is OK". They very much clarify this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because neither those sources nor your comments here clarify whether what is to be avoided is that specific wording, or any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs. If it is only that specific wording, then we need another specific direct and to-the-point replacement wording. If you are looking for Wikipedia to avoid any wording that directly states that people are unable to leave their wheelchairs, you are doing the wrong thing. We need to know which it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- But no assumption is being made—once again, a list of sources has provided that state, not assume, that the term should be avoided. I fail to see why we should cast around for excuses to ignore all of these sources in favour of acting counter to them, which feels like the most "unnecessary" aspect of all of this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:EUPHEMISM states
- BD2412, you'd have more of a case if your response on the talk page was to quote the authors or at the least cite some commentators on the fiction, rather than dig up some low quality newspapers covering real world people. If the authors of those works have explicitly used the language "wheelchair bound" as a metaphor for the character's circumstances or to contrast with their other abilities, say, then using quotes would seem to be the standard mechanism for us to introduce that to the article. That stops it being Wikipedia's voice. Similarly if we want to quote some commentator using that language to express the same thing. You said "No one is suggesting that real living people should be described as wheelchair-bound." but in fact some in the discussion on that talk page did indeed insist that such language was perfectly acceptable. And as I noted above, not a single original thought or argument was put forward on that page that hasn't been said or argued countless times already. -- Colin°Talk 18:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- You mean something like:
- Michael Pawuk, David S. Serchay, Graphic Novels: A Guide to Comic Books, Manga, and More, 2nd Edition (2017), p. 40: "When Wally West, the third-generation Flash, is wheelchair bound after an accident, how can he defeat a villain without the aid of his legs?";
- Jacob Leigh, The Late Films of Claude Chabrol: Genre, Visual Expressionism and Narrational Ambiguity (2017), p. 83: "[T]he characters stage scenes to deceive people: Victor stages a scene to pretend to Betty that he is wheelchair bound; René stages a scene to convince the police that Desmot had a normal evening at home";
- Christopher Kul-Want, Philosophers on Film from Bergson to Badiou: A Critical Reader (2019): "James Stewart's characters in both Rear Window (1954) and Vertigo (1958) are afflicted with a certain immobility; in Vertigo, Scottie suffers from agoraphobia, while in Rear Window L.B. is wheelchair bound".
- Yes, those sorts of commentaries exist. The language is succinct and accurately depicts the media. BD2412 T 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- You mean something like:
Political correctness can go too far. Let's be mindful of that. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you are looking to paraphrase those examples, they are many ways that are adequate for an encyclopedia. "When Wally West, ... has to continually use a wheelchair after an accident ..." "to pretend to Betty that he always uses a wheelchair ..." As for Rear Window, "is forced to use a wheelchair on account of a broken leg" Is a much more accurate description of the media. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- So I guess you think "forced to" use a wheelchair is more empowering than wheelchair-"bound"; either that or you're just reflexively avoiding a particular phrasing with little regard for the substitute. The fact that Jimmy Stewart is confined to the chair is essential to the whole plot; the fact that Strangelove is confined to the chair (or, at least, so it seems) is essential to the final line of the film. And continually is certainly not the word you're looking for, though I'm pretty sure continuously isn't it either. EEng 04:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: Oh, I very much am looking for the adverb, "continually." (i.e. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) adverb 1 a. In a continual way; always, incessantly, constantly, perpetually, all the time; i.e. either: Without any intermission, at every moment, continuously (in time); or less strictly: With frequent repetition, very frequently. 1880 A. Geikie Elem. Lessons Physical Geogr. (new ed.) ii. ix. 58 The sun is continually radiating heat from his glowing mass. i.e. the Oxford Dictionary of English 2 Without interruption; constantly: The underground water level was continually falling and the environment in the adjoining valleys was also deteriorating, he said. i.e. Websters Unabridged, continually (adverb): " 1: in a continual way : unceasingly 2: continuously in time : without intermission 3: in regular or repeated succession : very often) I asked for examples, not the Wiktionary, which has been compiled by schoolchildren, and not subliminal sneering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, well, yes, but since the OED's examples end at 1880, let's come into the 21st century (or at least the 20th) with, er, Fowler (pocket):
- Continual is the older word (14c), and once had all the meanings it now (since the mid-19c) shares with continuous (17c) ... continuous here means ‘going on uninterrupted’ whereas continual means ‘constantly or frequently recurring’ ... In the following example, continuously seems to be wrongly used for continually: "The Chinese officials also continuously stated that they could put a stop to inflation at any time"—P. Lowe, 1989.
- Now that we've cleared up the modern distinction between
continualcontinually andcontinuouscontinuously, back to the point at hand: I gave two examples, Rear Window and Strangelove. EEng 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)- @EEng: We certainly have not. The Oxford Dictionary of English, my second example, was published in 2010. Again, please no Wiktionary and that means no pocket guides either. Fowler's 2015 (unabridged) quoted above, says on pages 181–182, "Since the mid-19c. it has been customary to regard continual as being applicable to events that occur frequently but with intervals between, and continuous to anything that happens or proceeds in an unbroken manner. In practice the distinction is not as neat as that. ... Continuous is used in physical contexts (such as lines, roads, etc.) and is preferred in technical contexts. The following examples show how difficult it is to keep the two meanings apart: (continual) The house and garden had seen their best days, and the decline was now continual, from season to season—R. Frame, 1986; The 1840s were years of continuous self-education for Philip Henry Gosse—A. Thwaite, 1984. I suggest that you not waste more time with simplified distinctions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Right, but we're not discussing continual and continuous (my slip above) but continually and continuously, about which all editions (AFAICT) say
Of the corresponding adverbs, continually (14c) is older by far than continuously (17c). Here, for some reason, the current distinction is clearer to see ...
giving several examples including the "Chinese officials" above.While this has been entertaining, you're still dodging the Rear Window and Strangelove examples. EEng 14:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Right, but we're not discussing continual and continuous (my slip above) but continually and continuously, about which all editions (AFAICT) say
- @EEng: We certainly have not. The Oxford Dictionary of English, my second example, was published in 2010. Again, please no Wiktionary and that means no pocket guides either. Fowler's 2015 (unabridged) quoted above, says on pages 181–182, "Since the mid-19c. it has been customary to regard continual as being applicable to events that occur frequently but with intervals between, and continuous to anything that happens or proceeds in an unbroken manner. In practice the distinction is not as neat as that. ... Continuous is used in physical contexts (such as lines, roads, etc.) and is preferred in technical contexts. The following examples show how difficult it is to keep the two meanings apart: (continual) The house and garden had seen their best days, and the decline was now continual, from season to season—R. Frame, 1986; The 1840s were years of continuous self-education for Philip Henry Gosse—A. Thwaite, 1984. I suggest that you not waste more time with simplified distinctions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, well, yes, but since the OED's examples end at 1880, let's come into the 21st century (or at least the 20th) with, er, Fowler (pocket):
- @EEng: Oh, I very much am looking for the adverb, "continually." (i.e. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) adverb 1 a. In a continual way; always, incessantly, constantly, perpetually, all the time; i.e. either: Without any intermission, at every moment, continuously (in time); or less strictly: With frequent repetition, very frequently. 1880 A. Geikie Elem. Lessons Physical Geogr. (new ed.) ii. ix. 58 The sun is continually radiating heat from his glowing mass. i.e. the Oxford Dictionary of English 2 Without interruption; constantly: The underground water level was continually falling and the environment in the adjoining valleys was also deteriorating, he said. i.e. Websters Unabridged, continually (adverb): " 1: in a continual way : unceasingly 2: continuously in time : without intermission 3: in regular or repeated succession : very often) I asked for examples, not the Wiktionary, which has been compiled by schoolchildren, and not subliminal sneering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- So I guess you think "forced to" use a wheelchair is more empowering than wheelchair-"bound"; either that or you're just reflexively avoiding a particular phrasing with little regard for the substitute. The fact that Jimmy Stewart is confined to the chair is essential to the whole plot; the fact that Strangelove is confined to the chair (or, at least, so it seems) is essential to the final line of the film. And continually is certainly not the word you're looking for, though I'm pretty sure continuously isn't it either. EEng 04:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The point, the way I see it, is this. "bound" (adj) has a literal meaning, "Made fast by a tie, confined; fastened down; bandaged"(OED); "confined to" or "fastened by or as if by a band : confined (Webster's Unabridged) i.e. in the two definitive dictionaries of BrE and AmE respectively. "Wheelchair-bound" does not appear in these dictionaries, but it does in the oldest dictionary of English usage; to be sure, in its fourth edition: Fowler, H. W. (2015), "disability, the language of", in Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.), Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 219–220,
The language now generally considered suitable to describe and refer to people with different kinds of physical or mental disabilities is very different from what it was only a couple of decades ago. The changes are due partly to the activity of organizations which promote the interests of particular groups with disabilities, and partly to increased public sensitivity to language that might perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices. ... If you want to use appropriate language, you need not only to avoid words which have been or are being superseded, such as mongolism or backward, and which are listed below with their more neutral equivalents. You should also try to: ... 2 avoid usign words such as victim, suffer from, and wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability. Suitable alternatives to suffer from are have, experience, and be diagnosed with. Instead of talking about victims you can talk about a particular disability; and instead of wheelchair-bound you can say who use(s) a wheelchair
- If you are looking to paraphrase those examples, they are many ways that are adequate for an encyclopedia. "When Wally West, ... has to continually use a wheelchair after an accident ..." "to pretend to Betty that he always uses a wheelchair ..." As for Rear Window, "is forced to use a wheelchair on account of a broken leg" Is a much more accurate description of the media. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- A special exemption is being sought for fictional characters. Many here, and it includes me, are suggesting that there is no exception. Here is an open challenge. Please find one example in which the adjective "wheelchair-bound," unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause "who/which is a wheelchair user" suitably amended does not. Peter Sellar's brand of highly physical slapstick in a wheelchair or Jimmy Stewart's obsessive watchfulnessin a full leg last cast, are hardly the examples that "who uses a wheelchair," does not cover. I'm sure in the eventual guideline we can give a number of examples that add "constantly," "all the time," etc to "who uses a wheelchair." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, you asked for sources, I provided sources, Wikipedia is source-driven. Secondly, there is no rule, so no exception is being sought. There is no established consensus on this project to avoid "wheelchair-bound" as a descriptor at all. Obviously, no one objects if this is used in BLP articles for subjects who are in real life best described this way, but that does not translate to a rule that it be used universally, even where it is ungainly and disproportionate. BD2412 T 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't the whole point of this discussion to find consensus on that, and also whether or not there should be exceptions to such a guideline? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Please accept my most heartfelt apology. The thread had become so long that I became tired, and assumed your examples were offered unilaterally to counter something, which they were not. But the examples are good. Perhaps I'll try to create a subpage somewhere (of my user page, maybe) with your examples and more that I or others find and try to figure out the best way forward in terms of paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't the whole point of this discussion to find consensus on that, and also whether or not there should be exceptions to such a guideline? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Firstly, you asked for sources, I provided sources, Wikipedia is source-driven. Secondly, there is no rule, so no exception is being sought. There is no established consensus on this project to avoid "wheelchair-bound" as a descriptor at all. Obviously, no one objects if this is used in BLP articles for subjects who are in real life best described this way, but that does not translate to a rule that it be used universally, even where it is ungainly and disproportionate. BD2412 T 22:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- A special exemption is being sought for fictional characters. Many here, and it includes me, are suggesting that there is no exception. Here is an open challenge. Please find one example in which the adjective "wheelchair-bound," unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause "who/which is a wheelchair user" suitably amended does not. Peter Sellar's brand of highly physical slapstick in a wheelchair or Jimmy Stewart's obsessive watchfulnessin a full leg last cast, are hardly the examples that "who uses a wheelchair," does not cover. I'm sure in the eventual guideline we can give a number of examples that add "constantly," "all the time," etc to "who uses a wheelchair." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I may regret this... My edit started this but I've since bowed out, because I find this terminology and the way it is being discussed here (comical as that may seem to some) deeply unpleasant. It is effectively my body being discussed. (I could have done without jocular references to me being 'lame'.) I get it - this is how you do things. But it means actual (yes, 'full-time') wheelchair users like me, who might have spent decades discussing this and have something to add, end up silent, while people entirely new to the idea go round and round in basic circles. As Colin, 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ and others have pointed out, many people over many years have already gone far past those circles to reach a consensus, in the style guides referenced and elsewhere. It appears to me that a lot of people are very attached to this term, precisely because its connotations are so unpleasant.
There is a complaint that alternatives like 'full-time wheelchair user' or simple language like 'cannot walk at all' etc are too long and hard when 'wheelchair-bound' is so quick and easy. 'Wheelchair-bound' is easy. Quick, easy, offensive and inaccurate. (And no, seatbelts are not binding.) The idea that any wheelchair user, whether able to walk or not, is 'bound' to their wheelchair causes numerous problems in real life. I am not going to catalogue them here. There are a lot of very, very good reasons this term has been discarded. This is not theoretical for some of us, and I think it's worth saying that this very fact puts us at an enormous disadvantage in this discussion. Persicifolia (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Look further back in my post. The AP apparently recommends lame; I was just following suit. EEng 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the justification. The remark was "Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar." [19] Persicifolia (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your point being what? EEng 11:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the justification. The remark was "Being lame doesn't excuse bad grammar." [19] Persicifolia (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Look further back in my post. The AP apparently recommends lame; I was just following suit. EEng 04:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The question is then, should the phrase "wheelchair bound" be entirely barred from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The phrase can be completely accurate with respect to a fictional character, just as "telepathic" or "reality-warping" might be. We describe the Joker as "a psychopath with a warped, sadistic sense of humor", and in Hong Kong Phooey identify the Giggler as a "deranged lunatic". We would not use offensive descriptions like these in connection with a real person, but they are correct in their contexts. BD2412 T 04:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, see, you can get away with such stuff because we psychopaths with warped, sadistic senses of humor remain an oppressed minority. But our day will come! (Deranged lunatics, in contrast, have made great strides in public acceptance in recent years – witness the election of Donald Trump.) EEng 04:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with @Persicifolia: I've issued an open challenge: "Please find one example in which the adjective 'wheelchair-bound,' unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause 'who/which uses a wheelchair' suitably amended does not." This is an encyclopedia, not a telegram in which ellipses near the limits of natural language are a must. So again, especially the three editors above wasting time with inanities, please find that example I can't hack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Let's start with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film), which ...
- Per David Eppstein's cogent dictum above, your phrasing must clearly and directly state that Blanche is unable to leave her wheelchair, not euphemistically avoid that fact. EEng 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at that article's own plot section, she clearly was able to leave her wheelchair given that she spends a big portion of the film outside it. (Haven't seen the film itself though.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, yes, you clearly have not seen the film. She
desperately drags herself down the stairs and calls her doctor for help
, then later islying starved, dehydrated, and near death on a blanket
. I'm not sure that counts. [23] EEng 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)- I changed Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film) to say "Blanche's mobility is limited to a wheelchair".[24] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Kolya, but that makes no sense. See my comment in the RfC (below). EEng 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I changed Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film) to say "Blanche's mobility is limited to a wheelchair".[24] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Um, yes, you clearly have not seen the film. She
- Looking at that article's own plot section, she clearly was able to leave her wheelchair given that she spends a big portion of the film outside it. (Haven't seen the film itself though.) ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Grapple X, Persicifolia, Masem, Dodger67, and Nikkimaria: Pinging editors who began this discussion. Grapple X, would you like to start the RfC (see the top of this thread) about "wheelchair-bound?" It would be a good first step toward a broader MOS guideline. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've never started an RFC before so give me a little time to read up on the process and I'll put it together. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler I'd actually prefer that more of this effort goes into improving the already existing style guide at WikiProject Disability. My hope is that it might be brought up to a standard worthy of inclusion in the MOS. Quite a lot of effort has already been put into the project's guide, it's not neccessary to reinvent the wheel when we could rather improve the one we already have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should concentrate on reinventing the wheelchair. EEng 13:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ultimately, yes, that would be the ideal goal, but as you can see there's a lot of teeth-gnashing over even incremental changes—I don't think the extant guide is faulty, it's just very easy to be rejected in toto because one person resists one aspect, another queries another aspect, etc. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't disagree Dodger67. I do think though that a foot in the door is needed in MOS, and "wheelchair-bound" might be the one. A broader proposal all at once, without precedence in MOS, might be much harder to push through as Grapple X above says. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: well I tried taking on your challenge and searched through a bunch of articles in Category:Disability in fiction, but to my own surprise I was not able to find any example where "wheelchair-bound" would be better than "wheelchair user". The article En équilibre currently uses "wheelchair-bound", but looking at the film's trailer[3] he's clearly not exclusively in his wheelchair. I also found he laughable plot section of Kiss of Death (1947 film), which talks about Mrs. Rizzo as "the criminal's wheelchair-bound mother", which is followed only two sentences later by "Udo binds Mrs. Rizzo to her wheelchair with an electrical cord and pushes her down a flight of stairs, killing her." So yes, she was actually wheelchair-bound, but not before her murder. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: Udo and Mrs. Rizzo can be seen at 43:20 here. Doremo (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- See also Red Dragon (2002 film):
An enraged Dolarhyde kidnaps Lounds, glues him to an antique wheelchair ...
Now that's wheelchair-bound. EEng 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- See also Red Dragon (2002 film):
- Note: Udo and Mrs. Rizzo can be seen at 43:20 here. Doremo (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Jochem van Hees: Yes. "Wheelchair-bound" is a more restrictive term than "wheelchair user." People who use wheelchairs use them in a range (of adverbs): occasionally, intermittently, habitually, constantly, uninterruptedly, ... "Wheelchair user," being more general, allows us to achieve greater precision by choosing our adverbs wisely. In other words, it is not just a non-ableist term, a term that does not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, it is can also more precise with supplementation because it is unencumbered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with @Persicifolia: I've issued an open challenge: "Please find one example in which the adjective 'wheelchair-bound,' unsupplemented, conveys meaning in fiction or literary criticism that the wh-clause 'who/which uses a wheelchair' suitably amended does not." This is an encyclopedia, not a telegram in which ellipses near the limits of natural language are a must. So again, especially the three editors above wasting time with inanities, please find that example I can't hack. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, see, you can get away with such stuff because we psychopaths with warped, sadistic senses of humor remain an oppressed minority. But our day will come! (Deranged lunatics, in contrast, have made great strides in public acceptance in recent years – witness the election of Donald Trump.) EEng 04:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ OK, maybe not always. But at least sometimes.
- ^ "For a While, Stephen Hawking Leaves Gravity Behind", interview with Melissa Block, NPR, April 26, 2007
- ^ Video on YouTube
RFC on wheelchair-based language
 |
|
Should the terms "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" be deprecated for use in article prose? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Survey (wheelchair-based language)
- Yes. The following public or governmental bodies, style guides, and academic sources all clearly and without qualification recommend not using the terms "confined to a wheelchair" and "wheelchair bound", in favour of use-based language—ie, "uses a wheelchair" or "wheelchair user", etc. UK government style guide, the NDA (Ireland's statutory body on disability), Greater Manchester Coalition and New Mobility, American Psychological Association, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, National Health Service, Stanford University, and the Associated Press Stylebook. No exemptions should be given for context (ie, describing a fictional character or a real person should use the same language as the concern is for the reader, not on the person described), although direct quotation and words-as-words usage should remain as-is. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes; "wheelchair user" is better and more descriptive than "wheelchair-bound" in all contexts I have been able to find. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)- On second thought, replace but don't document. We shoudn't be using "wheelchair-bound" in BLPs for a similar reason as why shouldn't call people "stupid", but there's no need to document either of those in the MOS. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes per Grapple X and Jochem van Hees, and per Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, now in its 95th year:
As Fowler implies, the phrases "is a wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair" make the user the active subject and imbue her or him with a purposefulness that is absent in "wheelchair-bound." This is true even when I say, "The accident forced (say, rather than caused) X to use a wheelchair." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Fowler, H. W. (2015), "disability, the language of", in Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.), Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, p. 219–220,
The language now generally considered suitable to describe and refer to people with different kinds of physical or mental disabilities is very different from what it was only a couple of decades ago. The changes are due partly to the activity of organizations which promote the interests of particular groups with disabilities, and partly to increased public sensitivity to language that might perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices. ... If you want to use appropriate language, you need not only to avoid words which have been or are being superseded, such as mongolism or backward, and which are listed below with their more neutral equivalents. You should also try to: ... 2 avoid using words such as victim, suffer from, and wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability. Suitable alternatives to suffer from are have, experience, and be diagnosed with. Instead of talking about victims you can talk about a particular disability; and instead of wheelchair-bound you can say who use(s) a wheelchair
- PS As stated in reply to Jochem van Hees in the section above, "'Wheelchair-bound' is a more restrictive term than 'wheelchair user.' People who use wheelchairs use them in a range (of adverbs): occasionally, intermittently, habitually, constantly, uninterruptedly, ... 'Wheelchair user,' being more general, allows us to achieve greater precision by choosing our adverbs wisely. In other words, it is not just a non-ableist term, a term that does not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, it is can also be more precise with supplementation because it is unencumbered." Consequently, per Grapple X, no exemptions are required for fictional characters that are described as "wheelchair-bound." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
avoid using words such ... wheelchair-bound which suggest that the person concerned is the helpless object of the disability
– Except in some cases (e.g. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane) it is the sine qua non of the entire story that Blanche is the helpless object of the disability. (Not to put too fine a point on it: [25].) If Blanche's wheelchair is an independence-empowering mobility aid, the story loses its entire foundation.- Fowler and his successors have the respect for their readers to assume they will apply their advice with common sense. When he says avoid they mean avoid, not banish absolutely, as you are trying to do. EEng 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- You and your two cohorts keep bringing up two or three examples from the movies in your attempts to play gotcha, but without the script, so you can handwave your objections. Please give me the script which uses "wheelchair-bound" and I will show you how to skin that cat without. So script please, Strangeglove or Baby Jane, or a critical work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comprehensively supplied below. EEng 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- You and your two cohorts keep bringing up two or three examples from the movies in your attempts to play gotcha, but without the script, so you can handwave your objections. Please give me the script which uses "wheelchair-bound" and I will show you how to skin that cat without. So script please, Strangeglove or Baby Jane, or a critical work. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- PS As stated in reply to Jochem van Hees in the section above, "'Wheelchair-bound' is a more restrictive term than 'wheelchair user.' People who use wheelchairs use them in a range (of adverbs): occasionally, intermittently, habitually, constantly, uninterruptedly, ... 'Wheelchair user,' being more general, allows us to achieve greater precision by choosing our adverbs wisely. In other words, it is not just a non-ableist term, a term that does not perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices, it is can also be more precise with supplementation because it is unencumbered." Consequently, per Grapple X, no exemptions are required for fictional characters that are described as "wheelchair-bound." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I am inclined to support the proposal, but it would help to know what exactly is on the table. Is this a proposal to introduce new language into the MOS, and if so, where and what language? Would we instead leave the MOS alone, and expect editors to point to this centralized consensus when editing or discussing? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably the best way to incorporate it would be a passage under the "Vocabulary" heading which summarises usage as per the above, but the exact wording and implementation of an entry can be agreed upon if the basic principle carries first, I think. If people would prefer to have an exact passage to consider before commenting then I can write one and open it up to critique. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think "a passage under the 'Vocabulary' heading" is specific enough for me, thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably the best way to incorporate it would be a passage under the "Vocabulary" heading which summarises usage as per the above, but the exact wording and implementation of an entry can be agreed upon if the basic principle carries first, I think. If people would prefer to have an exact passage to consider before commenting then I can write one and open it up to critique. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. In addition to the style guides cited above, the MLA Handbook also recommends against "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No - Best we observe WP:Euphemism, and not water down language. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes per style guides reffed above and Siegal, Allan M.; Connolly, William G. (2015). The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative News Organization (5th ed.). Three Rivers Press. p. 73. ISBN 978-1-101-90544-9. OCLC 90851739.
- People with illnesses or disabilities do not necessarily consider themselves confined to their beds, homes or wheelchairs; the term may exaggerate their limitations. Write instead that they use wheelchairs or are housebound or bedridden.
- AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- So it's OK to call an elderly person housebound but not a quadriplegic wheelchair-bound? Because many elderly people consider their homes places of comfort and refuge which they toiled their whole lives to secure, not something they're "bound" to, even if for whatever reason they can't leave it. And yes, I'm serious. EEng 04:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. 'Wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' are inaccurate and misleading terms. The many style guides above reflect years of progress by disabled people who like me find this terminology offensive. The very negative connotations are precisely the reason it is so frequently used, as a shorthand for deeply rooted unpleasant stereotypes. It is a conception of disability that derives from non-disabled people's imagining and fear of disability. Nobody is 'bound' to their wheelchair (except in the odd horror film). It is not specific and clarifying as some imagine. In editing 100+ WP articles which used this term, I found when I checked the source it frequently did not actually state the person solely mobilised using a wheelchair, but 'this person was seen in a wheelchair'. It obscures reality rather than reflecting it, and its continued usage has real life implications for those of us who use wheelchairs. 'Wheelchair user', 'uses a wheelchair' etc are always preferable. As other editors have noted above, it can then be qualified with 'occasional', 'full-time', etc. Persicifolia (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No. No adequate replacement language has been given. "Uses a wheelchair" is vaguer and therefore inadequate because it does not indicate what level of use is made of the wheelchair. Proponents of this change have repeatedly refused to answer whether it is intended to replace specific wording with other equally specific wording or to deliberately make things vague as a WP:EUPHEMISM. Deliberately making things vague is not what Wikipedia is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Uses a wheelchair, wheelchair user, and uses a wheelchair for mobility are generally what we're seeing in reliable sources. How is wheelchair user any more vague than wheelchair bound, which implies they never get out of the wheelchair, which in 100% of cases isn't even accurate? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello David. "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask specific forms of disability (Down's syndrome, Muscular dystrophy. etc.). "Accessible parking," "uses a wheelchair," are not euphemisms; they describe an objective reality that is a part of the lives of people with many forms of disability or injury. "Wheelchair-bound" does not describe a physical condition. It is a term for people who in fact use a wheelchair in various modes of use (the short-term (in a full leg cast a la Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window), the long-term (a la Raymond Burr, but much later, in Ironside), occasionally or recurringly (in diabetes or some forms or stages of cancer), habitually (in old age), continually, constantly, uninterruptedly (in other conditions). Encyclopedic language is precise; wheelchair-bound is not. "uses a wheelchair" suitably modified with an adverb achieves greater precision. Saying, "In her 90s she habitually (or customarily) used a wheelchair," is not the kind of circumlocution that detracts from communication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
"Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask specific forms of disability
– Huh? By your reasoning disabled (which also "masks the form of the disability") is a euphemism too. "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask the fact that there is a disability, a limitation. EEng 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)- "Disabled" is not mask; it is just a catch-all term for the different more specific forms of disability. (Mask (verb): to cover up (as a thing, fact, state, quality, or emotion) so as to mislead concerning its true nature) No one uses "disabled" to mask a specific form of disability. They might use it to be concise in writing or conversation. Please no playing gotcha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- We don't modify policy because someone used a vague term in an article, we fix the article. MarshallKe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello David. "Differently abled" or "physically challenged" are euphemisms because they mask specific forms of disability (Down's syndrome, Muscular dystrophy. etc.). "Accessible parking," "uses a wheelchair," are not euphemisms; they describe an objective reality that is a part of the lives of people with many forms of disability or injury. "Wheelchair-bound" does not describe a physical condition. It is a term for people who in fact use a wheelchair in various modes of use (the short-term (in a full leg cast a la Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window), the long-term (a la Raymond Burr, but much later, in Ironside), occasionally or recurringly (in diabetes or some forms or stages of cancer), habitually (in old age), continually, constantly, uninterruptedly (in other conditions). Encyclopedic language is precise; wheelchair-bound is not. "uses a wheelchair" suitably modified with an adverb achieves greater precision. Saying, "In her 90s she habitually (or customarily) used a wheelchair," is not the kind of circumlocution that detracts from communication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Uses a wheelchair, wheelchair user, and uses a wheelchair for mobility are generally what we're seeing in reliable sources. How is wheelchair user any more vague than wheelchair bound, which implies they never get out of the wheelchair, which in 100% of cases isn't even accurate? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No. Mostly because this seems like unnecessary WP:CREEP. What problem are we solving by adding this additional rule to the MoS? Allow editors to decide the most appropriate language on a case by case basis, according to the circumstances and sources, whether that's "was confined to a wheelchair", "was a wheelchair user", "required a wheelchair for mobility", etc. Colin M (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Avoiding these terms can hardly be called euphemizing when it’s the prevailing guidance in professional style guides. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Professional style guides concern how to talk to patients without causing them distress. Encyclopedic style guides concern how to explain things in clear unambiguous language to disinterested readers. Because they have different purposes it's reasonable to imagine that they would suggest different approaches to the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure the Associated Press or New York Times concern themselves with patients. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Professional style guides concern how to talk to patients without causing them distress. Encyclopedic style guides concern how to explain things in clear unambiguous language to disinterested readers. Because they have different purposes it's reasonable to imagine that they would suggest different approaches to the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No. No proposed terms have been adequately equivalent without also being tortured and verbose. Meaning should not be sacrificed for political correctness. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The guideline on offensive material states
Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
As others have shown in this RfC and the preceding discussion, terms such as "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are considered offensive and the suggested alternatives ("wheelchair user", "uses a wheelchair", "full-time wheelchair user", "occasional wheelchair user") are in fact more informative, accurate and precise. Therefore, the existing guideline already disallows usage of "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair". Given the large amount of editor time and energy this discussion has already taken, I would be in favour of explicitly clarifying this somewhere, so I would respond yes to this RfC. GreenComputer (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)- None of the alternative terms you listed communicate whether or not the wheelchair user is unable to move around without the chair. Even "full-time wheelchair user" has a subtle difference in meaning. MarshallKe (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MarshallKe: If you don't want to use "full-time wheelchair user" and "part-time wheelchair user", surely "wheelchair user who cannot walk" in comparison to "sometimes uses a wheelchair" conveys the desired meaning without the need to use offensive language? GreenComputer (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of the alternative terms you listed communicate whether or not the wheelchair user is unable to move around without the chair. Even "full-time wheelchair user" has a subtle difference in meaning. MarshallKe (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, as written. The proposal is too sweeping, and would prohibit use of the phrase even to describe fictional characters who are clearly identified in their source work or in analyising sources as "wheelchair-bound"; it would even prohibit use of the phrase for subjects who describe themselves as wheelchair-bound! BD2412 T 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No The case has not been made that there is enough evidence to support the idea that reliable sources are consistently avoiding the use of "wheelchair-bound". Some sources are, but not a preponderance, and certainly not enough to deprecate the usage here at Wikipedia. We should allow multiple variations, and not change existing phrasing when well established in an article already. --Jayron32 17:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No Largely per BD2412. My comments above are about recommendations, not mandating. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This language is out of date, widely considered offensive by the disabilities community, and is quickly falling out of use in RS. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- No. This looks like WP:CREEP and we don't need more of that. As long as it's not vulgar and offensive, I really don't think we need more rules like this. I also agree with davideppstien. Masterhatch (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes We're not here to use archaic, possibly lazy, and, in our time, offensive terms when there are equally good alternatives ways of explaining disabilities. For example, our article on Davros (who is definitely unable to leave his wheelchair without dying) avoids those terms and we end up with better descriptive prose (The lower half of his body is absent and he is physically incapable of leaving the chair for more than a few minutes without dying).--RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: I don't think the equipment that Davros uses is really a "wheelchair" at all. Also, I would agree that a more in-depth description is appropriate for an article on the character, but what about an article on a Dr. Who episode where the character's condition is only just enough of a plot point to mention? BD2412 T 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @BD2412: True that. I guess it is more like a wheelless vehicle :) Still, my point is that if someone is completely dependent on a wheelchair, it is probably better to describe why than to just say they were "wheelchair bound". Even for minor characters this could be done in a single sentence. If reliable outlets can do without the use of these terms, we should be able to as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Spoken with wisdom @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @BD2412: True that. I guess it is more like a wheelless vehicle :) Still, my point is that if someone is completely dependent on a wheelchair, it is probably better to describe why than to just say they were "wheelchair bound". Even for minor characters this could be done in a single sentence. If reliable outlets can do without the use of these terms, we should be able to as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: I don't think the equipment that Davros uses is really a "wheelchair" at all. Also, I would agree that a more in-depth description is appropriate for an article on the character, but what about an article on a Dr. Who episode where the character's condition is only just enough of a plot point to mention? BD2412 T 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, not for all cases, particularly for material describing literature, where the drama might turn on a character's disability, so terms like "wheelchair-bound", "mad", "demon-haunted", "scarred", "drug-addled", etc might be appropriate even tho they might not be for a WP:BLP. Since there's one rule to fit these various situations, let's not have one and instead trust our editors. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the record I rush to add that it doesn't have to be a demon-haunted, drug-addled, wheelchair-bound madman; it could also be a gentle, loving, philanthropic, abstinate wheelchair-bound missionary saint. EEng 04:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes and no – such language should already be considered deprecated in most cases. I don't think we need more specific guidance about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, although I am unsure of the wisdom of the MOS trying to be a compendium of every way in which it is possible to write badly. There is simply no way we can systematically list every single clumsy, odd, obsolete, circumlocutious, or otherwise objectionable word or phrase – and this natural impossibility, should we try to go down that road regardless, might then give rise to the simplistic interpretation on the part of some editors that whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the MOS is permitted, when in most cases writing well is a matter of choosing among competing shades of grey rather than a binary "mandatory / forbidden". Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not a MOS issue. If you find there's a better way of calling this, just edit the articles where you find they can be improved. There's no point in the MOS legislating minutia like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, the terms should not be deprecated. The usage really depends on the context. See this comment by EEng, where describing the characters with the clumsy and awkward alternative "full-time wheelchair user" loses precision and misses the point. I agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment above; it is not necessary to document this wheelchair debate on the MOS page (which I'm assuming is one of intended results of the RfC [26]) per WP:CREEP. There are already debates around commit vs died by suicide; prostitute vs sex worker; black vs Black; enslaved people vs slaves; chairman/chairperson; blacklist; gender neutral language e.g. women vs "menstruators"/"people who menstruate"; people-first language; "hanging" via wp:rope; wp:lunatic charlatans; and now this wheelchair debate. There will always be new language debates in the future and, imho, the MOS page shouldn't be the place to compile and document every single one of them. Some1 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- No – Attempting to ban two phrases that are perfectly good and succinct ways of describing people who do feel confined and bound by having to use a wheelchair. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a rationale I haven't seen before in this debate, and I think it carries a lot of weight. If I go my whole life being able to walk and suddenly I need a wheelchair, I'll be damned if I don't feel confined and bound. Banning this terminology is fitting our language to suit a specific subgroup of wheelchair-using people, and that's wrong. MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are you evoking an imaginary wheelchair user who agrees with you and disagrees with the consensus, and finding that persuasive?! A consensus has been reached amongst real wheelchair users, reflected in every style guide referenced. You're speculating on something you have not experienced and some of us here have. If you cannot walk, that is because of your body. Not a wheelchair. The wheelchair-as-bondage construction given it is literally a tool of freedom and mobility is bizarre. Nobody is policing how disabled people feel about their disabilities. Persicifolia (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Really, @Dhtwiki:, they do feel confined and bound as opposed to what other option? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Probably the majority of wheelchair users are those who have done so when in hospital or temporarily need one due to acute injury. Are they not to be accounted as "users"? Those people are apt to feel it as confinement, as opposed to those with more chronic impairment, who might well feel their use as liberating. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Dhtwiki: Is the majority of the literature using the expression "wheelchair-bound" that we on Wikipedia are in the business of paraphrasing also about these sojourning users in a hospital? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Probably the majority of wheelchair users are those who have done so when in hospital or temporarily need one due to acute injury. Are they not to be accounted as "users"? Those people are apt to feel it as confinement, as opposed to those with more chronic impairment, who might well feel their use as liberating. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Really, @Dhtwiki:, they do feel confined and bound as opposed to what other option? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, are you evoking an imaginary wheelchair user who agrees with you and disagrees with the consensus, and finding that persuasive?! A consensus has been reached amongst real wheelchair users, reflected in every style guide referenced. You're speculating on something you have not experienced and some of us here have. If you cannot walk, that is because of your body. Not a wheelchair. The wheelchair-as-bondage construction given it is literally a tool of freedom and mobility is bizarre. Nobody is policing how disabled people feel about their disabilities. Persicifolia (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a rationale I haven't seen before in this debate, and I think it carries a lot of weight. If I go my whole life being able to walk and suddenly I need a wheelchair, I'll be damned if I don't feel confined and bound. Banning this terminology is fitting our language to suit a specific subgroup of wheelchair-using people, and that's wrong. MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. This is outdated language that is widely avoided, and we should join the groups avoiding it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes All of the style guides and the disability organizations agree on the language change. Using "wheelchair bound" is considered discriminatory and offensive to the actual community in question and trying to keep forced language that implies confinement is harmful to all of those readers and those connected to them. Honestly, to see people claim otherwise here is shocking, considering past discussions on disability language have largely supported such changes. SilverserenC 17:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- As it happens, I'm right now sitting next to someone in a wheelchair who says I should communicate the following response to you: <rolls eyes>. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good for them? Are they the public spokesperson for one of the disability groups in question or a member of the news organization style guide designers? In short, are they a reliable source that Wikipedia is meant to be based on? SilverserenC 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Neither, to my knowledge, is Persicifolia a spokesperson or style guide designer, but you don't seem to have a problem with him/her pontificating on behalf of all wheelchair users. It seems amazing that an editor of your tenure doesn't understand that in project space, we not only can use, but are expected to use, our own common sense and experience in shaping guidelines and policy. Passing on my friend's reaction is a perfectly valid rejoinder to the doctrinaire insistence that this or that source represents the interests of all people in a particular group. EEng 06:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good for them? Are they the public spokesperson for one of the disability groups in question or a member of the news organization style guide designers? In short, are they a reliable source that Wikipedia is meant to be based on? SilverserenC 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- As it happens, I'm right now sitting next to someone in a wheelchair who says I should communicate the following response to you: <rolls eyes>. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm sympathetic to the argument that
is wheelchair bound
is less vague thanuses a wheelchair
. But I think it's important to listen to the disabled community here and find alternatives.Cannot walk and uses a wheelchair
is wordier but gets across the same information without (I hope) being offensive. – Anne drew 19:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - Yes: The Guardian style guide sums it up nicely: "
Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate
". PamD 00:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) - Yes: as per National Center on Disability and Journalism [NCDJ] - "
Recommendation: It is acceptable to describe a person as “someone who uses a wheelchair,” followed by an explanation of why the equipment is required. Avoid “confined to a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” as these terms describe a person only in relationship to a piece of equipment. The terms also are misleading, as wheelchairs can liberate people, allowing them to move about, and they are inaccurate, as people who use wheelchairs are not permanently confined to them but are transferred to sleep, sit in chairs, drive cars, etc.
" As others have mentioned - precision and politeness are really important and the terms in question are neither. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC) - Yes The current UK goverment could hardly be described as woke or politically correct, yet its own guidelines on words to use and avoid when writing about disability recomments against 'wheelchair bound'. The majority of style guides consistently recommend against that language, and none consider it appropriate. As I noted above, I don't think a poll on individual terms is a good approach because it generally gets uninformed votes, unconvincing rationales, and those with an anti-woke/anti-pc agenda dominate and troll the discussion. When an oaf like Boris Johnson is held to a higher standard than Wikipedia, we are doing something wrong. -- Colin°Talk 11:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Terms like wheelchair-bound are deprecated by all or most style guides in the English speaking world. I also don't buy that "uses a wheelchair" is actually ambiguous; that argument seems like a red herring designed to throw a wrench in this discussion. "Wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" must be also be ambiguous by the same token then. (As to the concern that some fictional characters are literally confined to a wheelchair at all times, I would remind everyone that the MOS is a guideline and occasional exceptions to its rules are allowed.) Calidum 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- No (in case that's not obvious). In addition to the many reasons discussed below, wheelchair-bound is commonly used in medical publications [27]. In our medical articles, is the proposal that we substitute other wording of our own formulation for the medical term? EEng 15:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I am detecting a degree of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in this RFC. I have no opinion on the actual question (because I am not familiar with the relevant sources), but… I do want to remind everyone that Wikipedia follows sources when it comes to changes in societal terminology, it does not lead those changes. As the terminology used in sources changes, we absolutely should change the terminology we use… however, because we follow (as opposed to lead) we are always going to be a step behind any change, not in the forefront of it. That may mean that we continue to use “outdated” (and even “offensive”) terms for a while, until enough sources adopt the newer terms. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is precisely because we follow and not lead that the change should be made; a significant number of style guides and public bodies all endorse the change (many listed above) and we're simply following suit. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Blueboar, can you point to where your "Wikipedia follows sources when it comes to changes in societal terminology, it does not lead those changes" is encoded in policy, rather than in the imagination of a few editors who trot out this nonsense every time we have such RFCs. You can believe this all you like, and it may well influence some gullible voters, but it is rot. Wikipedians can write any way we choose and are not bound to follow the writing style, prejudices and ignorant word choices of our sources. The supposed standard, that "enough sources adopt the newer terms", is ridiculous hurdle we do not impose on ourselves wrt other matters. It is easy to google for "wheelchair bound" but impossible to google for its absence. There are so many ways to express oneselve and rarely just one "newer term" to replace it. Therefore editors cannot satisfy this "requirement" that text avoids a certain language. No, we aren't required to continue being offenseive if our sources do, and we do have official guidelines against that. Btw, it is worth reading WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, rather than incorrectly assuming the UPPERCASE SHORTCUT actually supports your argument. It is about facts, not writing style. Wikipedia is an important publisher, and our requirements to be neutral require our language to be neutral too, and not to gratuitiously and carelessly undermine, diminish and offend those we are writing about. -- Colin°Talk 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes If we need to talk about how someone (including a fictional character) feels or thinks about using a wheelchair, than we should explicitly talk about those thoughts or feelings, but ascribing all as feeling or thinking they are bound or confined is not warranted by the style guides, nor common sense. Moreover very, very few people are actually tied with some kind of binding to their wheelchair, and none are forever literally locked in them (for example, exercise is regularly done outside the chair). And should we ever need to talk about someone being literally tied in their chair, say that explicitly. (Quotes, of course, are a different matter). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- No. I would be fine with a note indicating that the proposed revision is preferred where it is reasonable to do so, but that there are some contexts where terms like "wheelchair bound" are more appropriate such as quotes, as well as medical or scientific contexts where there may be a real distinction that needs to be drawn between people who are confined to a wheelchair and people who voluntarily use them, or only need them part of the time. The distinction may also be useful in areas like Wheelchair basketball, where there is a need to identify different levels of impairment for eligibility purposes. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. "Wheelchair bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" violate NPOV. Per my first comment at WT:MOS#NPOV vs Consensus, the article "Media labeling versus the US disability community identity: a study of shifting cultural language" from UK based journal Disability & Society states that
both terms are incorrectly applied ... [and] they misrepresent disability
. We determine the meaning of terms based on RS not opinion, and NPOV states thatThis policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
We can use appropriate accurate phrases such as "chronic wheelchair user", "dependent on a wheelchair", "paraplegic who uses a wheelchair", or just "unable to walk". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC) - Yes we should avoid those terms, with the usual exceptions, e.g., direct quotations. It is never necessary to use these terms, and they carry unintended meanings. We should also document this decision somewhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles could be functional places) so that we don't have to have this conversation every few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussion (wheelchair-based language)
What are the proposed replacement terms? --Masem (t) 13:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Wheelchair user" and "uses a wheelchair" are the most recommended terms in the sources listed above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- To which adverbs: occasionally, intermittently, recurrently, repeatedly, habitually, constantly, ceaselessly, uninterruptedly and the like (or sometimes their adjective forms) may be added to achieve greater precision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree and just want to add, there's clearly a concern that 'wheelchair user' is a euphemism. But direct language is often a helpful addition. Eg I've previously suggested something like 'a wheelchair user who cannot walk at all' when it's necessary to convey that information. (For me, wheelchair-bound is the euphemism.) Persicifolia (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- +1. Wheelchair-bound is inaccurate. No one is wheelchair bound. Everyone who uses a wheelchair gets out of it to sleep, bathe, maybe use crutches or a standing frame, maybe to move around short distances completely unassisted. And an unclear euphemism would be 'has mobility issues' or 'has physical disabilities' or something. "Uses a wheelchair or crutches much of the time" is much more clear. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree and just want to add, there's clearly a concern that 'wheelchair user' is a euphemism. But direct language is often a helpful addition. Eg I've previously suggested something like 'a wheelchair user who cannot walk at all' when it's necessary to convey that information. (For me, wheelchair-bound is the euphemism.) Persicifolia (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- To which adverbs: occasionally, intermittently, recurrently, repeatedly, habitually, constantly, ceaselessly, uninterruptedly and the like (or sometimes their adjective forms) may be added to achieve greater precision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's dumb. Anyone making the claim that "wheelchair user" is a euphemism are just making a purposefully bad and dumb argument. "Wheelchair bound" is very obviously a euphemism. If someone uses a wheelchair, that is a literal statement. If someone is bound to a wheelchair, they are not literally tied up to the wheelchair. Hence "bound" is the euphemism. It always has been. What we're arguing here is to remove the euphemism and use direct language. Any arguments and votes above trying to claim we're changing to a euphemism should be immediately disregarded as just a worthless argument. SilverserenC 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can only conclude that you have some mistaken idea as to what a euphemism is. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's dumb. Anyone making the claim that "wheelchair user" is a euphemism are just making a purposefully bad and dumb argument. "Wheelchair bound" is very obviously a euphemism. If someone uses a wheelchair, that is a literal statement. If someone is bound to a wheelchair, they are not literally tied up to the wheelchair. Hence "bound" is the euphemism. It always has been. What we're arguing here is to remove the euphemism and use direct language. Any arguments and votes above trying to claim we're changing to a euphemism should be immediately disregarded as just a worthless argument. SilverserenC 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is covering fictional characters, too. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. There is no common-sense motive for not doing so. See my first comment under "Survey" above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- And your assertion has been repeatedly refuted with quite extensive reasons, with examples, and why and how it indeed does make a difference, with extensive lists of other terminologies that we use when writing about fiction that we wouldn't when writing about real life, which you've conveniently ignored, while continuing to say "I already said once that it doesn't matter and there's no common sense motive". WP:IDHT much? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:14D5:5FC9:8C5F:AB3A (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: I'm not sure why you reverted my edit? I only cleaned the survey section up a bit, I didn't change the content of the comments. If I recall correctly the survey section is only meant for giving an overview of yes/no, not for actual discussion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:TALKDD and WP:TPO are clear that you should not change others' comments without good reason. Pinging Firefangledfeathers and Grapple X so they can decide whether they would like to move or alter their comments as you did. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think JVH's changes were that serious. They didn't change the appearance or position of those editors' survey stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am fine with moving my comment to this subsection if Grapple doesn't mind. I do oppose removing my use of Template:strong, which indicates semantically meaningful bold and is expressly recommended for this use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay, I didn't think about that actually being on purpose. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Do as ya'll wish, but I'll be concentrating my further input, in the 'discussion' section. That way, the 'survey' section won't get crowded up with back-and-forth discussion (hence the reason, for a discussion section). GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this concern for 'euphemistic' or 'softening language'. "Uses a wheelchair" seems very clear to me. Are we saying it's not clear what the person is using the wheelchair for? Like, maybe they're using it as a kitchen gadget or something? And "wheelchair-bound" is just inaccurate, because no one, no one, is inextricably connected to their wheelchair 24/7. They get out of it to bathe, to sleep, maybe to use a standing frame or crutches or to move around unassisted over short distances. So wheelchair user/uses a wheelchair is actually more accurate. How is it euphemistic or softening language to find a better and more accurate way to describe something that also, btw, doesn't offend the people we're describing? —valereee (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- It fails to distinguish between people who use a wheelchair temporarily because they broke their ankle, people who use a wheelchair on a long-term basis to assist with mobility but can stand or walk with difficulty for short periods of time, people who are totally immobile without a wheelchair or other people assisting them, people who make use of a wheelchair for something other than day-to-day living (such as wheelchair racers, who I would imagine are generally people who also use wheelchairs at other times but for which that might not actually be necessary) or people who make use of a wheelchair for something other than their own mobility. In other words, it is vague. And vagueness should not be what we are aiming for here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Persicifolia has described several instances of finding articles where "wheelchair-bound" has been used as a catch-all when the specific usage is not specified in source, how is continuing to use it any more clear then? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Deprecating two specific phrases does not prevent us from saying things like "uses a wheelchair permanently" or "needs a wheelchair to move around". It doesn't create vagueness to limit our options to phrases accepted by reliable sources. We can still adjust our language to context. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, what's a good, concise, semantically equivalent way to say "needs a wheelchair to move around"? MarshallKe (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Concision and semantic equivalence are not the sole criteria for usage. Moreover, the whole reason we are having this discussion is that a number of editors reasonably believe "wheelchair-bound" is not semantically equivalent to phrases like those above, because it is derogatory. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Uses a wheelchair for mobility" is a very common phrase. "Needs...to move around" isn't accurate for many; many use a wheelchair for longer distances but can walk or use crutches or a walker or cane for shorter distances. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, what's a good, concise, semantically equivalent way to say "needs a wheelchair to move around"? MarshallKe (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- So which one is "wheelchair bound"? Wouldn't it simply be better to say 'uses a wheelchair (for X)' or 'spent much of 2015 using a wheelchair after the accident' if we want to be less vague? Do we need a rule that 'wheelchair-bound' is only for people who never, ever get out of their wheelchair? Because that would work for me. No one is wheelchairbound. Literally no one. It's a completely inaccurate term. Leaving aside the people it's being used on find it offensive, which honestly should be enough for us to find some area we can compromise.
- Wheelchair-bound is not equivalent to permanent wheelchair user. It could be someone who has a temporary condition and needs a wheelchair to move around until they heal. MarshallKe (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Those people typically are not wheelchairbound. Typically they're able to tranfer into bed, into the shower, onto the toilet. Often they use crutches for short distances where a wheelchair would be difficult to navigate. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Language evolves. Among RS, this language has been evolving. We should be following that. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps in real life no one is "inextricably connected" to a wheelchair, but there are characters in fiction who are explicitly described and depicted as such. I would support a depracation of the phrase as used with respect to real people, but not rewriting fictional characters to be different from their actual depiction. BD2412 T 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Really? They never transfer to bed or the toilet? The fact the author described them decades ago using the then-usual terminology doesn't mean they never pooped. :) Mark Twain used the word n*****. I don't think we'd want to describe any of his characters in our plot summary using that term. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, really. There are fictional characters who can teleport matter with their minds, so perhaps they don't need to transfer to a toilet. Also, there are contemporary uses of the term, not "decades ago", describing wheelchair-bound characters as wheelchair-bound. BD2412 T 18:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- lol...okay, I'm willing to use wheelchair-bound for SF characters who are completely contained within their mobility machinery. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, really. There are fictional characters who can teleport matter with their minds, so perhaps they don't need to transfer to a toilet. Also, there are contemporary uses of the term, not "decades ago", describing wheelchair-bound characters as wheelchair-bound. BD2412 T 18:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Really? They never transfer to bed or the toilet? The fact the author described them decades ago using the then-usual terminology doesn't mean they never pooped. :) Mark Twain used the word n*****. I don't think we'd want to describe any of his characters in our plot summary using that term. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Many users have cited WP:CREEP as a reason to !vote "no". This argument would apply in any case where the community adds a provision to the manual of style or any other policy. I don't think citing "WP:CREEP" alone is sufficient to make a !vote compelling. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. The page itself also clearly says: Citing to this page without further explanation does not adequately support a deletion or reversion. Additional instruction can be helpful when it succinctly states community consensus regarding a significant point. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I get the concern. I've seen instructions become bloated. Personally I think that when instruction becomes bloated, we just need to start editing. It doesn't necessarily meant we don't need another instruction. It means the current instructions need to be scrutinized and if possible made more concise or culled. But arguing that we've got enough instructions pretty much assumes no new concerns other than the ones we've already addressed are ever going to arise. Which is optimistic at best. —valereee (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- The reasoning needed in addition to merely stating "WP:CREEP" is that the issue of the term wheelchair-bound is not particularly special. We can think of hundreds of situations like this. Are we going to add every one of them to the guidelines? No. The clause about trying to remain as respectful as possible without sacrificing meaning is sufficient. MarshallKe (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MarshallKe, I'd argue that the term is special because it's considered, by the people it's describing, to be offensive. What hundreds of situations are you thinking of where that's true? I can only really think of a few, and pretty much most of them I don't like spelling out because they're considered offensive. This one, for instance. This one. This one. N-word, of course, and other ethnic slurs. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hoping I'm not invoking WP:BEANS here, but all of these terms are deemed by at least a vocal minority to be offensive for various reasons: Arthritic, diabetic, paraplegic, handicapped, suffers from, afflicted by, victim of, able-bodied, mental patient, deaf mute, blind, dwarf, mentally ill, oriental and all the other racial words, whitelist, blacklist, black sheep, man-made, chairman, slum, ghetto, sex change, mankind, reclaimed terms like queer and fat are especially weird cases, prostitute, illegal immigrant, old people, marijuana, cannibal, eskimo. MarshallKe (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and really none of those terms are encyclopedic. I'm like...which of those wouldn't I edit? Chairman, I'd leave. Marijuana, maybe? I might change it to cannabis. Blind...well, that's a difficult one, but depending on whether the person is 100% blind I might suggest that the person has low-vision instead. Deaf mute...no one says that any more. And why would we call anyone arthritic or diabetic when it's just as easy to say they have arthritis or diabetes? Handicapped, no. And suffers from/afflicted by/victim of...I'd edit those too. It's just not encyclopedic language. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, we're not allowed to say marijuana, slum, blind, or old people anymore? I must have missed the memo. As for able-bodied, well, [28]. EEng 05:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also, may be worth mentioning again that this term is specified as one to avoid by a large number of style guides, including the AP Stylebook [29], the Guardian and Observer style guide [30] the UK gov [31] etc [32]. Unlike many of the terms above. I wonder if I'm missing something - I thought that would carry more weight than it appears to here, these decisions will not have been lightly made and I thought WP was very source focused? Persicifolia (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Persicifolia, what RS are using does carry weight, but in these kinds of discussions there are always a number of editors who prefer we continue to use the older terms and argue that the fact a term is in long use means it shouldn't be abandoned willy-nilly on the basis of what could be argued to be simply current fashion, and they have a point. We have to go with consensus, so we discuss these kinds of things sometimes for months, and sometimes we need multiple discussions. The mills of the gods grind slowly. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @—valereee yes that does make sense, and it is worth me remembering that I may have been using 'wheelchair user' for decades but it's clear some editors are coming across it for the first time, which gives a very different perspective (as of course does not being part of the group discussed). I find the idea it's fringe terminology frustrating, I suppose, given the history and sources. But I'm pretty new to this end of WP and understand the need for consensus. Persicifolia (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @—valereee, If the best RS say that "wheelchair-bound" is nonneutral language, then doesn't NPOV overrule consensus? (Unless of course there is no consensus on the interpretation of the RS.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- They are all in agreement in as much as every one that has been presented here--including the largest English-language style guide--is unanimous and not a single one has been provided which says otherwise; however, if NPOV was enough we wouldn't have this debate and it would have been an open and shut case. I think some people genuinely don't see that this is non neutral and an explicit mention of such is needed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Kolya Butternut, IMO, yes, but that is still something that needs consensus. Eventually we'll get there, but it may not be in this discussion. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @—valereee, should we start a new subsection to specifically discuss the NPOV issue? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Persicifolia, what RS are using does carry weight, but in these kinds of discussions there are always a number of editors who prefer we continue to use the older terms and argue that the fact a term is in long use means it shouldn't be abandoned willy-nilly on the basis of what could be argued to be simply current fashion, and they have a point. We have to go with consensus, so we discuss these kinds of things sometimes for months, and sometimes we need multiple discussions. The mills of the gods grind slowly. —valereee (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you see my point, though? Are we going to RfC and debate every single one of these terms and add them to policy, re-debating them every year or so as the euphemism treadmill progresses, or are we going to invoke CREEP and rely on the policy that we should try to be respectful as possible without sacrificing meaning? MarshallKe (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Of course we should never sacrifice meaning. I would argue there's no inherent loss in meaning from 'wheelchair user' vs 'wheelchair bound' (either could need more explanation) and that this idea of a 'euphemism treadmill' is bullshit. Language evolves, and yes, WP will probably have to debate multiple changes because people don't like change. The fact people had to discuss it doesn't mean we weren't right to stop using the n-word. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think these are good analogies. Another example: some have recently suggested that the term "homeless" is offensive. We could go through and replace all instances in mainspace with one of the suggested alternatives like "experiencing homelessness" or "unhoused". A superficial analysis suggests this would be a clear win. Presumably no-one is offended by the replacement terms (except perhaps on an aesthetic level), and the meaning of the new terms is clear enough to readers, so we've saved some readers from offense at no cost! Except there is a cost to forcing editors to dance around what are natural and widely understood terms to avoid offense to a small minority. (And when I refer to a small minority, I don't mean the people actually referred to by the term. None of the homeless people I've talked to know that they're not supposed to call themselves homeless anymore. Those pushing to proscribe that term are largely wealthy, college-educated individuals who have the luxury to spend their time on (well-meaning) linguistic bikeshedding.) There may come a time when "homeless" (or "wheelchair-bound") is clearly dead and buried, and becomes only rarely used in RS. At that point, of course we should stop using it, simply for the same reason we would avoid "electronic mail" or any other dated term (i.e. it's at best distracting, and might be unfamiliar to some readers). But no sooner. And trying to predict the demise of a phrase in advance is a tricky business, as reversals do happen - in the 90's, it seemed like "differently abled" was going to replace "disabled", which was increasingly seen as offensive, but since then "disabled" has been re-embraced, with "differently abled" discarded as overly euphemistic or paternalistic. Colin M (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree Colin M that allies have often weighed in with proposed changes to language, this has particularly been an issue for disabled people. ('Differently abled' was I believe championed by non-disabled people and has always made me shudder.) But the antipathy for 'wheelchair-bound' is coming from actual wheelchair users like me who find it offensive and inaccurate. 'Wheelchair user' has been used for decades, and now it is the consensus - all the style guides reflect this. I do understand that it might seem jarring if you're unused to it, but 'wheelchair-bound' is a bad term for an awful lot of reasons, many of which but not all detailed in this thread. Persicifolia (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Persicifolia: I understand why you say it's inaccurate, though I don't think you're giving readers enough credit for their ability to understand figurative language. e.g. in your comment above, you say that a term has always made you "shudder", but I assume you don't literally mean it causes you to shake nervously? But I would be genuinely interested in hearing why these terms cause you offense. Above you mention the "negative connotations" of these terms - perhaps you could elaborate on that? Colin M (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Colin M: Surprisingly, many people take 'wheelchair-bound' literally, imagining that wheelchair users never leave their chairs, with real world consequences. Public responses are frequently unpleasant, especially to people who can walk but use a wheelchair for long distances or on particular days. It is a term which genuinely misleads people about disability, the way it is lived, and what a wheelchair is. A wheelchair is a tool, one which should simply be able to be used when appropriate. But the stigma surrounding wheelchairs is massive. And this term encapsulates much of it.
- @Persicifolia: I understand why you say it's inaccurate, though I don't think you're giving readers enough credit for their ability to understand figurative language. e.g. in your comment above, you say that a term has always made you "shudder", but I assume you don't literally mean it causes you to shake nervously? But I would be genuinely interested in hearing why these terms cause you offense. Above you mention the "negative connotations" of these terms - perhaps you could elaborate on that? Colin M (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree Colin M that allies have often weighed in with proposed changes to language, this has particularly been an issue for disabled people. ('Differently abled' was I believe championed by non-disabled people and has always made me shudder.) But the antipathy for 'wheelchair-bound' is coming from actual wheelchair users like me who find it offensive and inaccurate. 'Wheelchair user' has been used for decades, and now it is the consensus - all the style guides reflect this. I do understand that it might seem jarring if you're unused to it, but 'wheelchair-bound' is a bad term for an awful lot of reasons, many of which but not all detailed in this thread. Persicifolia (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and really none of those terms are encyclopedic. I'm like...which of those wouldn't I edit? Chairman, I'd leave. Marijuana, maybe? I might change it to cannabis. Blind...well, that's a difficult one, but depending on whether the person is 100% blind I might suggest that the person has low-vision instead. Deaf mute...no one says that any more. And why would we call anyone arthritic or diabetic when it's just as easy to say they have arthritis or diabetes? Handicapped, no. And suffers from/afflicted by/victim of...I'd edit those too. It's just not encyclopedic language. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hoping I'm not invoking WP:BEANS here, but all of these terms are deemed by at least a vocal minority to be offensive for various reasons: Arthritic, diabetic, paraplegic, handicapped, suffers from, afflicted by, victim of, able-bodied, mental patient, deaf mute, blind, dwarf, mentally ill, oriental and all the other racial words, whitelist, blacklist, black sheep, man-made, chairman, slum, ghetto, sex change, mankind, reclaimed terms like queer and fat are especially weird cases, prostitute, illegal immigrant, old people, marijuana, cannibal, eskimo. MarshallKe (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MarshallKe, I'd argue that the term is special because it's considered, by the people it's describing, to be offensive. What hundreds of situations are you thinking of where that's true? I can only really think of a few, and pretty much most of them I don't like spelling out because they're considered offensive. This one, for instance. This one. This one. N-word, of course, and other ethnic slurs. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- When you cannot walk, or walk with difficulty, a wheelchair means freedom. This term obscures that. 'Bound' is meant to evoke confinement, strangely attributing to the very tool of our freedom the source of our supposed confinement. And 'wheelchair-bound' is used as a lazy shorthand - in fiction and sometimes in WP articles - for confinement, for misery, for the 'bitter crip***' stock character. I am not for changing language without very good reason - I am good with disabled/disability, though the etymology is hardly lovely. But this language causes a great deal of trouble. Getting rid of it would of course not solve the stigma and misunderstandings, but its use actively makes it worse. Persicifolia (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Persicifolia: Very well-written. My thanks and admiration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- When you cannot walk, or walk with difficulty, a wheelchair means freedom. This term obscures that. 'Bound' is meant to evoke confinement, strangely attributing to the very tool of our freedom the source of our supposed confinement. And 'wheelchair-bound' is used as a lazy shorthand - in fiction and sometimes in WP articles - for confinement, for misery, for the 'bitter crip***' stock character. I am not for changing language without very good reason - I am good with disabled/disability, though the etymology is hardly lovely. But this language causes a great deal of trouble. Getting rid of it would of course not solve the stigma and misunderstandings, but its use actively makes it worse. Persicifolia (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- It depends on the context, which makes it hard to write a rule. "Wheelchair-bound" works (sometimes) for material on literature and art. "Wheelchair user" is probably fine for many impersonal situations ("The building was inaccessible to wheelchair users" is maybe better than "The building was inaccessible to the wheelchair-bound") or in anodyne descriptive passages ("Smith was the first wheelchair user to be admitted to the Academy") and so on.
- Literature gets a bit more leeway I think. If the author of the work has made a character's disability an important part of her persona or of the action, I don't think its our place to water that down on purpose. If for Born on the Fourth of July we replace "The wheelchair-bound Kovic sobs 'who's going to love me now, dad?'" with "Kovic, who is a wheelchair user, sobs..." it's not the same. It's also not better.
- It's fine to describe the protagonist of a spy drama as being a "desk-bound analyst" before becoming a swashbuckling field agent and so on. In another context, we'd presumably say "Smith was an office worker before becoming a performer with the Solid Gold Dancers" rather than "Smith was desk-bound"...
- So, there's no way to have a functional rule here. Of course any rule is going to say "generally, in most cases, and subject to common sense exceptions..." but so what? Nobody pays any attention to that boilerplate and everyone knows it.
- My inclination is trust the editors to read the room. Let the writers write using the best language for the situation according to their wits. It's worked OK so far. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- From my perspective, I'd argue that it hasn't worked out so far for editors and readers who find 'wheelchair-bound' offensive, and the way it's used is often misleading. Many of us do find it offensive (and inaccurate for all the reasons given). Which is why that's reflected in the style guides cited in this thread. It's often used inaccurately on WP even according to its own terms, frequently all the source tells us is that the person described as 'wheelchair-bound' has at some stage been seen in a wheelchair. Persicifolia (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Right, sure, shouldn't use any term when it's misleading. If a person was in a wheelchair for six months, don't describe her as either wheelchair bound or a wheelchair user during other times. Is it often misleading? I wouldn't think so.
- From my perspective, I'd argue that it hasn't worked out so far for editors and readers who find 'wheelchair-bound' offensive, and the way it's used is often misleading. Many of us do find it offensive (and inaccurate for all the reasons given). Which is why that's reflected in the style guides cited in this thread. It's often used inaccurately on WP even according to its own terms, frequently all the source tells us is that the person described as 'wheelchair-bound' has at some stage been seen in a wheelchair. Persicifolia (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- My inclination is trust the editors to read the room. Let the writers write using the best language for the situation according to their wits. It's worked OK so far. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmmm... there are about 50 articles in Category:Wheelchair users, and some several hundreds more in the subcat Category:Wheelchair sports competitors. It's overwhelmingly an athletic category, which makes sense. But leaving aside the athletes for now, out of curiosity I looked at a bunch of them, and what I concluded is
- 1) For these people, nobody writes "wheelchair bound" (except for one single "confined to a wheelchair"), it's always variations on "uses a wheelchair".
- 2) I didn't see and kind of can't imagine any situations where a variation of "wheelchair user" wouldn't be perfectly fine.
- Since rules are supposed to codify practice, and "wheelchair user" appears to be very much the common practice AND is at least as good on the merits, I'm OK with making "wheelchair bound" be a rule when writing about actual people. Also (I would think) when writing about things and events ("access for wheelchair users" not "the wheelchair-bound") etc.
- But, there are 50 people in that cat... there are probably close to that many wheelchair-bound fictional characters here... Professor Xavier... the kid in Mac and Me... Detective Ironside... Miss Marple... the Doom Patrol guy... that's off the top of my head and a bet there's lots more... it's different. If the rule exempts art and literature, then OK I'll get on board. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- But neither Ironside article uses 'wheelchair-bound' or 'confined' currently. There was an instance of it in Ironside (1967 TV series) which I replaced this week, and that edit (like 103 out of 104 I made) has not been altered or commented on so far. Does the article as is suffer from the omission of 'wheelchair-bound'? (I understand the feeling about an exemption for fictional characters - from my perspective if it's bad terminology, it's bad terminology.) Persicifolia (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- You understand that the benefit is for our readers and editors, and not just for the people described though, right? It would still be wrong to describe a fictional character as "mulatto" for example. This idea that somehow articles on fiction aren't read by very non-fictional people strikes me as absolutely unintelligible. Funny enough the articles on Ironside, Professor X, Mac and Me, and Miss Marple all seem to function perfectly fine as-is without using the term "wheelchair-bound" right now so I fail to see the tenacity regarding an insistence on using it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- The other thing is - the contention is that the change would be for the benefit of wheelchair users - to save our feelings. Which is of course true. But from my perspective, it's the effect the flawed terminology has on non-disabled people that causes problems. Because they are the people frequently genuinely confused and misled by it, into misunderstanding the way disability really works. In all the ways described elsewhere. (Not to pile on Herostratus - just because it came up.) Persicifolia (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Grapple X: See Une Tempête: "Césaire specifies that Prospero is a white master, while Ariel is a mulatto and Caliban is a black slave". Describing Ariel as a "mulatto" is appropriate and even necessary here, because it recites what the author has specified. It would be factually incorrect to state that the author had depicted the character as some euphemism for the term actually used. BD2412 T 19:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- In a direct quote, that's one thing, but in Wikipedia's voice that absolutely isn't right; you seem to be mistaken for what "euphemism" means. One word being replaced in common usage by another is not a euphemism, if we replaced "mulatto" out of quotes with "mixed race" that's actually less euphemistic. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can hardly believe my fingers are typing this, but Grapple's right on this point, though we'd actually have to say "of mixed white and black ancestry", since that's specifically what mulatto means. EEng 03:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: It's not a direct quote, though. It's a descriptive statement, in Wikipedia's voice, of the author's characterization. In that capacity it correctly describes the terminology that the author was intentional in using. Also, "of mixed white and black ancestry" would be imprecise in context. There are people (and, presumably, fictional characters) technically meeting that description who would be described as something other than "mulatto". Most people who identify as African Americans are genetically "of mixed white and black ancestry", as are more people than you might think who identify as White Americans. BD2412 T 03:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's best if we not thresh this particular issue out here and now. EEng 03:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't raise the issue; just pointing out that there are times and places where it is appropriate to use a disfavored descriptor because it accurately describes authorial intent in the depiction of a fictional character. BD2412 T 04:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree with that (see below), just the particular example has its own complexities not useful to to pursue here. EEng 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't raise the issue; just pointing out that there are times and places where it is appropriate to use a disfavored descriptor because it accurately describes authorial intent in the depiction of a fictional character. BD2412 T 04:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's best if we not thresh this particular issue out here and now. EEng 03:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: It's not a direct quote, though. It's a descriptive statement, in Wikipedia's voice, of the author's characterization. In that capacity it correctly describes the terminology that the author was intentional in using. Also, "of mixed white and black ancestry" would be imprecise in context. There are people (and, presumably, fictional characters) technically meeting that description who would be described as something other than "mulatto". Most people who identify as African Americans are genetically "of mixed white and black ancestry", as are more people than you might think who identify as White Americans. BD2412 T 03:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can hardly believe my fingers are typing this, but Grapple's right on this point, though we'd actually have to say "of mixed white and black ancestry", since that's specifically what mulatto means. EEng 03:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- In a direct quote, that's one thing, but in Wikipedia's voice that absolutely isn't right; you seem to be mistaken for what "euphemism" means. One word being replaced in common usage by another is not a euphemism, if we replaced "mulatto" out of quotes with "mixed race" that's actually less euphemistic. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- But, there are 50 people in that cat... there are probably close to that many wheelchair-bound fictional characters here... Professor Xavier... the kid in Mac and Me... Detective Ironside... Miss Marple... the Doom Patrol guy... that's off the top of my head and a bet there's lots more... it's different. If the rule exempts art and literature, then OK I'll get on board. Herostratus (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
By the way, if we do end up depracating "wheelchair-bound", where in the MOS should this then even be placed? And phrased how? I feel like those are some somewhat important details. I haven't really been able to find an appropriate place yet to add it to. There's MOS:LABEL, but that deals with terms that are far more extreme than this one. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think the suggestion was at MOS:MED, until there's enough to have a separate MOS for dealing with disabilities and other conditions. --Masem (t) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem I have an objection in principle to putting it in MEDMOS. It is precisely the medicalisation of disability that is at the root of much of the problems of disability discrimination and opression. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- It feels like it could slot in under Vocabulary on this page, just, similarly to how MOS:DEADNAME is positioned. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:WTW already mentions disability terminology so I think that's probably the best place for it Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- It feels like it could slot in under Vocabulary on this page, just, similarly to how MOS:DEADNAME is positioned. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem I have an objection in principle to putting it in MEDMOS. It is precisely the medicalisation of disability that is at the root of much of the problems of disability discrimination and opression. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
"Jesus healed the physically disabled". GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Both are useful terms. At my last workplace we had two wheelchair users: one had no difficulty easing out of the chair to press the lift/elevator buttons, but the other was wheelchair-bound and as my workshop was close by, I would slip out and do the pressing. I didn't mind, in fact felt honored to be of assistance, but I could see she felt a little embarrassed at having to ask, so I instigated a refit that worked for everyone. Doug butler (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to expand on an example I gave earlier. For those unfamiliar with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (film), first see this 14-second clip [33] to know all you need to know about it (for the purposes of this discussion, anyway). Our article ...
- for many years recited that Blanche is
wheelchair-bound
... - but was changed in 2018 to say
Blanche now uses a wheelchair
[34] ... - then some months later was changed to
Blanche's mobility is limited by a wheelchair
[35] ... - and recently by was changed to to [36]:
Blanche's mobility is limited to a wheelchair
.
- for many years recited that Blanche is
- In reverse order:
- "mobility limited to a wheelchair" makes no sense at all.
- "mobility limited by a wheelchair" makes it sound like it's somehow the wheelchair's fault.
- "uses a wheelchair" completely omits the film's indispensible premise, which is (like it or not) that Blanche has no ability to move about at all without the machine (unless you count the incident in which, as the article recites, she "desperately drags herself down the stairs").
- And that is why "confined to a wheelchair" or "wheelchair-bound" are the overwhelming choices of serious sources discussing the film:
- Template:Cite article
- Crowther, Bosley (November 7, 1962). "Screen: Bette Davis and Joan Crawford: They Portray Sisters in Melodrama 'What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?' Opens". New York Times.
- Conrich, Ian; Sedgwick, Laura (2017). Gothic Dissections in Film and Literature: The Body in Parts. p. 152.
- Hantke, Steffen (2004). Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear.
- Albrecht, Gary L (2005). Encyclopedia of Disability. p. 17.
- Nowak, Donna Marie (2010). Just Joan: A Joan Crawford Appreciation.
- Denby, David (2012). Do the Movies Have a Future?. p. 112.
- Bret, David (2009). Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr.
- Schweitzer, Dahlia (2014). Cindy Sherman's Office Killer: Another kind of monster.
- Holmes, Su; Negra, Diane (2011). In the Limelight and Under the Microscope: Forms and Functions of Female Celebrity.
- Palmer, R. Barton; Pomerance, Murray (2018). The Many Cinemas of Michael Curtiz.
- (And that list includes, do note ... NPR! Plus, that's just the books; skim [37] for the journal articles.) I understand and endorse the desire to describe appropriately and sensitively the reality of actual people who use wheelchairs, and in many or most (though I doubt all) such cases, alternative wording will be better. But I cannot abide the scorched-earth insistence that certain words or phrases be banned, because the in-universe reality for Blanche is that she is trapped, stuck, bound, confined to her wheelchair. No circumlocution can do the job as effectively, which is why sources don't employ them. EEng 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- She was not literally "confined to a wheelchair", see this clip of her balancing herself down the stairs. A source which actually discusses both Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and disability terminology is Disabling Imagery and the Media. Quotes: "Joan Crawford (who is also a wheelchair user) is wholly at the mercy of her murderous sister, Bette Davis" and "Also phrases like 'confined to a wheelchair' or 'wheelchair bound' are inappropriate. Wheelchairs empower rather than confine - they are a mobility aid just like a pair of shoes." She was, however, literally bound in bed. We can describe her restricted mobility without using inaccurate, negative terms. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
balancing herself down the stairs
– Oh come on, KB, our readers have common sense. Confined doesn't mean absolutely, 100%, at all times, surgically made one with the chair, any more than bound means literally restrained by ropes. Everyone knows that.Wheelchairs empower rather than confine
Absolutely, I agree, which is why the wording (in the article at one point) thatBlanche's mobility is limited by a wheelchair
makes no sense at all. The wheelchair's not what confines her; her paralysis is what confines her -- to the wheelchair. The wheelchair gives Blanche what little mobility she has but unfortunately that's all the mobility she has; she is confined to what little the wheelchair offers. That's what "confined to a wheelchair" means. I'm going to repeat, again, that discussions of actual people should not emphasize (in fact, should go out of their way to avoid emphasizing) limitation as if it's the defining character of their being, but there are times (as with Baby Jane) when emphasizing this aspect of someone's existence is essential, and trying to avoid the point is awkward and strained.A source which actually discusses both Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and disability terminology
– No, it doesn't discuss Baby Jane. Here's the entirety of the passage:
The absence in literature and other media of a full range of roles for disabled people strongly reinforces stereotype assumptions that disabled people are unable to look after themselves and, therefore, susceptible to violence. Moreover, the portrayal of disabled people as victims of violence is common in films and on television. The Hollywood classics 'Woman in a Cage' and 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane' are both fine examples. In the former Olivia de Haviland, a wheelchair user, is trapped in a lift by a gang of young thugs while they ransack her flat. In the latter, Joan Crawford (who is also a wheelchair user) is wholly at the mercy of her murderous sister, Bette Davis.
- That rightly highlights that it's bad thing when people in wheelchairs are featured only as an easy way to manufacture a helpless victim. But it's not a serious discussion of those films as works of fiction.
- EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would also contrast this with the issue that started this whole discussion, Arnim Zola in Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.; Zola is in a wheelchair because he's ancient. His immobility is not depicted as something that makes him susceptible to abuse; to the contrary it is depicted precisely to show that despite being physically incapacitated, his mind is still powerful enough to overcome S.H.I.E.L.D.'s most powerful psychic. BD2412 T 19:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- She was not literally "confined to a wheelchair", see this clip of her balancing herself down the stairs. A source which actually discusses both Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and disability terminology is Disabling Imagery and the Media. Quotes: "Joan Crawford (who is also a wheelchair user) is wholly at the mercy of her murderous sister, Bette Davis" and "Also phrases like 'confined to a wheelchair' or 'wheelchair bound' are inappropriate. Wheelchairs empower rather than confine - they are a mobility aid just like a pair of shoes." She was, however, literally bound in bed. We can describe her restricted mobility without using inaccurate, negative terms. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- If we are talking fictional works or long-deceased persons, there is an aspect of Wikipedia:Presentism that we should be avoiding in using modern sensibility to reframe something set at a specific time - though this does not prevent newer sources that are critical of that framing to be used to point out the issue. We should not be rewriting history because of what today's attitudes now say. This obviously does not apply to living persons/present-day issues, the point of discussion above. --Masem (t) 13:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, how will you describe FDR, wheelchair-bound or wheelchair user? In his time, not a peep was heard about his disability. Disability is not a topic on which there is voluminous old literature. Even the focus is modern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Who on Wikipedia will use "hunchback" without quotes in describing a character who was described as a "hunchback" both in an old literary work and in the literary criticism of that time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Hunchback of Notre-Dame#Characters [38]:
Quasimodo is a deformed 20-year-old hunchback, and the bell-ringer of Notre Dame.
Some1 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - However, no one is saying that we can't say, "In some newspaper reports Roosevelt was described as 'wheelchair bound,' when not supported in the standing posture by his son." Or that, "Film criticism of the 1970s did not discuss her disability; that she was 'wheelchair-bound' was the extent of the discussion." The ability to quote directly is very important, especially in instances in which we cannot discern the full intent or meaning of a writer. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
- I edited The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to remove inappropriate instances of "hunchback". For instance:
Quasimodo is a 20-year-old "hunchback" with physical deformities, and the bell-ringer of Notre Dame.
[39] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)- The use of quotes here is a very good approach. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I edited The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to remove inappropriate instances of "hunchback". For instance:
- The Hunchback of Notre-Dame#Characters [38]:
- In regards to FDR, we'd use what the sources of the time described him as, and if they routinely did not discuss his wheelchair use or did not consider it a defining feature (in contrast to someone like Stephen Hawking), then we are probably a bit freer to use more sensibility in language if needed. I note our articles never use "wheelchair-<something>" in an adjective form to describe FDR or his illness, though simple talk about his "use of a wheelchair". (It is perhaps that FDR was noted to go out of his way to not make his paralysis public that the media did not attribute any "wheelchair-<something>" adjective to him) --Masem (t) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's well put, Masem. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should use the language of the time. For instance, we wouldn't use negro except as a proper noun or in quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is a difference between terms universally considered offensive and that are now considered slurs, and what we're talking about here with those that have yet to fall into that case but we recognize may be sensitive to some. But even considering that in historical context, like if we were talking To Kill a Mockingbird or Uncle Tom's Cabin, having "Negro" come up in unquote statements in limited conditions would not be unexpected given the nature of the world and the time when it was written, though obviously from modern discussion and criticism, you'd likely only find that term in direct quotes. (I note neither of these articles use that word outside quotes at the time, so its not an issue we have to worry about). --Masem (t) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we should use the language of the time. For instance, we wouldn't use negro except as a proper noun or in quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's well put, Masem. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Who on Wikipedia will use "hunchback" without quotes in describing a character who was described as a "hunchback" both in an old literary work and in the literary criticism of that time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, how will you describe FDR, wheelchair-bound or wheelchair user? In his time, not a peep was heard about his disability. Disability is not a topic on which there is voluminous old literature. Even the focus is modern. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- If we are talking fictional works or long-deceased persons, there is an aspect of Wikipedia:Presentism that we should be avoiding in using modern sensibility to reframe something set at a specific time - though this does not prevent newer sources that are critical of that framing to be used to point out the issue. We should not be rewriting history because of what today's attitudes now say. This obviously does not apply to living persons/present-day issues, the point of discussion above. --Masem (t) 13:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- How about changing the proposed MOS guideline from:
or somesuch, to:"'Wheelchair-bound' and 'confined to a wheelchair' are deprecated in favor of 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheechair user'"
In other words, let us start with a preference instead of a rule (a la Fowler and Fowler: Prefer the concrete word to the abstract, etc). That way, the nuances of the exceptions, if any, will be worked out further on the talk pages of the articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)"Generally prefer 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheechair user' to 'is wheelchair-bound' or 'is confined to a wheelchair' "
- Now at least you're beginning to talk sense, but the suggested substitutes are too formulaic. Any guideline should primarily say what connotation's we're trying to avoid, perhaps illustrating with examples of rephrasings, but not make it sound like there are prescribed formulas. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you propose that version here, and we'll examine it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, too exhausted from beating back the suggestion that we ban certain phrases. We've got plenty of smart people here who I'm sure are up to the task. But I'll be standing by to opine that whatever's suggested falls short of what's needed. ;P EEng 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't you do it tomorrow or the day after when your exhaustion will have waned? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously, I'm way behind proofreading a friend's book. EEng 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why don't you do it tomorrow or the day after when your exhaustion will have waned? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, too exhausted from beating back the suggestion that we ban certain phrases. We've got plenty of smart people here who I'm sure are up to the task. But I'll be standing by to opine that whatever's suggested falls short of what's needed. ;P EEng 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well, why don't you propose that version here, and we'll examine it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Now at least you're beginning to talk sense, but the suggested substitutes are too formulaic. Any guideline should primarily say what connotation's we're trying to avoid, perhaps illustrating with examples of rephrasings, but not make it sound like there are prescribed formulas. EEng 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- The reliable sources, ie the numerous style guides, and even the organizations actually involved in disability are quite clear on the language that should be used. Wikipedia should reflect those styles and sources. We routinely update and stop using regressive language and terminology, just as the reliable source style guides do themselves. Arguments to keep to traditional or "oft used language" should be thrown in the trash. And then burned. And then buried in the soil as fertilizer so such worthless opinions can actually be used for something positive in the world. SilverserenC 19:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just start by repeating what I said to someone else earlier in this discussion: You can take your goddam righteous certainty in your moral fucking superiority and go jump in the lake. No one here has offered anything like an argument based on what's "oft used", so you better go back and actually read what people have said, and engage it. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- You mean arguments like WP:Euphemism despite "wheelchair-bound" being the actual euphemism? I have read them. They're crap arguments. SilverserenC 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I said elsewhere that it seemed you might misunderstand what the word euphemism means. I'm afraid that's now an unavoidable conclusion. Seriously. You don't seem to understand what the word means. EEng 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- You mean arguments like WP:Euphemism despite "wheelchair-bound" being the actual euphemism? I have read them. They're crap arguments. SilverserenC 19:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'll just start by repeating what I said to someone else earlier in this discussion: You can take your goddam righteous certainty in your moral fucking superiority and go jump in the lake. No one here has offered anything like an argument based on what's "oft used", so you better go back and actually read what people have said, and engage it. EEng 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
:(Silver seren) - I no longer have any objections to 'any' terminology that's used. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
My frustration levels have lowered. But, looking at the "NPOV vs Consensus" debate? Tempers appear to be reaching a boiling point, from both sides. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, I'm cool as a cucumber. EEng 05:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Procedural diversion
|
|---|
A requestFolks, can we please indent our posts properly? Make it easier to follow the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
|
NPOV vs Consensus
If the best RS say that "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are nonneutral language, then doesn't WP:NPOV overrule consensus? The RS say:
As language use, both terms are incorrectly applied because confined means "to keep shut up, as in a prison" and bound means "tied" (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, 1977), and everyone who uses a wheelchair leaves the chair for activities such as sleeping. When journalists use these terms, they misrepresent disability, as well as showing their misunderstanding of the disability experience. Wheelchairs are not binding or confining but actually increase mobility, speed and ability.[40][41]
Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- What we do by NPOV is based on consensus, we are not a bureaucracy. There are only a few policies that are absolutes, and those are ones that have legal implications (BLP, NFC and COPYVIO). --Masem (t) 23:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:NPOV:
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)- The principles of NPOV can't be overriden by consensus, but the argument if "wheelchair-bound" is non-neutral still remains a determination to be made by consensus, not by policy. --Masem (t) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- And this is what we need to discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- The principles of NPOV can't be overriden by consensus, but the argument if "wheelchair-bound" is non-neutral still remains a determination to be made by consensus, not by policy. --Masem (t) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:NPOV:
- At the same time, a local consensus to ignore the entirety of the reliable sources that aren't even vague, but extremely direct and clear on style guide and terminology usage and to also violate things like NPOV is not a valid consensus. SilverserenC 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also, per WP:NPOV#Words to watch:
Strive to eliminate expressions that are ... disparaging
. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)- Unfortunately you're omitting the opening words of the very section you're linking:
There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care
. If the discussion can proceed on those terms, then we might get somewhere. EEng 06:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you're omitting the opening words of the very section you're linking:
- The question is , has consensus determined that "wheelchair-bound" to be disparaging? This is the same type of question around the "commit suicide" RFC. Just because some sources claim it is, we need to see if editors on WP agree it is as well, and then we can treat it that way. --Masem (t) 23:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, so in this section I'd like editors to weigh in so that we can determine consensus. What do you think; don't the RS say that "wheelchair-bound" is disparaging and inaccurate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I believe "disparaging" is referring to MOS:LABEL, since that seems to be the closest relevant section in MOS:WTW page that NPOV links to. I don't think "wheelchair-bound" was intended to be a MOS:LABEL. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem—I don't believe a single source has been provided which explicitly states otherwise; no style guide or usage discussion which says "it's fine". The "evidence" to the contrary has just been to point to the phrase in use, which could be done for any language we've already agreed not to use. That not everyone is in agreement here is not to say that it isn't in wide agreement outside of WP. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not saying on which side we fall on due to sourcing or lack thereof. That's why there's the RFC to see if, given these arguments ("most sources say it's a problem, and its hard to find those that say its not a problem") that we'll let consensus come to a conclusion if we should consider it a problem. What we can't jump to is says "sources say its a problem, therefore, without establishing that by consensus, we should avoid the term" as that can lead to a lot of preemptive actions in other areas. --Masem (t) 23:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Masem—I don't believe a single source has been provided which explicitly states otherwise; no style guide or usage discussion which says "it's fine". The "evidence" to the contrary has just been to point to the phrase in use, which could be done for any language we've already agreed not to use. That not everyone is in agreement here is not to say that it isn't in wide agreement outside of WP. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- One source explicitly says it is only considering a US context (which is a {{globalize}} issue), and the other source is published in a US journal with < 20% international collaboration, and incidentally also a 0.4 SJR and ~50 cites per year, and the author of the piece appears to be a disability policy consultant, not a scholar, so it does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- If local/global issues are a concern, the Grauniad and Observer style guide also specifically states it is
stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate
. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) - ProcrastinatingReader, the first source is considering US newspapers, but the quote is the opinion of the UK published Disability & Society. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- There's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to sources ProcrastinatingReader so a great many style guides have been referred to. Re international consensus:
- From the Australian IDPWD style guide: "avoid words and phrases that are negative or demeaning, such as 'wheelchair bound'" [42].
- The Australian government style guide does not mention usage of ‘bound’ or ‘confined’ but specifies best practice is 'person who uses a wheelchair..' [43]
- From Canada: 'Avoid phrases such as confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair bound. Instead, use phrases such as "a person who uses a wheelchair" or "wheelchair user". People are not "confined" or "bound” to a wheelchair".' [44]
- The New Zealand government lists in 'terms to avoid': "Wheelchair bound, confined to a wheelchair". And in 'terms to use instead': "Someone who uses a wheelchair or wheelchair user". [45]
- On top of the sources mentioned just above by Grapple and Kolya, for the UK and US there's the UK government style guide and the AP Stylebook. Persicifolia (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're assuming, of course, that those sources are not themselves representing a point of view. BD2412 T 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any point whatsoever in your comment? We follow what the reliable sources say on subjects. Every source has a POV. It's pretty obvious what you're actually trying to implicate is the nonsensical claim that these style guides are biased because they are supportive of disabled people and appropriate language toward them. SilverserenC 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Earlier in this discussion I was asked to provide examples of sources using the opposed terminology. It has been amply demonstrated that there are contemporary sources that do. Further to that, a Newspapers.com search for the last five years returns over 5,000 hits for newspaper articles using the term, "wheelchair-bound", including instances of people using it to describe themselves and their family members, as well as instances of the term being used to describe fictional characters in film and book reviews. What is missing in the invocation of style guides is any sense of context. The style guides referenced apply to news reporting and government documents, both almost overwhemingly applied to real people. There certainly won't be government edicts describing how laws should apply to fictional characters. I would gladly support a guideline to this effect as applied to real people, but deprecating the phrase even with respect to fictional characters in the context of their fictional portrayals would prohibit accurate discussion of those portrayals. If this rule proposes to prohibit us from directly quoting a reliable source in print, then it invites a POV favoring original research over the sources in those articles. BD2412 T 06:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- And as I explained above, not a one of those sources discusses the term to say it's considered acceptable. Newspapers.com also returns over a thousand matches for "for all intensive purposes", 282,214,956 results for "should of" so let's not pretend that's a metric we can trust. What is missing is any source arguing in favour of the term, likely because no cogent argument has yet been made for it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do you get why a list of newspaper articles (including most of which are probably just duplicates of a much, much smaller number of actual articles, since that's how Newspapers.com works) isn't relevant to discussing style guides and terminology usage? And they are clear in writing in all instances in how that terminology is used, as are the disability organizations themselves. Since the issue isn't about applying the term to just real people, it is the usage of the term at all. As this is also about our readers. And nothing of the above applies to quotes in the first place. Just as you can still use even outright slurs in quotes, which you wouldn't do in non-quote Wikipedia voice sentences. We are discussing Wikipedia voice parts of articles. SilverserenC 06:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yah, BD2412, doncha know how Newspaper.com works, you're so ignorant, it's probably just a bunch of duplicates, though of course I didn't actually check since I can just pull statements like that out of my butt.[FBDB] Hmmmm... well, let's see. How about Google Scholar [46], Silver s? Lots of duplicates there? EEng 06:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Earlier in this discussion I was asked to provide examples of sources using the opposed terminology. It has been amply demonstrated that there are contemporary sources that do. Further to that, a Newspapers.com search for the last five years returns over 5,000 hits for newspaper articles using the term, "wheelchair-bound", including instances of people using it to describe themselves and their family members, as well as instances of the term being used to describe fictional characters in film and book reviews. What is missing in the invocation of style guides is any sense of context. The style guides referenced apply to news reporting and government documents, both almost overwhemingly applied to real people. There certainly won't be government edicts describing how laws should apply to fictional characters. I would gladly support a guideline to this effect as applied to real people, but deprecating the phrase even with respect to fictional characters in the context of their fictional portrayals would prohibit accurate discussion of those portrayals. If this rule proposes to prohibit us from directly quoting a reliable source in print, then it invites a POV favoring original research over the sources in those articles. BD2412 T 06:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any point whatsoever in your comment? We follow what the reliable sources say on subjects. Every source has a POV. It's pretty obvious what you're actually trying to implicate is the nonsensical claim that these style guides are biased because they are supportive of disabled people and appropriate language toward them. SilverserenC 04:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're assuming, of course, that those sources are not themselves representing a point of view. BD2412 T 03:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- If local/global issues are a concern, the Grauniad and Observer style guide also specifically states it is
- I cannot believe you guys have gone off on this track. NPOV and RS are content policies, and apply only to articles. We certainly look to other high-quality publications, and their style guides, for ideas on what style decisions we want to make (if we make one at all on a given point -- instead of leaving it up the editors of each article), but in the final analysis we make those decisions ourselves according to what we think best serves the goal of building the encyclopedia. Phrases such as "we follow the reliable sources" show a fundamental misapprehension of the project's policies and guidelines.Words and phrases, on their own, are not neutral or nonneutral, POV or NPOV. It's how they're used in a particular article that counts, which is why any attempt to outright ban any give phrase is a nonstarter. EEng 06:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- If yas wanna 'ban' "wheelchair bound"? fine. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you still mad about the indenting? Can't you get past that? EEng 06:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- EEng, you stated,
Words and phrases, on their own, are not neutral or nonneutral, POV or NPOV. It's how they're used
that counts. Well, we're talking about using these words to refer to people who use wheelchairs, and I am suggesting that is a nonneutral use, because the RS say it is a nonneutral use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)- There's no way to say it's nonneutral in all cases, all places and times, and particularly not for fictional characters and (as noted elsewhere in the sprawl) in medical contexts where sources use the term, whether you like it or not. You insistence on a blanket ban is where you lose people. EEng 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- EEng, as Calidum stated above,
MOS is a guideline and occasional exceptions to its rules are allowed.
(Not that I can think of any where it would be necessary.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- EEng, as Calidum stated above,
- There's no way to say it's nonneutral in all cases, all places and times, and particularly not for fictional characters and (as noted elsewhere in the sprawl) in medical contexts where sources use the term, whether you like it or not. You insistence on a blanket ban is where you lose people. EEng 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem here is that some people are not recognizing the clear "asymmetry of complaint" that always happens. The only people who ask for change are those unsatisfied with the status quo; so when people above are saying things like "What is missing is any source arguing in favour of the term", those will never exist because the term is already standard so people who agree with that standard don't complain. They just use the term. It is only people who object to the term which write statements to the effect of "we shouldn't use the term". What we should do is look for usage rather than overt arguments, because people who agree with how things are doing don't make arguments to continue to do what they have always been doing. I don't really have a horse in the race, I am just interested in following Wikipedia's own ethos which is to follow mainstream usage and not to be "ahead of the curve". Maybe usage is changing. Maybe usage has already changed. Maybe usage is not changing at all. I have no idea, but what we should do is use actual usage of the terms to determine what to do, not to depend on finding people who make arguments one way or another, because that always unnaturally favors those who propose changes. --Jayron32 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the evidence from style guides (internationally) already linked above I think it is safe to say that usage
has already changed
. We are supposed to follow recent RS guidance, here, not the average of the last 50 years. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)- If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree. What we shouldn't be doing is cherry-picking complaints from advocacy organizations, which are not reliable experts on usage. --Jayron32 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a preponderance of honest-to-goodness style guides. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Surely the UK government, NZ government, Australian government, the AP Stylebook, the Guardian & Observer style guide - all linked above - cannot be considered advocacy organisations? And the UK NHS, for anyone concerned about medical usage. [47] This is already common usage, including on WP where 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already. Persicifolia (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've already pre-agreed with you, so I have no idea why you are taking up an argumentary tone with me. When I said "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." what I ACTUALLY meant by that was "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." I hope that clears up your confusion. --Jayron32 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Jayron32 see my comment to Blueboar above. Your vote used the preponderance word wrt sources, not style guides, as you are arguing now. And your original argument was similar to Blueboars in claiming that Wikipedia's voice should reflect our sources wrt writing style that has a social aspect (vs punctuation or the length of a dash). I don't know where that misguided concept came from, other than that it is a falsehood useful convenient to support certain political agendas. You make a case that people explicitly complain to change rather than explicitly request the status quo. This isn't entirely true, and culture wars in the UK and US demonstrate advocates of the status quo can be as vocal as any advocacy organisation. But as I noted to Blueboar, there's an asymmetry to the demand that we follow sources style, because one cannot search for the absence of something, for the lack of offensive, outdated and prejudicial language in high quality sources. Many of these style issues are covered by the guides of journal publishers, newspapers and press agencies, as well as government bodies such as the NHS and national government guidelines. These are not advocacy organisations, but are in the information business like us. And like us, they recognise their language choices have an effect. But unlike us, they recognise that all style guides lead, not follow, that they represent best practice, not typical practice. Nobody ever published a style guide in the hope that it would have no impact whatsoever. Yet that is what some here think our style guide on social word choices should be. -- Colin°Talk 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- How many fucking ways can I agree with you? Look, I don't care how long of a wall of text you write in response to me, I've already told you you're right. There's not any thing to be gained by repeatedly telling me things I already agreed with you on. It's apparent you're here to pick a fight and not to convince people that you're point is valid, since you're still trying to argue me into a position I've already accepted. Please just stop. It's getting wearisome. --Jayron32 19:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Jayron32 see my comment to Blueboar above. Your vote used the preponderance word wrt sources, not style guides, as you are arguing now. And your original argument was similar to Blueboars in claiming that Wikipedia's voice should reflect our sources wrt writing style that has a social aspect (vs punctuation or the length of a dash). I don't know where that misguided concept came from, other than that it is a falsehood useful convenient to support certain political agendas. You make a case that people explicitly complain to change rather than explicitly request the status quo. This isn't entirely true, and culture wars in the UK and US demonstrate advocates of the status quo can be as vocal as any advocacy organisation. But as I noted to Blueboar, there's an asymmetry to the demand that we follow sources style, because one cannot search for the absence of something, for the lack of offensive, outdated and prejudicial language in high quality sources. Many of these style issues are covered by the guides of journal publishers, newspapers and press agencies, as well as government bodies such as the NHS and national government guidelines. These are not advocacy organisations, but are in the information business like us. And like us, they recognise their language choices have an effect. But unlike us, they recognise that all style guides lead, not follow, that they represent best practice, not typical practice. Nobody ever published a style guide in the hope that it would have no impact whatsoever. Yet that is what some here think our style guide on social word choices should be. -- Colin°Talk 10:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've already pre-agreed with you, so I have no idea why you are taking up an argumentary tone with me. When I said "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." what I ACTUALLY meant by that was "If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree." I hope that clears up your confusion. --Jayron32 18:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Surely the UK government, NZ government, Australian government, the AP Stylebook, the Guardian & Observer style guide - all linked above - cannot be considered advocacy organisations? And the UK NHS, for anyone concerned about medical usage. [47] This is already common usage, including on WP where 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already. Persicifolia (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a preponderance of honest-to-goodness style guides. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- If a preponderance of honest-to-goodness reliable style guides are using it, then that is an indication that the usage has changed. I agree. What we shouldn't be doing is cherry-picking complaints from advocacy organizations, which are not reliable experts on usage. --Jayron32 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the evidence from style guides (internationally) already linked above I think it is safe to say that usage
including on WP where 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already
– That being, of course, because someone (you) went around blindly changing it. From your contributions history:
- 12:54, October 28, 2021 m Laurence Olivier Just replacing 'wheelchair bound' with 'wheelchair-using', as I proposed on the talk page. It could equally read 'an elderly soldier who uses a wheelchair' or just 'disabled' but I think this is the least obtrusive option.
- 11:59, October 28, 2021 +4 m The Bridge (2011 TV series) →Series 4: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is now widely considered outdated and misleading.
- 11:19, October 28, 2021 −2 m Four Tops →Later years: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is now widely considered outdated and misleading.
- 11:10, October 28, 2021 +11 m Surendra Gadling →Work: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 11:04, October 28, 2021 −2 m Bad News Bears →Legacy: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 11:02, October 28, 2021 m Jill Clayburgh →Career setbacks and TV movies: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 11:00, October 28, 2021 +11 m Satan's Slaves →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate! And 'mute' for the same reason.
- 10:46, October 28, 2021 −6 m List of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise) characters →Other characters: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - in keeping with the rest of the article which already uses preferred terms.
- 10:42, October 28, 2021 m Byculla to Bangkok →Storyline: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:38, October 28, 2021 −12 m Otto von Bismarck →Death: also replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is also considered outdated and a bit offensive.
- 10:36, October 28, 2021 +6 m Otto von Bismarck →Final years and forced resignation: just replacing 'confined to a wheelchair', which is widely considered outdated - 'full-time wheelchair user' gives us the same information and is less loaded and more accurate.
- 10:32, October 28, 2021 m Öyle Bir Geçer Zaman ki →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:31, October 28, 2021 m Our Lady of Lourdes →In popular culture: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:29, October 28, 2021 +1 m Dick Grayson →Earth 2 (New 52): just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:26, October 28, 2021 +2 m Jimmy Durante →Later years: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:24, October 28, 2021 m Agent Smith →The Animatrix: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:23, October 28, 2021 m Werner Kniesek →St. Pölten murders: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated.
- 10:21, October 28, 2021 +1 m Star Trek: The Original Series →Notable guest appearances: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:19, October 28, 2021 +4 m Haunted (Palahniuk novel) →Characters: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and a bit offensive - and inaccurate!
- 10:15, October 28, 2021 +3 m Venom (character) →Black Panther: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!))
- 09:34, October 28, 2021 +11 m Morrissey →Solo career: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's widely considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!). Also changing 'the disabled' to 'disabled people' for the same reason.
- 09:28, October 28, 2021 m List of The Office (American TV series) characters →Phyllis' family: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:26, October 28, 2021 0 m Peter Sellers →Dr. Strangelove, health problems, a second marriage and Casino Royale (1964–1969): just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:24, October 28, 2021 +11 m Inferno (1980 film) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:19, October 28, 2021 +1 m Funland (TV series) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:17, October 28, 2021 −5 m Taxi (TV series) →Recurring: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:15, October 28, 2021 +2 m Urban Legends: Final Cut →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:14, October 28, 2021 +5 m Stacy Galina →Early life: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:11, October 28, 2021 +2 m Seeta Aur Geeta →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:09, October 28, 2021 +9 m Baby Driver →Cast: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:08, October 28, 2021 −4 m Heroes (2008 film) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:06, October 28, 2021 m Majboor (1974 film) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 09:05, October 28, 2021 +11 m Peter Mayhew →Personal life and death: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 08:53, October 28, 2021 +1 m John Edward Robinson →Murders begin: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 08:42, October 28, 2021 +13 m Mom (TV series) →Main: just replacing 'wheelchair bound' as it's considered outdated and offensive now (as well as inaccurate!)
- 08:35, October 28, 2021 0 m Alex Krycek →Character arc: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:10, October 28, 2021 Freddy Got Fingered →Cast: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:08, October 28, 2021 m The Time Traveler's Wife (film) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:07, October 28, 2021 +1 m Bloodborne →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:05, October 28, 2021 +1 m Philomena (film) →Historical authenticity: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:03, October 28, 2021 0 m Checker Taxi →History: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 07:00, October 28, 2021 m Waxwork (film) →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 06:59, October 28, 2021 +1 m Wentworth (season 8) →Episodes: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 06:57, October 28, 2021 m Murders of Karlie Pearce-Stevenson and Khandalyce Pearce →Arrest: just replacing 'confined to a wheelchair', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 06:55, October 28, 2021 +12 m List of Shameless (American TV series) characters →Terry Milkovich: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 06:52, October 28, 2021 −10 m List of Shameless (American TV series) characters →Neil Morton: altering 'in a wheelchair' to the preferred 'wheelchair user'
- 06:50, October 28, 2021 +9 Jason Stryker →In other media: replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!) Also 'mute'.
- 06:49, October 28, 2021 −5 m Uncle Drew →Plot: just replacing 'wheelchair bound', which is widely considered outdated and offensive now (and inaccurate!)
- 20:28, October 27, 2021 0 m Willem Dafoe →1980s: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', as it's widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:27, October 27, 2021 m Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', as it's widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:24, October 27, 2021 +112 Madison Ferris Placing the first wheelchair user to play a lead on Broadway in the opening, because it seems important.
- 20:16, October 27, 2021 +1 m Facing the Giants →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:14, October 27, 2021 +6 m Scott Templeton →Season 5: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:12, October 27, 2021 −6 m Aunt May →Fictional character biography: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:09, October 27, 2021 0 m Audition (1999 film) →Reception: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:08, October 27, 2021 0 m Another Cinderella Story →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:07, October 27, 2021 0 m Timothy Busfield →Career: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:06, October 27, 2021 −2 m Tales from the Darkside: The Movie →Cat from Hell: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:04, October 27, 2021 m Tierra de reyes →Main: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:02, October 27, 2021 +1 m Achari America Yatra →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 20:01, October 27, 2021 0 m Angela Lansbury →Career beginnings and breakthrough (1957–61): replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:59, October 27, 2021 0 m Glass (2019 film) →Cast: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:57, October 27, 2021 List of Money Heist episodes →Part 4 (2020): replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:56, October 27, 2021 The Lost Symbol →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:55, October 27, 2021 +4 Scissors (film) →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:52, October 27, 2021 +1 Khadim Hussain Rizvi →Death: Changing 'wheelchair bound' for the same reason.
- 19:51, October 27, 2021 Khadim Hussain Rizvi →Early life: just changing 'confined to a wheelchair' to 'wheelchair user', as the latter is considered preferable.
- 19:48, October 27, 2021 30 Degrees in February →Plot: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:47, October 27, 2021 −2 Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022 film) →Cast: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
- 19:44, October 27, 2021 0 Panja Vaisshnav Tej →Career: replacing 'wheelchair-bound', which is widely considered offensive and inaccurate now.
You must think we're all morons. EEng 02:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You must think we're all morons.
Not all of you, but I'm on the fence about anyone who'd sooner post 13,000 bytes of someone's edit history than listen to core policies. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)- Boy, that sure is clever! Anything similarly clever to say about your friend Persicifolia (and I have no hesitation in saying this) blatantly lying that
on WP ... 'wheelchair user' etc dominates already
? EEng 03:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)- Maybe it's not as clever as suggesting someone jump off a bridge but I'm too busy trying to follow the sources here—precisely, by the way, what that wall of edit history you posted is also doing—to worry about cleverness. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is, indeed, not as clever, since one is an effective denunciation of the repeated questioning of other editors' good faith, while the other was a lame feint to distract from the fact that your friend lied. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Except it's not really lying, is it? To say that a term in greater usage "dominates"? I'm sure you would have picked another word but I find it utterly laughable that someone who has dedicated this amount of time and effort arguing what is indisputably a bad-faith position to begin with, with vigour and vitriol, would take umbrage at it being questioned. You are utterly indistinguishable from a troll at this point and I hope you can take a step back and see that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to be questioned, and I never take umbrage. (I like walking in the rain, actually.) Lying may have been a bit strong, but when you move sand from one pan of the balance to the other, then say, "See, it tips in my favor!", that's not a good look. As far as
indisputably a bad-faith position
andindistinguishable from a troll
, I encourage you to take to ANI and see what kind of reaction you get. EEng 05:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to be questioned, and I never take umbrage. (I like walking in the rain, actually.) Lying may have been a bit strong, but when you move sand from one pan of the balance to the other, then say, "See, it tips in my favor!", that's not a good look. As far as
- Except it's not really lying, is it? To say that a term in greater usage "dominates"? I'm sure you would have picked another word but I find it utterly laughable that someone who has dedicated this amount of time and effort arguing what is indisputably a bad-faith position to begin with, with vigour and vitriol, would take umbrage at it being questioned. You are utterly indistinguishable from a troll at this point and I hope you can take a step back and see that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is, indeed, not as clever, since one is an effective denunciation of the repeated questioning of other editors' good faith, while the other was a lame feint to distract from the fact that your friend lied. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's not as clever as suggesting someone jump off a bridge but I'm too busy trying to follow the sources here—precisely, by the way, what that wall of edit history you posted is also doing—to worry about cleverness. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Boy, that sure is clever! Anything similarly clever to say about your friend Persicifolia (and I have no hesitation in saying this) blatantly lying that
- PAG includes not disrupting WP to make a point, which what the edits above, claiming there's a reason to make the substitution prior gaining consensus, is exactly the problem. This is exactly why if editors thing there is a shift in language that needs to be changed on WP, it should go through a consensus-based change before any mass edits are made for that. --Masem (t) 02:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- ... not to mention changing everything to your preferred phrasing, then claiming that it "dominates". I'm trying to think of the word for that. Let me see ... mendacious? disingenuous? deceitful? Maybe dissembling? I just can't decide. EEng 03:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Which is precisely what the discussion on this page is, Masem. Those edits are NOT PAG. Look at the dates of the edits. They occurred prior to this RfC being opened. And are why we are here right now. Please don't fall for EEng's purposefully misleading claim. And if only 100 pages make up the bulk of usage of either term, then it's clearly not prevalent enough to start with to have a meaningful editing usage consensus statement one way or the other. Hence why this discussion is about reliable source usage among style guides and other such sources instead. SilverserenC 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Their edits eventually hit the Nick Fury page [48] on Oct 29, which launched discussion there and subsequently onto here. Their edits instigated this for all purposes. As well, when one does mass edits like this, that falls under WP:ONUS if they had have not sought prior concensus for the mass change. So yes, the behavior around this falls under PAG issues. Now, we can still debate the question of the language without talking about the behavior, but we have to discount what happened or exists on WP due to this. --Masem (t) 04:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Which is precisely what the discussion on this page is, Masem. Those edits are NOT PAG. Look at the dates of the edits. They occurred prior to this RfC being opened. And are why we are here right now. Please don't fall for EEng's purposefully misleading claim. And if only 100 pages make up the bulk of usage of either term, then it's clearly not prevalent enough to start with to have a meaningful editing usage consensus statement one way or the other. Hence why this discussion is about reliable source usage among style guides and other such sources instead. SilverserenC 04:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- EEng We are having this discussion because I edited 103 articles which included the term 'wheelchair-bound' - I have made absolutely no secret of that. Of my 103 edits I believe one was reverted. (Which has since be re-reverted by another editor). I was under the impression this was literally how WP worked. A few people who voted 'no' above suggested exactly this course of action, article by article, instead of this formal process (which I did not instigate or expect).
- There were approximately 1,600 uses of 'wheelchair-bound' before my edits. There are currently 1,806 examples of 'wheelchair user'. I have not edit warred. I changed no direct quotes, or medical pages. The protected pages chose to accept my edits. (Eg Morrissey, Laurence Olivier) I did not edit medical articles. I had RS. I stopped these edits when this discussion started. Persicifolia (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt that you "had RS": given the speed at which you made these changes, you cannot possibly have checked the sources for facts to support phrasing less cookie-cutter than the old standards (bound, confined), nor do I believe that the sources on (say) Otto von Bismarck actually refer to him as a "wheelchair user". You just blindly changed stuff. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- But it is improper that after making these changes, to claim "wheelchair user" dominates, since your edits have tainted that. --Masem (t) 03:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Except for math? 1,600 uses of "wheelchair-bound" and 1,806 usages of "wheelchair user". If we take away the 103 pages Persicifolia made in the latter case, that's still 1,703 cases. So, they were completely correct in saying there are more cases of the latter than the former even before they were involved. SilverserenC 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that if you take away the 103 "wheelchair user" pages, you would also have to add them to the "wheelchair bound" pages that they previously were. Which oddly enough brings it to exactly 1,703 for each term, making it inaccurate to say that "wheelchair user" was more common before the edits in question. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- And that's before you bring in confined to a wheelchair, which brings the score to about 2200 verus 1700. Not that anyone's counting. EEng 04:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is no also sense of context in those raw numbers, just as there is no sense of context in reference to style guides directed towards writing government documents and reporting news stories rather than writing articles on subjects like fictional characters and the media they inhabit. Perhaps all 1,703 original usages of "wheelchair user" were in reference to paralympians, for whom its appropriateness is not in dispute. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of losing brain cells, I'm going to ask again for you to show me a single instance of any style guide or usage discussion that shares this delusional idea that fictional characters have some sort of exemption here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- What part of
style guides directed towards writing government documents and reporting news stories rather than writing articles on subjects like fictional characters and the media they inhabit
do you not understand? EEng 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)- The part where at any fucking point any guide has said "this doesn't apply to writing about fiction". You're pulling an exception that doesn't exist out of your ass. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- These guides don't touch on writing about fiction because writing about fiction is outside their scope. EEng 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is absolutely not outside the scope of The Guardian, the Observer, the Associated Press, or the Modern Language Association to write about fiction. And yet they are all in agreement in this with none of this whimsical, fantastical exception being clung to. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed those among all the links to the advocacy groups.
- Guardian – OK, I'll give you that.
- AP – Here you've got a problem: [49].
- MLA – MLA Handbook recommends that we
Avoid language that can evoke emotions or imagery that may not be accurate such as describing a person who uses a wheelchair as "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair".
No one disagrees that we should avoid language that can evoke emotions or imagery that "may not be accurate". But emotions and imagery are the stock-in-trade of literature, and when (according to sources) a work evokes such emotions or imagery, we are bound (if the choice of words may be forgiven) to report that, not substitute a more bland formulation of our own design specifically designed to avoid the very atmosphere the work is intended to evoke.
- But there's still the Guardian, anyway. EEng 05:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed those among all the links to the advocacy groups.
- It is absolutely not outside the scope of The Guardian, the Observer, the Associated Press, or the Modern Language Association to write about fiction. And yet they are all in agreement in this with none of this whimsical, fantastical exception being clung to. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- These guides don't touch on writing about fiction because writing about fiction is outside their scope. EEng 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The part where at any fucking point any guide has said "this doesn't apply to writing about fiction". You're pulling an exception that doesn't exist out of your ass. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- What part of
- At the risk of losing brain cells, I'm going to ask again for you to show me a single instance of any style guide or usage discussion that shares this delusional idea that fictional characters have some sort of exemption here. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 04:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that if you take away the 103 "wheelchair user" pages, you would also have to add them to the "wheelchair bound" pages that they previously were. Which oddly enough brings it to exactly 1,703 for each term, making it inaccurate to say that "wheelchair user" was more common before the edits in question. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Except for math? 1,600 uses of "wheelchair-bound" and 1,806 usages of "wheelchair user". If we take away the 103 pages Persicifolia made in the latter case, that's still 1,703 cases. So, they were completely correct in saying there are more cases of the latter than the former even before they were involved. SilverserenC 04:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x 3) Honestly, I wasn't sure of the exact number of times the term 'wheelchair user' appears on Wikipedia till 5 minutes ago. It is my opinion that it dominates in the best quality and most up to date articles. (Lots of articles use language like 'uses a wheelchair' and other variables so a search like that is always going to be approximate.) Look I'm a relatively new WP editor, and may well never darken your door again after this week honestly, it's been deeply unpleasant. I had no idea this process even existed a week ago. I edited in accordance with WP disability language guidelines (or is it an essay?), and RS (all the style guides). I expected perhaps a series of small discussions, in which I'd share my sources, and maybe be reverted - in which case I would leave it. I've mentioned these edits repeatedly, I've been keen to discuss them, in part because only one (that I've found) was reverted. This has confused me, because there is so much opposition on this page, yet almost none in the actual article space. I am confused about how my edits made before this discussion, which I have been completely open about and are in fact the reason for the discussion, have tainted anything. If I hadn't made them we wouldn't be here. Persicifolia (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You might not believe this, but I'd really be sorry to see you stop contributing. But ... when you are (as you recognize) new to a situation, you need to take time to find out how things work. Your desire to bring nuance to articles' presentation of those in / using / confined by / bound to / assisted by / happy with / unhappy with / whatever their wheelchairs is laudable, but if you insist on seeing the issue in terms of black and white, and implying that those who disagree with you have evil motives, or don't care, you're going to run into trouble. EEng 04:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Re: The Guardian:
- "Dylan Alcott brings fun to the party as perspective proves key to tennis success", The Guardian (September 13, 2021): "Alcott’s legacy in tennis and as a champion for wheelchair-bound athletes was assured long ago".
- "Jessye Norman’s family sue over treatment that allegedly left her paralysed", The Guardian (September 30, 2021): "...she could not stand even in a standing frame and she was wheelchair-bound".
- "I literally wrote the book on apocalypses. I never thought it would pan out like this", The Guardian (April 3, 2021): "“What’s happening?” asks the blind and wheelchair-bound Hamm of his younger servant Clov".
- "‘Appalling human’: notorious Sydney criminal Arthur ‘Neddy’ Smith dies aged 76", The Guardian (September 8, 2021): "Smith, who was wheelchair-bound in later life, was charged with her murder but was acquitted".
- "Australia’s delayed vaccine rollout a life and death matter for some stranded overseas", The Guardian (April 20, 2021): "He is wheelchair-bound after suffering a stroke while stranded overseas during the Covid pandemic".
- BD2412 T 05:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- The Guardian's style guide says "wheelchair-bound" is
stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate.
If you contact The Guardian I'm sure they'll correct their errors as they've done in the past.[50][51] Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)- And the International Paralympics Committee says in its Guide to Reporting on Persons with an Impairment (2014), page 2:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Avoid using emotional wording like “tragic”, “afflicted”, “victim”, or “confined to a wheelchair”. Emphasise the ability and not the limitation, ie, by saying that someone “uses a wheelchair” rather than “is confined” or “is wheelchair-bound”.(see here)
- It all comes back to the 'big question'. Do we want to erase the phrase "wheelchair bound" from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler:, I completely agree with the International Paralympics Committee that we should be following those guidelines in our articles on Paralympians. The IPC guidelines are not directed towards discussion of fictional characters. BD2412 T 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Just as we shouldn't use the word "crippled" to describe a fictional character, we shouldn't use inaccurate and offensive wheelchair terminology for fictional characters, regardless of what secondary sources say. However, the proposed guideline wouldn't prevent a quote from a work of fiction describing a character using offensive language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Authors describe their characters as crippled. We can't rewrite their works to make the characters meet some more palatable descriptor. BD2412 T 01:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I just said that we can quote the primary works themselves. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can we, though? Nothing in this proposal to "deprecate" the terms suggests that we would still be able to do that. BD2412 T 01:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this would be incredibly bad form. There appears agreement that "wheelchair-bound" can be demeaning to BLP, but that doesn't mean it is a 100% derogatory term comparable to the 6-letter N word for African Americans. In the latter case, I would fully expect any use of that word to be in quoted materials to maintain quote consistency, if it has to be used, even for fictional and historical situations. But wheelchair-bound is nowhere close to that level of dehumanization, and so I see no issue where the term would be appropriate to use (fictional and historical situations) that using it unquoted would be fine. Otherwise we'd be creating effective scare quotes which we absolutely want to avoid. --Masem (t) 02:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can we, though? Nothing in this proposal to "deprecate" the terms suggests that we would still be able to do that. BD2412 T 01:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I just said that we can quote the primary works themselves. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Authors describe their characters as crippled. We can't rewrite their works to make the characters meet some more palatable descriptor. BD2412 T 01:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Just as we shouldn't use the word "crippled" to describe a fictional character, we shouldn't use inaccurate and offensive wheelchair terminology for fictional characters, regardless of what secondary sources say. However, the proposed guideline wouldn't prevent a quote from a work of fiction describing a character using offensive language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- And the International Paralympics Committee says in its Guide to Reporting on Persons with an Impairment (2014), page 2:
- The Guardian's style guide says "wheelchair-bound" is
- Re: The Guardian:
"Deprecate": to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative
(Merriam-Webster). It does not mean to outright ban. We can, for example, in a direct quote still use racial terms which we absolutely do not use in wikipedia's voice. But there is no encyclopaedic need for these terms in prose (for example, if you need to convey that a fictional character has been written so to be unable to walk, you absolutely can do so perfectly well without these terms) so their use is discouraged [...] in favor of a newer or better alternative
. A direct quote is still permissible where it cannot be realistically (realistically) avoided. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ
- Given that over at RS, there is presently confusion between "deprecate" meaning ban (as in relation to the Daily Mail's use on WP) and this above meaning (which most computer-savvy users would also recognize), I would recommend we not use "deprecate" in any language outlining this in guideline/policy/MOS. --Masem (t) 02:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I specifically used deprecate instead of ban because of this dictionary definition; if there's a better word to use I'm all ears but the aim is "should not be used unless unavoidable" (and 99% of cases are avoidable, really outside of direct quotes we can't paraphrase), not "absolutely verboten" (which very little truly is here). ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very little indeed, especially when we're talking about the MOS, with it's big banner at the top noting that it's a guideline and that exceptions may apply. I'm fine with not using "deprecate" if that's the sticking point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Question for those who voted no: are our PAG for using the word "handicapped" consistent with the recommendations in the NCDJ's style guide? Obviously that word isn't as offensive as the N-word, but I still don't think we'd call a fictional character handicapped outside quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Can we vote for something simple for now, such as: "Prefer 'uses a wheelchair' or 'is a wheelchair user' to 'is wheelchair-bound' or 'is confined to a wheelchair' ?" Once a general guideline is in place, you can duke out your nuanced disagreements over the handful of exceptions on the talk pages of the relevant articles. If you think "Prefer" is too strong, how about "Generally prefer?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Question for those who voted no: are our PAG for using the word "handicapped" consistent with the recommendations in the NCDJ's style guide? Obviously that word isn't as offensive as the N-word, but I still don't think we'd call a fictional character handicapped outside quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Very little indeed, especially when we're talking about the MOS, with it's big banner at the top noting that it's a guideline and that exceptions may apply. I'm fine with not using "deprecate" if that's the sticking point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I specifically used deprecate instead of ban because of this dictionary definition; if there's a better word to use I'm all ears but the aim is "should not be used unless unavoidable" (and 99% of cases are avoidable, really outside of direct quotes we can't paraphrase), not "absolutely verboten" (which very little truly is here). ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler's guide to those who might be depressed that liberals, hunchbacks, and the cripple are getting away with murder. I speak of the murder of our cherished English language (which we can't really write with any felicity, but no matter) and old ways (which we would be hard-pressed to describe, but no matter) Don't be deterred if they tell you that the Google search: "wheelchair-bound" site:guardian.co.uk for the period after January 1, 2016, returns only one link, their style guide, which says: " wheelchair Say (if relevant) that someone uses a wheelchair, not that they are “in a wheelchair” or “wheelchair-bound” – stigmatising and offensive, as well as inaccurate." Don't be depressed if you've never read the Guardian or think it has to do with Angels. Go back in time, open the trapdoors to the past, the bottomless past of prejudice, and persist until you catch the Guardian using "wheelchair-bound." Remember Woodrow Wilson, Henry Kissinger (or some other liberal)'s very accurate perception: "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Remember we have nothing at stake in this, so we can go on abusing anyone verbally, engage in dumping data of the most trivial variety, interpret the policy literally, make its implementation hinge on the presence of even one example to the contrary. We will outlast them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're lapsing in unintelligibility again. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The have empathy bit just doesn't impress me, in any discussion. Already today (at another RFC) somebody said my position (in that other RFC) might offend people. So again, I re-state my position on this topic, we should not be softening words on this project, on the basis that those words - might hurt somebody's feelings-. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I already said, "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Wikipedia remains a preserve of young males of the Anglosphere, most of whom have technical backgrounds, and most are socially conservative. There is a reason that women stay away in droves from Wikipedia. There is a reason that minorities anywhere stay away in droves from Wikipedia. It is that WP has become a preserve of amateur majoritarianism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the ol' stakes-are-so-low bromide – always good in a pinch. And while the "Wikipedia is socially conservative" bit rings a bit hollow, nonetheless we can all agree that whatever the problem is, the white males are at fault. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is a load of complete and utter bollocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thus spake who? Not: "Why do so few women edit Wikipedia," Harvard Business Review, nor "Wikipedia's hostility to women," The Atlantic, nor "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia, Guardian", nor yet "Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly." New York Times, which says, "when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years." Like I said, (paraphrasing): The preserve of males of the Anglosphere, generally with technical backgrounds, with unreconstructed views of the world, .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- The article that quotes Ms. Poore also says
A spirited debate over a detail in an article can spiral into one user spewing personal attacks against another
; sounds like she's been keeping an eye on you. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The article that quotes Ms. Poore also says
- In past discussions over 16+ years (please, don't ask me to look up the diffs), I've been called a "fascist", "homophobic", "xenophobe", "mentally ill", etc etc. None of that intimidated me (as I'm neither of those things) away from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thus spake who? Not: "Why do so few women edit Wikipedia," Harvard Business Review, nor "Wikipedia's hostility to women," The Atlantic, nor "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia, Guardian", nor yet "Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly." New York Times, which says, "when the free encyclopedia was established in 2001, it initially attracted lots of editors who were “tech-oriented” men. That led to a culture that was not always accepting of outside opinions, said Ms. Poore, who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years." Like I said, (paraphrasing): The preserve of males of the Anglosphere, generally with technical backgrounds, with unreconstructed views of the world, .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I already said, "Wikipedia politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Wikipedia remains a preserve of young males of the Anglosphere, most of whom have technical backgrounds, and most are socially conservative. There is a reason that women stay away in droves from Wikipedia. There is a reason that minorities anywhere stay away in droves from Wikipedia. It is that WP has become a preserve of amateur majoritarianism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is a purely emotional argument full of WP:ASPERSIONS about anyone who might have a different opinion on a matter of language, and doesn't say anything of substance about the issue at hand. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Emotional disputes are better then edit-warring, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- But, @The Wordsmith:, that link says, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.". But I—in the more than two or three dozen posts—on this page alone, have made several different arguments. My latest is hardly calumny; it is an observation that there is a reliably sourced demographic of Wikipedia membership, which has reliably sourced implications about matters of equity. (Equity = a system of law based on general principles of justice that stands side-by-side with common law, but has precedence when there is a conflict. Almost all the major changes in America, women's suffrage, the repeal of separate but equal, belong to that realm.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- But anyway the while males are still the problem. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also, side by side takes no hyphens in this context.
- But, @The Wordsmith:, that link says, "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.". But I—in the more than two or three dozen posts—on this page alone, have made several different arguments. My latest is hardly calumny; it is an observation that there is a reliably sourced demographic of Wikipedia membership, which has reliably sourced implications about matters of equity. (Equity = a system of law based on general principles of justice that stands side-by-side with common law, but has precedence when there is a conflict. Almost all the major changes in America, women's suffrage, the repeal of separate but equal, belong to that realm.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Emotional disputes are better then edit-warring, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Not-at-all arbitrary break
A big part of why this proposal is so misbegotten is that -- instead of stating a general principle (applicable to a range of situations instead of just wheelchairs) and offering sample rewrites to inspire editors to craft the best approach according to the needs of a particular article and what the sources makes possible -- it rather picks that onewrong to be righted and prescribes a verboten phrase to be blindly struck out. Here's a rough of something more useful, IMHO:
- When discussing disability or medical conditions, strive to avoid broad or imprecise statements that may imply more limitation that is actually present.
- For example, instead of
The increasing weakness left her wheelchair-bound
, sources may allow an article to explain thatAs the weakness progressed, it became increasingly difficult for her to walk unassisted, and by 1977 she almost always used a wheelchair outside of her specially adapted home
. - Or, instead of
A series of strokes resulted in progressive dementia
, readers would be better informed byAfter a 1962 stroke he had sometimes missed cues or faltered in delivering scripted lines, though his talent for ad libbing seemed unaffected
.
- For example, instead of
- But where sources do not elaborate, it may be necessary to repeat what they say while highlighting their potential imprecision:
A few months after Smith's 1943 accident, his wife wrote to friends in America that he was "practically wheelchair-bound"
.
- Discussions of artistic works can present special problems, because they often present medical or disability issues in stereotyped ways for "shorthand" effect. [And here EEng runs our of gas for tonight, but maybe someone can pick up the baton.]
If something like the above had been presented (though I realize it doesn't advocate the blanket ban some would like, and there's a lot off-kilter about the way it's formulated) I think this discussion would have taken quite a different course. EEng 04:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Italics for "(pictured in XXXX)"
Please see this discussion on /Captions. I started it in August but there have been no replies yet. Hoping to get some more eyes on this. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)