Talk:Chairperson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

separate existence of "Chairman"

Although the usage of the term "chairperson" may have become more prevalent in some circles, and the often interchanging use with "Chairman", I contend that the word "Chairman" has an existence in its own right in much the same way as "President", and deserves an independent entry. It would be inappropriate to redirect search for "Chairman" to "Chairperson"

The term "Chairperson" is but a modern reinvention of "Chairman" for reasons of political correctness, and by that fact, the entry for "Chairman" should be the "main " entry. The listing of "Chairperson" in Wiki should conversely be brief and summary purely describing its origin/evolution in order not to have to maintain two separate entries with diverging content about Chairmen/Chairpeople and Chairmanship.

When referring to any corporation which has formally given the titles of "Chairman", "Chairwoman", "Chair", "Chairperson", "President", to one of its members, it would be wholly inappropriate to use any other term than the one designated.

In the same vein, of historical relevance is the fact that Mao Zedong is "Chairman Mao" and not "Chairperson Mao". Equally, citing the Taiwanese rock Group Chairman under "Chairperson" seems to me rather incongruous, as it would be tantamount to changing the Group's name without the group having renamed itself. Ohconfucius 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

corporate governance

2nd graf could really use some help; someone more familiar with corporate governance topics want to take a stab at it? 18.26.0.18 04:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The claim that chair came to mean presiding officer because "in the early middle ages, only kings had beds and chairs" looks suspiciously like folk etymology. According to SOED, this sense of "chair" is actually a direct borrowing from Old French chaiere (throne, pulpit, bishopric), the word for "chair" in the common sense being "chaise". I've therefore removed the etymological note for the time being; if anyone wants to restore it, please can they provide an authoritative source?

Other terms, "as a job" section

The claims that "chairman" derived from "chair manager" or "chair mana" both strike me as highly dubious; anyone who wants to restore them, please give sources. That "chairman" has a "genderless derivation" is possible ("man" meaning _homo_ rather than _vir_), but without the two probably false etymologies that I cut, was left unsupported, so I cut it as well.

This discussion, oddly, was in a section called "as a job", so I moved it to the intro. That left a single sentence:

If the position persists beyond the meeting, they may also be entrusted with various other executive powers.

which isn't worth a section (and isn't clearly written anyway). So the entire "as a job" section is gone. Perhaps someone would like to rewrite it, as a genuine discussion of what chairmanships are as a job. --Trovatore 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Debate

Is there any information about chairman in a debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.171.137 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2008

Name

Excuse me, a "Chair" is something you sit on! An official person, as described in the article is a chairman (whether male or female- just like human, policeman, fireman etc.). It should be changed. Btline (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Btline (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've undone this bold move. The Chicago Manual of Style (5.202) favors "chair" over "chairman". If you want to try to move the article again, I suggest you go through the more formal channel of Wikipedia:Requested moves, in order to generate a large discussion (from which a real consensus, instead of a 'silent' consensus, can be raised). -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the "man" in chairman derived from the Latin "manus" meaning hand. The chairman is therefore the "guiding hand" chairing an organisation and is therefore used irrespective of whether the person occupying the chair is male or female. Or is this a British vs American difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoccountant (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely skeptical that the "man" in chairman means anything but "man". It's almost unheard of to mix languages in a synthetic word except for neologisms. If the word were not referring to a person, but to a hand, then it almost definitely would be "chairhand" (cf. words like "deckhand"). If "man" were Latin, wouldn't it be something terribly awkward like mansella? I haven't read Riddick's Rules, but surely it's possible that it's wrong? 141.202.248.68 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is extraordinarily unlikely that the man in chaiman comes from manus, and even if it originally did, it doesn't any more. Hence the plural (which I will admit is unlikely in a single committee) of chairmen, and not chairmans, which would follow the plural of other words ending in -man which do not refer to men, such as humans, talismans, and so on. 84.102.218.174 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but the etymology is verifiable in a reliable source. Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the chairman's immediate subordinate be called a "tableman". Jigen III (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is silly. A table is above a chair, and one table typically can overhang from two to eight or more chairs. A chairman's immediate superior is a "tableman." The subordinate would be a "rugman" or a "floorman." Lou Sander (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary

I removed some confusing words about the "members" of this dictionary. The reference talks about some sort of "usage panel," but doesn't say what it is. Members of the panel are certainly not members of a dictionary. Lou Sander (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm thinking of making some changes to the lead of this article, but I seek feedback first. The changes are:

1. Drop "convener" and "convenor" from the topic sentence. They are different words than "chairman". Maybe mention them as such later in the article.
2. Gather all the forms of the word, usages, etc. into one paragraph or section
3. Clarify the difference between a "chair" as an academic office and "chairman" as the head of an organization. (Does the academic "chair" even belong in an article on "chairman?"
4. Expand the discussion of the word as the head of an organization. There is something small, as the chairman of an informal committee, something larger, as the chairman of the board of a small organization such as a social club, and something much larger, as the chairman of a large corporation.

I'll leave this here for a while to draw comments, then make the appropriate changes. Lou Sander (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is a big confusion between what many words mean (chairman is different to chair, convener etc.). Btline (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes are good. However encyclopedia articles cover topics, not words. There is no reason why the lead section shouldn't broaden the topic to include both officers and the office, as well as other related English words, even if the meanings differ. I added back a brief mention of some English words. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Really bad editing

The entire article is written from the perspective of "chairman." He/she who changes the title to "Chair" really needs to do more than just change the article's name. Lou Sander (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FTSE, Fortune 500

I removed the unsupported assertion that the majority of these have a "chairman." It had been questioned for six months, with no response. Lou Sander (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Academic chairs

Wikipedia needs an article on the type of chair found in academia, usually denoting an eminent professorship, possibly specially endowed with funds. This article hints around at that subject, but it's really a totally different type of "chair." Lou Sander (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important article

I just looked at "What links here," and found hundreds and hundreds of pages that link to this one, either directly or through redirect pages. IMHO we have a responsibility to make this page as good as it possibly can be. The lead has been worked over quite a bit and is pretty thoroughly referenced. The rest of the article pretty much lacks references. Lou Sander (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also IMHO we need to do a bit better on dealing with other words like president, etc. The "chair" position, by whatever name, is basically somebody who sits in front of a group and directs their activities. Some of the other related words don't apply to someone who does that. We ought to be clear about the essence of "chair" and its distinction from other words for executives. Lou Sander (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it gets 200 or 300 visits a day: http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Chair%20(official) which I guess is not bad for something with parentheses in the title.

I have enjoyed tweaking the article, but I am neither an expert on corporate governance, (nor a rules of order wonk.) Perhaps you could drop a request for a volunteer at WikiProject Companies.

I agree with your concern about the US meaning of president: Wall Street Words (via dictionary.com) seems to support your concern. In other parts of the business world, the president often takes the chair, so that needs some work.

Dictionary.com also suggests we have got it wrong regarding chairman: each definition refers to an officeholder, not an office (or the dignity of the office.)

Although it is a bit more worthy of wiktionary than wikipedia, we could mention that the term 'chair' in debating is a direct reference to the "seat occupied by the person presiding". OED2 will back that up, but I am not sure how to smoothly work that into the article. It might quieten the occasional person that concludes that because a chair is a piece of furniture, it is not a suitable title for this article.

Moderator has a dozen meanings, but one of those is 'presiding officer' at a meeting. I don't think we need a footnote for that, as we are not asserting a fact, merely clarifying the scope of the article.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Several months ago the article was pretty incoherent, so I started to work on it from time to time. I've been very insistent about citations, mainly to avoid a relapse into incoherence, but also to follow Wiki-rules about original research. I've resisted the temptation to insist on citations for the "moderator" stuff because I don't want to seem overbearing. I'll try to find some references myself, though.

I'm somewhat familiar with Robert's Rules of Order, and I know a bit about corporate governance in the U.S., but I'm not an expert in either. Since RROR is such a basic work on the conduct of groups by a leader, I've used it sort of as a "bible." Most of its stuff seems to fit in with the corporate governance stuff pretty well.

"Chair" DOES refer to an office, a seat, and an officeholder. The article was formerly named "Chairman," and I think I'd favor renaming it, since most of the "what links here" stuff seems to be about officeholders. Even when restricted to the officeholder, there are many names that refer to the same thing. Some boards DO have a "President," for example, but when an organization has a "Chairman," the "President" usually refers to an executive position, rather than to the presiding officer of the board. Even in that situation, the same person often holds both offices.

The more I think about it, the more I like the notion of a "Chair" article that discusses the triple meaning of seat, office, and officeholder, and a "Chairman" article that discusses the various titles, duties, etc. of the officeholder. Whatever happens, please do keep your hand in this article. It helps. Lou Sander (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lou wrote: I've resisted the temptation to insist on citations for the "moderator" stuff because I don't want to seem overbearing. I'll try to find some references myself, though.

Overbearing people make me grumpy, even though I am sometimes overbearing myself. So I am glad you didn't insist.

Moderator is fully defined in OED2, but to be honest, I have cited it so many times in the article I feel like I might be plagiarizing it one day soon. But my other favourite dictionary doesn't have this sense (except in Presbyterianism !)

I shall try to remember your request and add a citation to the article when I next have some time online. I need sleep now.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "Chairman"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to rename this article to Chairman. Reasons:

1. It is about an office the ancient and longstanding name of which is "Chairman."
2. It is linked to from hundreds of other articles, most of which links seem to involve somebody being "Chairman" of something. (I haven't counted them, though.)
3. The introduction to the article is now very thoroughly referenced, and it is clear from the references that "Chairman" is a gender-neutral term. (In the former absence of references, there was a perceived gender neutrality problem.)
4. "Chair" suffers from having too many meanings that don't directly apply to a presiding officer of a group. Among these are the academic meaning of "distinguished professorship," which can be spun off as a separate article. I will be glad to spin it off myself, or to yield to someone more proficient.

Comments are solicited, and welcome. Lou Sander (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with 3. We have the MoS and how to guide that prefers gender neutral language (and gives "fireman" as an example of something not gender neutral that can easily be changed to avoid that problem). The Chicago Manual of Style (sections 5.202 and 8.31) support the use of chair over chairman. I would not oppose changing the parenthetical comment for disambiguation purposes (i.e. changing "official" to something more descriptive), but I would not support moving the article to "chairman". It seems old fashion to me personally, and goes against our MoS in regards to gender neutral terminology. We can consider creating chair (disambiguation) as well to cover other meanings, if other articles are created for sure. But we don't need an individual article on chairwomen, nor chairmen for that matter. I believe we can address your concerns through other means. Hopefully we can reach a modest solution! -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you feel that way about gender neutrality. I felt that way myself when I started working on the article. But when I consulted the authoritative works in the field, I found that the word has nothing to do with gender. The situation is explained in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: although etymologically "Chairman" might be gender neutral, it is nonetheless considered dated by many people, and "Chair" is the acceptable term today. PamD (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4: What we or "many people" feel doesn't matter much. Look at the references from the subject matter experts. Look at the links like Adobe Systems, Akio Morita, BMW, Glenn T. Seaborg, NASDAQ, Ted Turner, Wal-Mart, The Walt Disney Co., Norwegian Air Shuttle, Harry Ried. While "chair" may be preferred by some dictionaries and non-subject matter experts for new usage, this is an encyclopedia, and the use of "chairman" is huge compared to the recent use of "chair." DCLawyer (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of chair is small in recent times, but it is just as valid and over 400 years old. See the OED: "1647 CLARENDON Hist. Reb. IV. (1843) 118/1 The committee of the Commons appointed Mr. Pym to sit in their chair." --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - a chair is something you sit on! As per reasons 1-4 and those supporting above. Also note that "Chairman" is NOT GENDER SPECIFIC as some people say. It is equivalent to human, policeman and fireman - all of which can be male or female (according to dictionary definitions). Btline (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

a chair is something you sit on - agreed - something that the king sat on while his subjects sat on benches. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - A move from Chair (official) to Chairman will mean we don't need those clumsy disambiguation parentheses in the title. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Those "clumsy disambiguation parentheses in the title" are the standard way to disambiguate the most common name used to refer to the topic of a given Wikipedia article from other uses of that name, and their presence in an article title should never be a reason to move an article. If Chair was the most common name given to refer to the topic of this article, then the current title, including the parenthesis and disambiguation information inside them, would be most appropriate, for it would clearly convey that Chair is the most common name given to refer to the topic of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - "chairman" is more common and unforced, and carries no implications of masculine sex, only gender (and anyway English doesn't really have grammatical gender). See Merriam-Webster's ("the presiding officer of a meeting, organization, committee, or event; the administrative officer of a department of instruction (as in a college)") and Oxford ("The occupier of a chair of authority; spec. the person who is chosen to preside over a meeting, to conduct its proceedings, and who occupies the chair or seat provided for this function."). Biruitorul ^Talk 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support as unambiguous and (probably) the most common name. "Chair (official)" seems to be a neologism or Americanism that has not yet achieved preponderant usage. Also keep in mind other uses such as in political contexts (e.g., Chairman Mao) where the form "chairman" is used. — AjaxSmack 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Since 'chair' was attested in 1647 (to refer to the office not the officeholder), I think we can only call the reference to the officeholder a neologism or Americanism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for those supporting a rename, I have a question. If the rename were to occur, would we have to move other articles as well? We currently don't have a policeman or fireman or mailman or workmen's compensation article (etc.) Is the term chairman somehow different from these other articles where if we moved this it would not be backtracking and setting a new precedent, in defiance of the already established MoS guidelines? That is my major concern. We have reliable sources backing up the use of "chair", and we have the MoS which guides us to use gender neutral language. For someone like Ajax who claims that chair is a less common, neologism, do we have any reliable sources to back up these claims? People can state their opinions all they want, but when we have the Chicago Manual of Style and The American Heritage Book of English Usage, and other style guides which support "chair", it seems very odd to go against these things without going to source material, but instead going on personal opinion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS also suggests that we use the most unambiguous name for an article title. Unlike police officer and firefighter, chair is ambiguous. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Chair is of course ambiguous, but the title of this article is not Chair, it is Chair (official), which is not ambiguous. The fact that Chair is ambiguous is not relevant to choosing between Chair (official) and Chairman for this article's title, which is the issue at hand. By the way, reason #4 in the proposal is irrelevant too, for the same reason. What is relevant here is whether Chair or Chairman is used more commonly to refer to the subject of this article. Pointing this out has helped me make my decision... thank you! --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. While there have been many efforts to adopt the term Chair instead of Chairman since the 1970s, the adoption has not been nearly as widespread as other similar efforts (e.g., using flight attendant instead of stewardess). Chairman remains the most common name used to refer to the topic of this article, the primary usage of Chairman is this article's topic (in fact it's not ambiguous at all), and so Chairman should be the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Etymology

Someone removed some word history and claimed it was "false etymology." Says who? The material that was removed is verifiable through the reference provided, so I restored it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are verifiable conflicting claims about the word's origins, let them all be cited, so the reader can judge for himself. Lou Sander (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The cited source, Riddick's Rules, is not a reliable source for the etymology of a word—or at any rate not more reliable than a dictionary. No reputable dictionary will claim that the man in chairman is related to the Latin manus rather than the English man. The American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, which are both very highly regarded for their etymologies, leave the etymology space blank for "chairman", which is dictionaries' way of indicating that the etymology is transparently that of "chair"+"man". (AHD: "Obvious derivatives are not given etymologies"; OED: "many entries whose origin was taken to be self-evident (typically native English formations) were not provided with etymologies.") In other words, the omission of the etymology in these two dictionaries is a highly reliable source that the etymology of chairman is exactly what it looks like, internal to English. Riddick's Rules clearly is engaging in wishful thinking or has been misled on this matter. When reliable sources do not support an unreliable source on a particular point of fact, Wikipedia should defer to the more reliable source. AJD (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do not remove cited sources. I understand your claims about dictionaries, and you may be right about them, but you've got to provide citations for what you claim. As I understand your claim, it's something like "my dictionaries don't provide etymologies for 'chairman', therefore it must be 'chair + man'." And I don't agree that Riddick's Rules is not a reliable source for things related to parliamentary procedure. Unlike dictionaries, it is a specialized source in a specialized field.

I think your change is invalid because it is based on your personal opinion. For the time being I won't revert it, allowing time for further discussion and the provision of verifiable citations in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have skipped a step in your summary of my argument, which is as follows: Major dictionaries (not "my dictionaries") do not provide the etymology for "chairman"; those dictionaries explicitly state that they omit listing etymologies only when the etymology is fully transparent, and therefore "chairman" is "chair"+"man". I have already cited the quotations from the dictionaries' front matter which make this explicit, but I'll quote them again: American Heritage Dictionary, first edition, page xlviii: "Obvious derivatives are not given etymologies." Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, preface: "In the First Edition many entries whose origin was taken to be self-evident (typically native English formations) were not provided with etymologies." To this I can add Merriam-Webster's online etymology notes: "An etymology is not usually given for a word created in English by the combination of existing constituents or by functional shift. This indicates that the identity of the constituents is expected to be self-evident to the user." This is the way dictionaries function; a lack of a stated etymology for "chairman" in a dictionary that uses such a system is a highly authoritative statement that the "man" in "chairman" is the English word "man", with no connection to Latin "manus".

Riddick's Rules is a reliable source for things related to parliamentary procedure. The etymology of "chairman", however, is not related to parliamentary procedure; it is the history of an English word. Facts about words are not the same as facts about the subject the words are used to discuss. The OED in particular is very much "a specialized source in a specialized field", and that specialized field is the meaning and etymology of English words. So for the etymology of the English word "chairman", the OED and the AHD are much more reliable sources than Riddick's Rules, just as for matters of parliamentary procedure Riddick's Rules would be a more reliable source than a historical dictionary. This is not a matter of opinion; this is a matter of knowing what sources to consult for reliable information about what topics. AJD (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are saying. I think I summarized it correctly, though I didn't retrace every step of it. You say that all those dictionaries tell us that if they don't provide an etymology, it means they are saying that the etymology is obvious. In your recap, you put the word "only" in boldface. I don't see any expression of "only" in their material. They say "not usually," "many...self-evident," etc. They are giving reasons why they omit some etymologies. Riddick is a proper citation from a reliable source. If you can come up with a proper citation from somewhere else, maybe the article can say that there are differences of opinion about the etymology. Right now, all we have is one source, which you disagree with. IMHO, your disagreement isn't sufficient reason to delete it. Lou Sander (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that they only omit etymologies when they're obvious. For instance, Merriam-Webster says that omitting the etymology "indicates that the identity of the constituents is expected to be self-evident". They wouldn't omit the etymology if they didn't mean to actively indicate that. The OED mentions that the first edition omits some etymologies in the context of explaining they're in the process of updating it to include etymologies for all words, and the remaining words without etymologies are in that class (" entries whose origin was taken to be self-evident"). In these dictionaries this is the only statement of what omission of the etymology signifies, in the section on how to interpret their etymologies. They don't say 'In some cases we have also omitted the etymology of words that look like they have an obvious etymology but actually are from similar-looking Latin words.' The explanation of what omitted etymology means in that dictionary is that the etymology is self-evident. In cases where the etymology is not obvious, they state the etymology—especially in the OED, which is explicitly a historical dictionary.

And again, I stress that Riddick is not a reliable source on matters that are unrelated to its primary topic, which is parliamentary procedure. False information about etymology can be found in all kinds of sources that are otherwise reliable on non-linguistic topics. That's why dictionaries have etymologies at all. AJD (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am confused about the so-called obvious meaning. My dictionary has 10 deffinitions of "man." In "chairman" does it mean "all mankind," a male human being, or like a soldier (private Jones was one man out of ten men in the platoon). Or maybe it mean the person who "mans the chair." I am not an authority but it is not at all obvious to me. I would go with the book that actually says where the word came from. The dictionaries dont say that. His Mama (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it is obvious that the "man" in "chairman" comes from the word "man"; it doesn't matter which particular sense of "man" is involved. AJD (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, note that Wiktionary also claims that the etymology is "chair"+"man". Also Wordorigins.org is hardly a reliable source but does support Ajd's opinion (scroll down to "chairman"). I think that any expert (say, in parliamentary procedure) can be misled about something outside of his field (like etymology) and this myth is so widespread that only a scholarly source on etymology should be considered to be reliable. Even that can be troublesome: people come up with convincing false etymologies all the time.

For amusement value, just look at the book Hebrew is Greek and its reviews (favorable *and* critical)! I once had a linguistics professor assign our class to find books like that and show why their arguments make no sense. If you find them convincing, read what the real linguists say and you'll change your mind.Esqg (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

More than etymology

Like the others, I'm not at all convinced that the etymology of a thousand-year-old word is "obvious". Anyway, the guy hasn't provided a citation...just a lot of verbage to support his opinion.

The reversion he did applied to a lot more than etymology. He also removed well sourced points about the term having nothing to do with gender and the use of "chair", "chairperson", "chairwoman", and so forth. It's not nice to remove well-sourced material from an encyclopedia.

I don't exactly know how to do it but that stuff should be returned. If the guy can come up with any citations for his point of view that "chairman" has an obvious etymology then he should include it. But he should NOT remove the Riddick material. This is an encyclopedia and the feelings and opinions of editors have no place in the articles. At least that's what I think. --98.219.180.205 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We should come clean in the article that lexicologists seem to disagree with Riddick. But we should not excise Riddick's opinion from the article, not because he has authority as a lexicologist, but because his pronouncements are followed by real world parliamentarians. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that Ajd (talk · contribs) removed anything other than the 'false etymology' discussed. As far as I can see, the remaining material was simply rearranged so it flow properly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have provided several citations: The American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, the online edition of the current Merriam-Webster dictionary. Every single major dictionary indicates that the etymology of chairman is "chair" plus "man". Dictionaries, being works compiled by specialists on the etymologies of English words, are more reliable sources for information on the etymology of an English word than the uninformed opinion of a parliamentarian. (What sources does Riddick cite, by the way, if any?)

As Hroðulf points out, I haven't (intentionally) removed anything from the article except the false etymology, even things I don't believe are true (such as that bit about the King of England). By the way, 98.219.180.205, it is not a thousand-year-old word; the oldest known use of chairman in writing is from 1654, and the earliest known use of the word "chair" in English at all is from about 1297. AJD (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, Esqg has adduced wordorigins.org, which says "This ill-informed view states that the -man comes from the Latin manus, meaning hand.... This is complete bunk." AJD (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What about how someone removed "The term has nothing to do with gender, which is designated by addressing the official as “Mister Chairman” or “Madam Chairman,” (with a link to the Zimmerman reference). In spite of this,..."? We need to stop deleting verifiable, properly referenced things that we disagree with, or don't believe are true. This article has a long history of unreferenced claims about the origin or gender-specificity of the word. We'd all be better off without them. 98.111.201.207 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If I removed that, I didn't mean to; go ahead and put it back in. (Although "has nothing to do with" is a little POV, I think; something like "the word 'chairman' is not regarded as gender-specific in many contexts" or "by many authorities" seems like a better description of the pure facts. It's manifestly true that it is regarded as gender-specific in other contexts and by other authorities.) AJD (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "complete bunk" is the never-ending crusade here to make chairman into a sexist term. More "complete bunk" is disbelieving the reliability of perfectly respectable books on parliamentary procedure, then using that point of view to besmirch and remove well-cited material from them. By the way, the "complete bunk" guy is a blogger, isn't he? The verifiability policy pretty strongly discourages self-published sources such as blogs. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the guy who wrote "complete bunk" is a blogger or not; but I'm not relying upon him as my principle source for the etymology of "chairman". I'm relying upon dictionaries of English, in particular the OED, which is indisputably the best authority on the history of English words in general. I only disbelieve the authority of a book on parliamentary procedure when it makes a claim about a topic that has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure, which is controverted by authoritative works on that topic. AJD (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can also refer you to the book Word Origins by Anatoly Liberman, on page 88, which refers to the -man in chairman as identified with the word man; as well as Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, page 235 ("Because chairman is used of both men and women, some comentators claim that its -man element is not masculine, buttressing their arguments with reference to the Anglo-Saxon. However, the 17th-century origin of the term vitiates the Anglo-Saxon argument, and the fact that chairwoman appeared as early as 1699 suggests that chairman was not entirely gender-neutral even in the 17th century."). AJD (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)